Wikipedia - User contributions [en]

User talk:Dwaro

2021-04-10T20:59:23Z

Dwaro: /* Standard offer */ Reply

==Barnstar==
{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | [[File:Scholarly Barnstar.png|100px]]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''Scholarly Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | I hereby award '''Dwaro''' this "barn-star" for the excellent work on [[Icade]] which rescued the subject from [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Icade|deletion]] [[User:Grmike|Grmike]] ([[User talk:Grmike|talk]]) 08:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC) grmike
|}

== Blocked for sockpuppetry ==
{{Tmbox
| style = background: #f8eaba
| image = [[File:Sock block.svg|55px]]
| text = '''''This account has been [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] indefinitely''''' from editing for [[Wikipedia:Sock puppetry|sock puppetry]]{{#if:[[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Elfinshadow]]| per evidence presented at [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Elfinshadow]]}}. Note that multiple accounts are [[Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Legitimate uses|allowed]], but using them for ''[[Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts|illegitimate]]'' reasons '''is not''', and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Evasion of blocks|may be reverted or deleted]]. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may [[Wikipedia:Appealing a block|appeal this block]] by first reading the [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]], then adding the text {{tlx|unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 17:54, 8 June 2020 (UTC)}}

== Standard offer ==
{{unblock reviewed |1=I've been blocked from the English Wikipedia more than half a year because I used multiple accounts. I miss editing Wikipedia and would like to contribute again, with just a single account this time. Would an admin willing to review this WP:SO? Thanks. Dwaro (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC) |decline = Please disclose all accounts you have used, along with your last edit with any account. We'll use this to verify, among other things, that you've waited at least six months since your last edit. You'll also need to convince us you'll never again misuse multiple accounts. [[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 13:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)}}

{{ping|Yamla}} Hi, thanks for your reply. As you can see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dwaro/Archive here], my (now blocked) sockpuppet accounts were [[User:DwaroPublic]], [[User:Afvalbak]], [[User:Streepjescode]] and [[User:Eoppa]]. See also the comment from {{ping|TonyBallioni}}. I have thoroughly read [[WP:SOCK]] and won't do this again. [[User:Dwaro|Dwaro]] ([[User talk:Dwaro#top|talk]]) 15:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
:For any future unblock request, I see no evidence of recent block evasion here. --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 15:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

{{unblock|See the above comments on my talk page.}}
:What’s your relation to {{checkuser|NotEngels}}? [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 17:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
:: Hi {{ping|TonyBallioni}}, that account has been used by a family member for some contributions on the Dutch Wikipedia, I don't have used it myself. [[User:Dwaro|Dwaro]] ([[User talk:Dwaro#top|talk]]) 18:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
:::Cool. I’m neutral on an unblock as the blocking admin and don’t need to be consulted further. Also have permission to unblock without contacting me or another CU if someone thinks it’s warranted. My standard suggestion is a conditional unblock with a one account restriction, but up to the people reviewing to determine if they think that’s needed. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 19:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
::::The underlying reason for this block, [[WP:GHBH]] where the bad hand is [[WP:UPE]], has not been addressed. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 20:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
::::: I have never been paid for Wikipedia edits or being asked by someone else to promote any subject. I did my best to write according to [[WP:NPOV]]. [[User:Dwaro|Dwaro]] ([[User talk:Dwaro#top|talk]]) 20:06, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
::::: I've also worked on removing promotional content, see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bitcoin_Suisse_(2nd_nomination) here] for example. [[User:Dwaro|Dwaro]] ([[User talk:Dwaro#top|talk]]) 20:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

*MER-C is correct, Dwaro - the socking issues originally jumped to attention because of undisclosed paid editing. Please expand on that and why unblocking you doesn't pose a major risk on that facet as well. [[User:Nosebagbear|Nosebagbear]] ([[User talk:Nosebagbear|talk]]) 14:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
*:Hi {{re|Nosebagbear}}. I haven't been paid for any edits, but I might have written from a fan point of view. I have read [[WP:COI]] with the [[WP:UPE]] paragraph and [[WP:NPOV]] and will disclose such things on my user page might that be needed in the future. As Tony suggested a conditional unblock with a one account restriction, that would work because my edits will be monitored by other users like Graywalls (who did that in the past already). [[User:Dwaro|Dwaro]] ([[User talk:Dwaro#top|talk]]) 20:59, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

User talk:Dwaro

2021-02-18T20:18:51Z

Dwaro:

User talk:Dwaro

2021-02-18T20:06:54Z

Dwaro:

User talk:Dwaro

2021-02-18T18:12:17Z

Dwaro:

User talk:Dwaro

2021-02-18T16:06:40Z

Dwaro:

User talk:Dwaro

2021-02-18T15:10:53Z

Dwaro:

User talk:Dwaro

2021-02-18T12:50:27Z

Dwaro:

User talk:Dwaro

2021-02-15T18:09:49Z

Dwaro:

User talk:Dwaro

2020-06-17T10:57:45Z

Dwaro: /* Deletions */ new section

==3RR==
Responding to your commment you left on my page:
"An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. " 

[[Special:DIFF/960163876|set 1]] 
[[Special:DIFF/960225384|set 2]] 
[[Special:DIFF/960228356|set 3]] 
[[User:Graywalls|Graywalls]] ([[User talk:Graywalls|talk]]) 20:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

==Barnstar==
{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | [[File:Scholarly Barnstar.png|100px]]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''Scholarly Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | I hereby award '''Dwaro''' this "barn-star" for the excellent work on [[Icade]] which rescued the subject from [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Icade|deletion]] [[User:Grmike|Grmike]] ([[User talk:Grmike|talk]]) 08:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC) grmike
|}

== Blocked for sockpuppetry ==
{{Tmbox
| style = background: #f8eaba
| image = [[File:Sock block.svg|55px]]
| text = '''''This account has been [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] indefinitely''''' from editing for [[Wikipedia:Sock puppetry|sock puppetry]]{{#if:[[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Elfinshadow]]| per evidence presented at [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Elfinshadow]]}}. Note that multiple accounts are [[Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Legitimate uses|allowed]], but using them for ''[[Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts|illegitimate]]'' reasons '''is not''', and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Evasion of blocks|may be reverted or deleted]]. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may [[Wikipedia:Appealing a block|appeal this block]] by first reading the [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]], then adding the text {{tlx|unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 17:54, 8 June 2020 (UTC)}}

== Deletions ==

Hello {{ping|Graywalls}}. I hope you enjoy deleting my contributions. Goodbye. [[User:Dwaro|Dwaro]] ([[User talk:Dwaro#top|talk]]) 10:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Icade

2020-06-05T08:01:55Z

Dwaro: add acquisition

{{Expand language|langcode=fr|Icade|date=June 2020}}
{{about|the investment company|the iPad accessory|iCade|the Spanish schools|ICADE}}
{{Infobox company
| name = Icade
| logo = Icade logo.svg
| type = [[Public company|public]]
| traded_as = {{euronext|ICAD}} [[CAC Mid 60|CAC Mid 60 Component]]
| foundation = 1860 (SCIC) <ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.forbes.com/companies/icade/#767f7b38165f|title=Forbes 2000 list : Icade|accessdate=May 25, 2020}}</ref>F
| location = [[Issy-les-Moulineaux]], [[Paris]], [[France]]
| key_people = Olivier Wigniolle, CEO <ref name=ceo>[http://www.icade.fr/en/icade/direction/executive-committee/olivier-wigniolle, "Icade's page on Olivier Wigniolle". ''Icade.fr (EN)'']</ref>
| industry = [[real estate investment trust|Real-estate investment company]]
| assets = € 11.3 billion (on December 31, 2018)<ref name=financial>[http://www.icade.fr/en/content/download/17548/208726/version/2/file/PR_Icade-FY_2018-Financial_results.pdf, "Icade Annual Results (2018)"]</ref>
| revenue = € 1.77 billion (on December 31, 2018)<ref name=financial/>
| net_income = € 300.2 million (2019)
| homepage = [http://www.icade.fr/en/ Icade (EN)]
}}
[[File:ICADE SA logo.jpg|thumb|Previous logo]]
'''Icade SA''' is a [[Multinational corporation|multinational]] [[real estate investment trust]] (REIT) that is [[Headquarters|headquartered]] in [[Issy-les-Moulineaux]], [[Paris]], [[France]] and is a subsidiary of [[Caisse des dépôts et consignations]]. The name is an abbreviation of '''I'''mmobilière '''Ca'''isse des '''Dé'''pôts.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web|title=Cession du pôle logement d'Immobilière Caisse des dépôts - Sénat|url=https://www.senat.fr/questions/base/2009/qSEQ09010409S.html|access-date=2020-06-03|website=www.senat.fr}}</ref> It invests in various types of properties including health care, offices, [[Business park|business parks]], housing and public facilities. It is one of the largest property businesses of France.<ref name="telegraph">{{cite web|date=July 18, 2018|title=Questor: this French property firm could be a beneficiary of a 'hard Brexit'|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/investing/shares/questor-share-tip-buy-icade-could-benefit-hard-brexit/}}</ref> Icade became the leading commercial real-estate company for offices and business parks in the [[Île-de-France|Ile-de-France]] region,<ref>{{Cite book|last=Enright, Theresa,|first=|url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/946160387|title=The making of grand Paris : metropolitan urbanism in the twenty-first century|publisher=|year=|isbn=978-0-262-03469-2|location=Cambridge, Massachusetts|pages=213, 214|oclc=946160387}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|date=June 6, 2016|title=Interview: "Making Icade an integrated real estate operator, leader in France"|url=https://www.lerevenu.com/bourse/valeurs-en-vue/olivier-wigniolle-faire-dicade-un-operateur-immobilier-integre-leader-en}}</ref> is the largest REIT in healthcare sector of France and a key partner of major French cities. The main [[Shareholder|shareholders]] are the parent organization and [[Crédit Agricole]].<ref>{{Cite web|title=Actionnaires|url=https://www.icade.fr/finance/actionnaires|access-date=2020-06-04|website=Icade|language=fr}}</ref>

== History ==
Société Centrale Immobilière de la Caisse des dépôts (SCIC) was founded in 1954 as a subsidiary of Caisse des dépôts et consignations. The company was a housing construction project owner in France, and was particularly active in the [[Paris]] region. During the 1950s and 1960s, it worked with a number of architects architects to build housing at [[Sarcelles]] (France's first large-scale programme, with over 10,000 housing units), [[Créteil]], [[Massy, Essonne|Mourenx]], [[Épinay-sur-Seine]] and [[Gagny]].<ref>{{Cite web|title=Histoire|url=https://www.icade.fr/groupe/histoire|access-date=2020-06-04|website=Icade|language=fr}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://corporate-executives.com/companies/icade/|title=Icade profile|accessdate=May 25, 2020}}</ref> It was not until the 1980s that it started investing in non residential/public properties. By the end of the 1980s it owned around 200,000 rental homes.<ref name=":1" />

SCIC was renamed Icade SA in 2003, and its capital opened up to external [[Shareholder|shareholders]].<ref name=":1" />

The [[initial public offering]] of Icade at the [[Euronext Paris]] on 12 April 2006 was valued at €2,64 billion.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.euronext.com/news/ipos/detail/details.jsp?docid=58593&lan=EN&cha=2050&displayMode=1|title=News|publisher=}}</ref>

Icade gained SIIC (REIT outside France) eligibility in 2007 after combining many of its subsidiaries.

Since 2007, Icade has been gradually selling its housing real-estate assets and service activities, to focus on [[Tertiary sector of the economy|tertiary sector]] real-estate.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Bourse|first=Zone|title=ICADE : se veut très prudent face à la crise {{!}} Zone bourse|url=https://www.zonebourse.com/ICADE-5021/actualite/ICADE-se-veut-tres-prudent-face-a-la-crise-13218963/|access-date=2020-06-04|website=www.zonebourse.com|language=fr}}</ref>

In 2009, the French government considered Icade as a potential "asset in the strategic investment fund that will be key to reviving France's economy". However, this did not ultimately come to pass. In late 2009, Icade acquired Compagnie la Lucette from [[Morgan Stanley]].<ref name="ad">[http://www.icade.fr/en/content/download/8197/85753/version/3/file/2013-02-20-Icade_PR_Annuels+Results_2012.pdf Icade Annual Results (2012)]</ref>

On November 13, 2009 Icade sold about 4745 housing units to a group of 25 social housing investors representing another company SNI. That move brought the number of residential units sold or committed for sale in late 2009 to early 2010 up to 29,452. The value of assets divested adds up to about €2 billion.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.euroinvestor.co.uk/news/story.aspx?id=10735795|title=Icade : Sale of Icade's housing division|work=EuroInvestor}}</ref>

In the summer of 2010 Icade reached an agreement with [[MVRDV]] to develop part of France's first Eco-quarters, a residential complex made up of low energy buildings a first for France.<ref name="independent">{{Cite web|date=2010-08-07|title=Eco-quarters the new trend in city design - Environment - The Independent|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100807032238/https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/ecoquarters-the-new-trend-in-city-design-2041467.html|access-date=2020-06-03|website=web.archive.org}}</ref>

Icade and Silic [[Mergers and acquisitions|merged]] on 31 December 2013.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Icade et Silic annoncent leur fusion effective pour le 31 décembre|url=https://investir.lesechos.fr/actions/actualites/icade-et-silic-annoncent-leur-fusion-effective-pour-le-31-decembre-939589.php|access-date=2020-06-04|website=Investir|language=fr}}</ref> Since the merger, the new company has divested a number of assets in order to finance new construction projects and acquire more assets outside of France.<ref>{{cite web|date=January 12, 2011|title=Icade négocie le rachat de la part de Groupama dans Silic|url=http://www.agefi.fr/corporate/actualites/quotidien/20111201/icade-negocie-rachat-part-groupama-dans-silic-96989}}</ref>

On February 17th, 2015, Chairman and CEO of Icade, Serge Grzybowski, resigns. Icade SA appoints Jean-Paul Faugere as Chairman of the Board of Icade and Nathalie Palladitcheff as Chief Executive Officer on a temporary basis.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSFWN0VR02220150217|title=BRIEF-Chairman and CEO of Icade, Serge Grzybowski, resigns|date=February 17, 2015}}</ref>

In April 2017 the Icade subsidary Santé acquired a polyclinic in southwest France and a reception center in Saint-Germé for 52 million euros in total. <ref>{{Cite web|date=2017-04-15|title=ICADE SANTE rachète une polyclinique et une maison d'accueil , Fusacq Buzz|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170415013212/https://www.fusacq.com/buzz/Icade-sante-se-renforce-en-rachetant-une-polyclinique-et-une-maison-d-accueil-a134393.html|access-date=2020-06-05|website=web.archive.org}}</ref>

In 2017 Icade acquired ANF for 400 million euro.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2017-07-24|title=Immobilier : Icade rachète ANF|url=https://www.lesechos.fr/2017/07/immobilier-icade-rachete-anf-176722|access-date=2020-06-03|website=Les Echos|language=fr}}</ref> The merger into Icade was completed on 29 june 2018.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2019-02-24|title=ANF immobilier|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190224121126/https://www.anf-immobilier.com/en/homepage/|access-date=2020-06-03|website=web.archive.org}}</ref>

In December 2018 Icade sold their main office in Issy-les-Moulineaux for 100 million euro. They continue to occupy the building as a tenant.<ref name=":0">{{cite web|url=https://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-eco/2019/01/03/97002-20190103FILWWW00207-immobilier-icade-cede-les-murs-de-son-siege.php|title=Immobilier: Icade cède les murs de son siege|date=January 3, 2019}}</ref>

In 2018 Icade bought several retirement homes for 100 million euro in [[Italy]].<ref name=":0" /> In 2019 it acquired 19 long term care homes in [[Germany]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/trending/ljw_uih5xpixxwi1nbpmrw2|title=Icade reveals plans to establish first Europe-wide healthcare REIT |date=July 23, 2018}}</ref>
== Key figures ==
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! !! 31/12/2012 !! 31/12/2013
|-
| Net profit group share (million €) || 53 || 127
|-
| EPRA triple net NAV per share (€) || 80.7 || 77.3
|-
| Net worth (billion €) || 6.8 || 9.1
|-
| Employees || 1,721 || 1,479
|-
| Square metres owned by Icade || 2,436,759 || 3,085,000
|-
| Clinics owned by Icade || 55 || 59
|-
|}

== Assets ==
Icade's assets include offices, shopping centres, business parks, healthcare facilities.
* Offices: In France, Icade handles office properties most of which are located in and around Paris.<ref name=ad/>
* Business parks: Icade's business parks are located in Paris, Saint-Denis, Aubervilliers, Rungis, Nanterre-Seine, Colombes...
* Icade owns two shopping centres: Le Millénaire in Aubervilliers (north-eastern Paris suburbs), opened in April 2011 (50%-owned by Klépierre) and "Le Parc de Fresnes".

The alternative assets portfolio (Icade Santé) : Icade owns 62 establishments as at 30/06/2014.

Many of the buildings in [[La Défense]] belong to Icade.<ref name="telegraph" /> 

== References ==
{{Reflist}}

== External links ==
{{commonscatinline}}
* {{Official|http://www.icade.fr/en }}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Icade}}
[[Category:Real estate companies of France]]
[[Category:Companies based in Paris]]
[[Category:Real estate companies established in 1954]]
[[Category:1954 establishments in France]]
{{CAC Mid 60}}

Icade

2020-06-05T07:40:51Z

Dwaro: better reflect source

{{Expand language|langcode=fr|Icade|date=June 2020}}
{{about|the investment company|the iPad accessory|iCade|the Spanish schools|ICADE}}
{{Infobox company
| name = Icade
| logo = Icade logo.svg
| type = [[Public company|public]]
| traded_as = {{euronext|ICAD}} [[CAC Mid 60|CAC Mid 60 Component]]
| foundation = 1860 (SCIC) <ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.forbes.com/companies/icade/#767f7b38165f|title=Forbes 2000 list : Icade|accessdate=May 25, 2020}}</ref>F
| location = [[Issy-les-Moulineaux]], [[Paris]], [[France]]
| key_people = Olivier Wigniolle, CEO <ref name=ceo>[http://www.icade.fr/en/icade/direction/executive-committee/olivier-wigniolle, "Icade's page on Olivier Wigniolle". ''Icade.fr (EN)'']</ref>
| industry = [[real estate investment trust|Real-estate investment company]]
| assets = € 11.3 billion (on December 31, 2018)<ref name=financial>[http://www.icade.fr/en/content/download/17548/208726/version/2/file/PR_Icade-FY_2018-Financial_results.pdf, "Icade Annual Results (2018)"]</ref>
| revenue = € 1.77 billion (on December 31, 2018)<ref name=financial/>
| net_income = € 300.2 million (2019)
| homepage = [http://www.icade.fr/en/ Icade (EN)]
}}
[[File:ICADE SA logo.jpg|thumb|Previous logo]]
'''Icade SA''' is a [[Multinational corporation|multinational]] [[real estate investment trust]] (REIT) that is [[Headquarters|headquartered]] in [[Issy-les-Moulineaux]], [[Paris]], [[France]] and is a subsidiary of [[Caisse des dépôts et consignations]]. The name is an abbreviation of '''I'''mmobilière '''Ca'''isse des '''Dé'''pôts.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web|title=Cession du pôle logement d'Immobilière Caisse des dépôts - Sénat|url=https://www.senat.fr/questions/base/2009/qSEQ09010409S.html|access-date=2020-06-03|website=www.senat.fr}}</ref> It invests in various types of properties including health care, offices, [[Business park|business parks]], housing and public facilities. It is one of the largest property businesses of France.<ref name="telegraph">{{cite web|date=July 18, 2018|title=Questor: this French property firm could be a beneficiary of a 'hard Brexit'|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/investing/shares/questor-share-tip-buy-icade-could-benefit-hard-brexit/}}</ref> Icade became the leading commercial real-estate company for offices and business parks in the [[Île-de-France|Ile-de-France]] region,<ref>{{Cite book|last=Enright, Theresa,|first=|url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/946160387|title=The making of grand Paris : metropolitan urbanism in the twenty-first century|publisher=|year=|isbn=978-0-262-03469-2|location=Cambridge, Massachusetts|pages=213, 214|oclc=946160387}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|date=June 6, 2016|title=Interview: "Making Icade an integrated real estate operator, leader in France"|url=https://www.lerevenu.com/bourse/valeurs-en-vue/olivier-wigniolle-faire-dicade-un-operateur-immobilier-integre-leader-en}}</ref> is the largest REIT in healthcare sector of France and a key partner of major French cities. The main [[Shareholder|shareholders]] are the parent organization and [[Crédit Agricole]].<ref>{{Cite web|title=Actionnaires|url=https://www.icade.fr/finance/actionnaires|access-date=2020-06-04|website=Icade|language=fr}}</ref>

== History ==
Société Centrale Immobilière de la Caisse des dépôts (SCIC) was founded in 1954 as a subsidiary of Caisse des dépôts et consignations. The company was a housing construction project owner in France, and was particularly active in the [[Paris]] region. During the 1950s and 1960s, it worked with a number of architects architects to build housing at [[Sarcelles]] (France's first large-scale programme, with over 10,000 housing units), [[Créteil]], [[Massy, Essonne|Mourenx]], [[Épinay-sur-Seine]] and [[Gagny]].<ref>{{Cite web|title=Histoire|url=https://www.icade.fr/groupe/histoire|access-date=2020-06-04|website=Icade|language=fr}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://corporate-executives.com/companies/icade/|title=Icade profile|accessdate=May 25, 2020}}</ref> It was not until the 1980s that it started investing in non residential/public properties. By the end of the 1980s it owned around 200,000 rental homes.<ref name=":1" />

SCIC was renamed Icade SA in 2003, and its capital opened up to external [[Shareholder|shareholders]].<ref name=":1" />

The [[initial public offering]] of Icade at the [[Euronext Paris]] on 12 April 2006 was valued at €2,64 billion.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.euronext.com/news/ipos/detail/details.jsp?docid=58593&lan=EN&cha=2050&displayMode=1|title=News|publisher=}}</ref>

Icade gained SIIC (REIT outside France) eligibility in 2007 after combining many of its subsidiaries.

Since 2007, Icade has been gradually selling its housing real-estate assets and service activities, to focus on [[Tertiary sector of the economy|tertiary sector]] real-estate.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Bourse|first=Zone|title=ICADE : se veut très prudent face à la crise {{!}} Zone bourse|url=https://www.zonebourse.com/ICADE-5021/actualite/ICADE-se-veut-tres-prudent-face-a-la-crise-13218963/|access-date=2020-06-04|website=www.zonebourse.com|language=fr}}</ref>

In 2009, the French government considered Icade as a potential "asset in the strategic investment fund that will be key to reviving France's economy". However, this did not ultimately come to pass. In late 2009, Icade acquired Compagnie la Lucette from [[Morgan Stanley]].<ref name="ad">[http://www.icade.fr/en/content/download/8197/85753/version/3/file/2013-02-20-Icade_PR_Annuels+Results_2012.pdf Icade Annual Results (2012)]</ref>

On November 13, 2009 Icade sold about 4745 housing units to a group of 25 social housing investors representing another company SNI. That move brought the number of residential units sold or committed for sale in late 2009 to early 2010 up to 29,452. The value of assets divested adds up to about €2 billion.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.euroinvestor.co.uk/news/story.aspx?id=10735795|title=Icade : Sale of Icade's housing division|work=EuroInvestor}}</ref>

In the summer of 2010 Icade reached an agreement with [[MVRDV]] to develop part of France's first Eco-quarters, a residential complex made up of low energy buildings a first for France.<ref name="independent">{{Cite web|date=2010-08-07|title=Eco-quarters the new trend in city design - Environment - The Independent|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100807032238/https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/ecoquarters-the-new-trend-in-city-design-2041467.html|access-date=2020-06-03|website=web.archive.org}}</ref>

Icade and Silic [[Mergers and acquisitions|merged]] on 31 December 2013.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Icade et Silic annoncent leur fusion effective pour le 31 décembre|url=https://investir.lesechos.fr/actions/actualites/icade-et-silic-annoncent-leur-fusion-effective-pour-le-31-decembre-939589.php|access-date=2020-06-04|website=Investir|language=fr}}</ref> Since the merger, the new company has divested a number of assets in order to finance new construction projects and acquire more assets outside of France.<ref>{{cite web|date=January 12, 2011|title=Icade négocie le rachat de la part de Groupama dans Silic|url=http://www.agefi.fr/corporate/actualites/quotidien/20111201/icade-negocie-rachat-part-groupama-dans-silic-96989}}</ref>

On February 17th, 2015, Chairman and CEO of Icade, Serge Grzybowski, resigns. Icade SA appoints Jean-Paul Faugere as Chairman of the Board of Icade and Nathalie Palladitcheff as Chief Executive Officer on a temporary basis.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSFWN0VR02220150217|title=BRIEF-Chairman and CEO of Icade, Serge Grzybowski, resigns|date=February 17, 2015}}</ref>

In 2017 Icade acquired ANF for 400 million euro.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2017-07-24|title=Immobilier : Icade rachète ANF|url=https://www.lesechos.fr/2017/07/immobilier-icade-rachete-anf-176722|access-date=2020-06-03|website=Les Echos|language=fr}}</ref> The merger into Icade was completed on 29 june 2018.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2019-02-24|title=ANF immobilier|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190224121126/https://www.anf-immobilier.com/en/homepage/|access-date=2020-06-03|website=web.archive.org}}</ref>

In December 2018 Icade sold their main office in Issy-les-Moulineaux for 100 million euro. They continue to occupy the building as a tenant.<ref name=":0">{{cite web|url=https://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-eco/2019/01/03/97002-20190103FILWWW00207-immobilier-icade-cede-les-murs-de-son-siege.php|title=Immobilier: Icade cède les murs de son siege|date=January 3, 2019}}</ref>

In 2018 Icade bought several retirement homes for 100 million euro in [[Italy]].<ref name=":0" /> In 2019 it acquired 19 long term care homes in [[Germany]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/trending/ljw_uih5xpixxwi1nbpmrw2|title=Icade reveals plans to establish first Europe-wide healthcare REIT |date=July 23, 2018}}</ref>
== Key figures ==
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! !! 31/12/2012 !! 31/12/2013
|-
| Net profit group share (million €) || 53 || 127
|-
| EPRA triple net NAV per share (€) || 80.7 || 77.3
|-
| Net worth (billion €) || 6.8 || 9.1
|-
| Employees || 1,721 || 1,479
|-
| Square metres owned by Icade || 2,436,759 || 3,085,000
|-
| Clinics owned by Icade || 55 || 59
|-
|}

== Assets ==
Icade's assets include offices, shopping centres, business parks, healthcare facilities.
* Offices: In France, Icade handles office properties most of which are located in and around Paris.<ref name=ad/>
* Business parks: Icade's business parks are located in Paris, Saint-Denis, Aubervilliers, Rungis, Nanterre-Seine, Colombes...
* Icade owns two shopping centres: Le Millénaire in Aubervilliers (north-eastern Paris suburbs), opened in April 2011 (50%-owned by Klépierre) and "Le Parc de Fresnes".

The alternative assets portfolio (Icade Santé) : Icade owns 62 establishments as at 30/06/2014.

Many of the buildings in [[La Défense]] belong to Icade.<ref name="telegraph" /> 

== References ==
{{Reflist}}

== External links ==
{{commonscatinline}}
* {{Official|http://www.icade.fr/en }}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Icade}}
[[Category:Real estate companies of France]]
[[Category:Companies based in Paris]]
[[Category:Real estate companies established in 1954]]
[[Category:1954 establishments in France]]
{{CAC Mid 60}}

All Lives Matter

2020-06-04T21:46:43Z

Dwaro: /* Facebook graffiti incident */

{{pp-vandalism|small=yes}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=November 2018}}
[[File:Defending Portland (34939466302) (cropped).jpg|thumb|"All Lives Matter" sign at a rally in Portland, Oregon, on June 4, 2017]]
'''All Lives Matter''' ('''#AllLivesMatter''') is a slogan that has come to be associated with criticism<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.vox.com/2016/7/11/12136140/black-all-lives-matter|title=Why you should stop saying "all lives matter," explained in 9 different ways|last=Lopez|first=German|date=2016-07-11|website=Vox|access-date=2019-09-19}}</ref> of the [[Black Lives Matter]] movement.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Townes|first1=Carimah|title=Obama Explains The Problem With 'All Lives Matter'|url=https://archive.thinkprogress.org/obama-explains-the-problem-with-all-lives-matter-780912d54888/ |work=[[ThinkProgress]] |date=October 22, 2015 |accessdate=August 6, 2016}}</ref>

== Supporters ==
Several notable individuals have supported All Lives Matter. Its proponents include Senator [[Tim Scott]].<ref>{{cite news|last1=Scott|first1=Eugene|title=Tim Scott defends use of "all lives matter"|url=http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/03/politics/tim-scott-all-lives-matter/|publisher=CNN|date=September 3, 2015|accessdate=October 24, 2015}}</ref> American football player [[Richard Sherman (American football)|Richard Sherman]] supported the All Lives Matter message, saying "I stand by what I said that All Lives Matter and that we are human beings."<ref>{{cite news |date=July 27, 2016 |last1=Samuel|first1=Ebenezer|title=Seahawks cornerback Richard Sherman explains why he stands by that All Lives Matter|url=http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/richard-sherman-explains-stands-lives-matter-article-1.2728272|publisher=New York Daily News|accessdate=August 6, 2016}}</ref> In June 2015, Democratic presidential nominee [[Hillary Clinton]] faced backlash after using the phrase "all lives matter" at an African-American church in Missouri during her presidential campaign.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Rappeport|first1=Alan|title=Hillary Clinton's 'All Lives Matter' Remark Stirs Backlash|url=https://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/06/24/hillary-clintons-all-lives-matter-remark-stirs-backlash/|accessdate=December 12, 2016|work=First Draft|publisher=The New York Times|date=June 24, 2015}}</ref> Controversial American [[rapper]] [[XXXTentacion]] came under criticism when he supported the movement in the music video for his hit song [[Look at Me (XXXTentacion song)|"Look At Me!"]]. The video depicted him{{snd}}a black male{{snd}}hanging a white child. After criticism, he said the goal of it was to show that "[Y]ou can't justify the fact that I murdered a child. [...] I'm trying to show that murder is murder." In similar fashion to his song "Riot" which criticized many rioters associated with the [[Black Lives Matter]] movement.<ref>{{cite web |last1=A |first1=Aron |title=XXXTENTACION Says "Look At Me" Video Is "All Lives Matter" |date=September 14, 2017 |url=https://www.hotnewhiphop.com/xxxtentacion-says-look-at-me-video-is-all-lives-matter-news.37311.html |website=HotNewHipHop |accessdate=28 January 2020}}</ref>

Republicans have been stronger proponents in general of All Lives Matter and harsher critics of the Black Lives Matter movement in general.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/15/ben-carson-course-all-lives-matter-and-all-lives-i/|title=Ben Carson: 'Of course all lives matter — and all lives includes black lives'|last=Sherfinski|first=David |date=October 15, 2015 |newspaper=The Washington Times|access-date=November 20, 2016}}</ref> Senator [[Rand Paul]] has argued that Black Lives Matter has focused on the wrong targets and has stated, "I think they should change their name maybe—if they were All Lives Matter, or Innocent Lives Matter."<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Marino|first=Gordon |title=All Lives Matter Vs. Black Lives Matter|url=https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/vicissitudes-meaning-%E2%80%98all-lives-matter%E2%80%99-vs-black-lives-matter|journal=Commonweal|volume=15|date=September 2, 2015 }}</ref> President [[Donald Trump]] has stated that "Black Lives Matter" is a divisive term and that the term is inherently racist.<ref>{{Cite news |first=David |last=Weigel |date=July 12, 2016 |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/three-words-that-republicans-wrestle-with-black-lives-matter/2016/07/12/f5a9dfdc-4878-11e6-90a8-fb84201e0645_story.html|title=Three words that Republicans wrestle with: 'Black Lives Matter'|website=Washington Post|access-date=November 20, 2016}}</ref>

According to an August 2015 poll, 78% of likely American voters said that the statement All Lives Matter was "close[r] to [their] own" point of view than was Black Lives Matter. Only 11% said that the statement Black Lives Matter was closer. Nine percent said that neither statement reflected their own point of view.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/august_2015/black_lives_matter_or_all_lives_matter |title=Black Lives Matter Or All Lives Matter? |date=August 20, 2015 |publisher=[[Rasmussen Reports]] |accessdate=July 14, 2016 }}</ref>

The internet facilitated the spread of the message "All Lives Matter" as a response to the Black Lives Matter hashtag as well as the "[[Blue Lives Matter]]" hashtag as a response to Beyonce's halftime performance speaking out against police brutality.<ref>{{Cite news |first=Joshua |last=Adams |url=https://www.huffpost.com/entry/alllivesmatter-needs-to-e_b_8683982 |title=The Troll Named #AllLivesMatter|date=December 2, 2015|website=The Huffington Post|access-date=May 6, 2016}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.policeone.com/officer-shootings/articles/photo-plane-flies-blue-lives-matter-banner-over-beyonce-concert-VG27usmUKRBKVdod/ |date=May 2, 2016 |title=Photo: Plane flies 'Blue Lives Matter' banner over Beyonce concert|website=PoliceOne|access-date=May 6, 2016}}</ref>

At a performance during the [[2016 MLB All-Star Game]], Remigio Pereira, a member of [[The Tenors]], held up an "All Lives Matter" sign and altered some lyrics to the anthem "[[O Canada]]".<ref name="canada">{{cite web|last1=Shepherd|first1=Ken|title=Remigio Pereira, who worked 'All Lives Matter' into Canadian anthem, suspended from singing group |date=July 13, 2016 |url=https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/13/remigio-pereira-who-worked-all-lives-matter-into-c/ |publisher=Washington Times|accessdate=August 6, 2016}}</ref> Pereira sang, "We're all brothers and sisters. All lives matter to the great," instead of the lines, "With glowing hearts we see thee rise, The True North strong and free."<ref name="canada"/> Even after criticism, he defended his statement, tweeting "I speak for the human race and the lives of all sentient beings. Love, peace, and harmony for ALL has always been my life's purpose."<ref name="canada"/>

Some supporters have used the phrase as a way to bring communities together, feeling that the phrase "black lives matter" is too narrow. [[Max Muncy]], a professional baseball infielder for the Los Angeles Dodgers, tweeted the phrase in response to the 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.denverpost.com/2016/11/16/why-saying-all-lives-matter-minimizes-the-black-lives-matter-movement/ |title=Why saying "All lives matter" minimizes the Black Lives Matter movement|last=Opinion|first=D. P.|date=November 16, 2016|access-date=November 20, 2016}}</ref>  

Activists from Black Lives Matter and All Lives Matter made news when they embraced during a "run-in" in Dallas. "We're all brothers and sisters," one of the protesters can be heard saying on CNN. "This is how you kick down a wall."<ref>{{cite news |last1=Gauthier |first1=Brendan |date=July 12, 2016 |title=WATCH: "We're all brothers and sisters": Black Lives Matter and All Lives Matter activists hug it out in Dallas |url=https://www.salon.com/control/2016/07/12/watch_were_all_brothers_and_sisters_black_lives_matter_and_all_lives_matter_activists_hug_it_out_in_dallas/ |accessdate=August 10, 2016|work=Salon}}</ref>

On October 2, 2016, a fan at a [[Chicago Bears]] NFL game ran onto the field during a television timeout during the 4th quarter dressed in a gorilla costume, wearing a shirt that read "All Lives Matter" on the front.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://chicago.suntimes.com/2016/10/2/18324183/fan-in-gorilla-suit-all-lives-matter-shirt-arrested-at-bears-game |title=Fan in gorilla suit, All Lives Matter shirt arrested at Bears game|newspaper=Chicago Sun-Times|access-date=October 18, 2016}}</ref>

==Criticism==
[[File:Rally Against the Immigration Ban (31797745824).jpg|thumb|"What happened to 'All Lives Matter'?", a sign at a [[Protests against Donald Trump|protest against Donald Trump]]]]
According to professor [[David Theo Goldberg]], "All Lives Matter" reflects a view of "racial dismissal, ignoring, and denial".<ref>{{Cite web|title=Why 'Black Lives Matter' Because All Lives Don't Matter in America|url=https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-black-lives-matter_b_8191424 |website=The Huffington Post|accessdate=November 18, 2015|date=September 25, 2015|last=Goldberg|first=David Theo|authorlink=David Theo Goldberg}}</ref> On ''[[Real Time with Bill Maher]]'', [[Bill Maher]] expressed support for use of the "Black Lives Matter" phrase, stating that "'All Lives Matter' implies that all lives are equally at risk, and they're not".<ref>{{cite av media|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRxS2Rb8Mfk |url-status=dead |title=Bill Maher: Why Is BlackLivesMatter Going After Sympathizers Like Hillary and Bernie?|date=August 22, 2015|publisher=YouTube|accessdate=November 19, 2015}}</ref> Founders of the Black Lives Matter movement have responded to criticism of the movement's exclusivity, saying, "#BlackLivesMatter doesn't mean your life isn't important – it means that Black lives, which are seen without value within [[White supremacy]], are important to your liberation."<ref>{{cite web|title = A Herstory of the #BlackLivesMatter Movement |first=Alicia |last=Garza |website=The Feminist Wire|url=https://www.thefeministwire.com/2014/10/blacklivesmatter-2/ |date=October 7, 2014 |accessdate=October 2, 2015}}</ref>

In a video interview with [[Laura Flanders]], Black Lives Matter movement co-founder [[Alicia Garza]] said that "changing Black Lives Matter to All Lives Matter is a demonstration of how we don't actually understand [[Societal racism|structural racism]] in this country". She went on to say that other lives are valued more than black lives, and that to take blackness out of this equation is inappropriate.<ref name=TruthOut>{{cite news|last1=Flanders|first1=Laura|author-link=Laura Flanders|title=Building Movements Without Shedding Differences: Alicia Garza of #BlackLivesMatter|url=https://truthout.org/video/building-movements-without-shedding-differences-alicia-garza/ |accessdate=March 25, 2015|publisher=Truthout|date=March 24, 2015}}</ref>

President [[Barack Obama]] spoke to the debate between Black Lives Matter and All Lives Matter.<ref name="CBS">{{cite web|title=President Obama defends Black Lives Matter movement |agency=CBS/AP |date=October 23, 2015 |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/president-barack-obama-defends-black-lives-matter-movement/ |publisher=CBS News|accessdate=October 24, 2015}}</ref> Obama said, "I think that the reason that the organizers used the phrase Black Lives Matter was not because they were suggesting that no one else's lives matter ... rather what they were suggesting was there is a specific problem that is happening in the African-American community that's not happening in other communities." He also said "that is a legitimate issue that we've got to address."<ref name=tactics>{{cite news |last1=Tucker |first1=Bryan |first2=Stephen |last2=Hegg |title=Tactics of Black Lives Matter|url=https://www.pbs.org/video/in-close-tactics-black-lives-matter/ |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20151102024356/https://www.kcts9.org/programs/in-close/tactics-black-lives-matter |publisher=KCTS9|archive-date=November 2, 2015 }}</ref>

{{external media |float=right |width=23em |image1=[http://chainsawsuit.com/comic/2016/07/07/all-houses-matter-the-extended-cut/ "All Houses Matter"], ''Chainsawsuit'', [[Kris Straub]], July 7, 2016. A cartoonist uses a house fire to illustrate criticism of the term "All Lives Matter."<ref name="USAToday2016-07-13"/> }}
In July 2016, ''[[USA Today]]'' concluded from the thoughts of [[Columbia University]] sociology professor Carla Shedd, that the phrase "'All Lives Matter' can actually be interpreted as racist". It also cited professor [[Joe Feagin]], who said that white people use the phrase "All Lives Matter" to ignore the Black Lives Matter movement, which he described as "already about liberty and justice for all." ''USA Today'' reported that some celebrities who had tweeted using the hashtag #AllLivesMatter, including [[Jennifer Lopez]] and [[Fetty Wap]], had deleted the tweets and apologized. Wap stated that he did not fully understand the hashtag.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/16/us/all-lives-matter-black-lives-matter.html|title=Why 'All Lives Matter' Is Such a Perilous Phrase|last=Victor|first=Daniel|date=July 15, 2016|newspaper=The New York Times|issn=0362-4331|access-date=November 20, 2016}}</ref> It also mentioned cartoonist [[Kris Straub]], who tweeted a cartoon titled "All Houses Matter", showing a house fire, to illustrate what he saw as the problem with the term.<ref name="USAToday2016-07-13">{{cite web |url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/07/13/why-saying-all-lives-matter-opposite-black-lives-matter/87025190/ |title=#AllLivesMatter hashtag is racist, critics say |first=Ashley |last=May |date=July 13, 2016 |work=[[USA Today]] |accessdate=July 14, 2016 }}</ref>

===Facebook graffiti incident===
On February 24, 2016, [[Mark Zuckerberg]], CEO of Facebook, sent out a company-wide internal memo to employees formally rebuking employees who had crossed out handwritten "Black Lives Matter" phrases on the company walls and had written "All Lives Matter" in their place. Facebook allows employees to free-write thoughts and phrases on company walls. The memo was then leaked by several employees. As Zuckerberg had previously condemned this practice at previous company meetings, and other similar requests had been issued by other leaders at Facebook, Zuckerberg wrote in the memo that he would now consider this overwriting practice not only disrespectful, but "malicious as well".<ref name="npr_zuckerberg">{{cite web|last1=Selyukh|first1=Alina|title=Zuckerberg tells Facebook staff to stop crossing out 'Black Lives Matter'|url=https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/02/26/467985384/zuckerberg-tells-facebook-staff-to-stop-crossing-out-black-lives-matter |date=February 26, 2016 |website=npr.org|publisher=NPR|accessdate=June 18, 2016}}</ref> According to Zuckerberg's memo, "''Black Lives Matter'' doesn't mean other lives don't – it's simply asking that the black community also achieves the justice they deserve". The memo also said that the act of crossing something out in itself, "means silencing speech, or that one person's speech is more important than another's".<ref name="shaunking-zuckerberg">{{cite news|last1=King|first1=Shaun|title=Mark Zuckerberg forced to address racism among Facebook staff after vandals target Black Lives Matter phrases|url=http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/king-mark-zuckerberg-forced-address-racism-facebook-article-1.2543985|accessdate=February 26, 2016|agency=Daily News|location=New York|date=February 25, 2016}}</ref><ref name="guynn">{{cite news|last1=Jessica|first1=Guynn|title=Zuckerberg reprimands Facebook staff defacing 'Black Lives Matter' slogan|url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/02/25/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-black-lives-matter-diversity/80933694/|accessdate=February 26, 2016|work=USA Today|date=February 25, 2016}}</ref><ref name="benjaminsnyder">{{cite news|last1=Snyder|first1=Benjamin|title=Mark Zuckerberg Takes Facebook Workers to Task Over 'All Lives Matter' Graffiti|url=https://fortune.com/2016/02/25/mark-zuckerberg-black-lives-matter/ |accessdate=February 26, 2016|work=Fortune|date=February 25, 2016}}</ref>

== See also ==

* [[Institutional racism]]
* [[It's OK to be white]]
* [[Covert racism]]

==References==
{{reflist|30em}}

{{Black Lives Matter}}

[[Category:2010s controversies in the United States]]
[[Category:Black Lives Matter]]
[[Category:Hashtags]]
[[Category:African-American-related controversies]]
[[Category:Race-related controversies in the United States]]
[[Category:Mass media-related controversies in the United States]]
[[Category:Law enforcement controversies]]
[[Category:Controversies of the 2016 United States presidential election]]
[[Category:Race and crime in the United States]]
[[Category:2010s in the United States]]
[[Category:Slogans]]
[[Category:American political catchphrases]]

Icade

2020-06-04T20:33:06Z

Dwaro: /* References */fix section title

{{Article for deletion/dated|page=Icade|timestamp=20200521233056|year=2020|month=May|day=21|substed=yes|help=off}}


{{Expand language|langcode=fr|Icade|date=June 2020}}
{{about|the investment company|the iPad accessory|iCade|the Spanish schools|ICADE}}
{{Infobox company
| name = Icade
| logo = Icade logo.svg
| type = [[Public company|public]]
| traded_as = {{euronext|ICAD}} [[CAC Mid 60|CAC Mid 60 Component]]
| foundation = 1860 (SCIC) <ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.forbes.com/companies/icade/#767f7b38165f|title=Forbes 2000 list : Icade|accessdate=May 25, 2020}}</ref>F
| location = [[Issy-les-Moulineaux]], [[Paris]], [[France]]
| key_people = Olivier Wigniolle, CEO <ref name=ceo>[http://www.icade.fr/en/icade/direction/executive-committee/olivier-wigniolle, "Icade's page on Olivier Wigniolle". ''Icade.fr (EN)'']</ref>
| industry = [[real estate investment trust|Real-estate investment company]]
| assets = € 11.3 billion (on December 31, 2018)<ref name=financial>[http://www.icade.fr/en/content/download/17548/208726/version/2/file/PR_Icade-FY_2018-Financial_results.pdf, "Icade Annual Results (2018)"]</ref>
| revenue = € 1.77 billion (on December 31, 2018)<ref name=financial/>
| net_income = € 300.2 million (2019)
| homepage = [http://www.icade.fr/en/ Icade (EN)]
}}
[[File:ICADE SA logo.jpg|thumb|Previous logo]]
'''Icade SA''' is a [[Multinational corporation|multinational]] [[real estate investment trust]] (REIT) that is [[Headquarters|headquartered]] in [[Issy-les-Moulineaux]], [[Paris]], [[France]] and is a subsidiary of [[Caisse des dépôts et consignations]]. The name is an abbreviation of '''I'''mmobilière '''Ca'''isse des '''Dé'''pôts.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web|title=Cession du pôle logement d'Immobilière Caisse des dépôts - Sénat|url=https://www.senat.fr/questions/base/2009/qSEQ09010409S.html|access-date=2020-06-03|website=www.senat.fr}}</ref> It invests in various types of properties including health care, offices, [[Business park|business parks]], housing and public facilities. It is one of the largest property businesses of France.<ref name="telegraph">{{cite web|date=July 18, 2018|title=Questor: this French property firm could be a beneficiary of a 'hard Brexit'|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/investing/shares/questor-share-tip-buy-icade-could-benefit-hard-brexit/}}</ref> Icade became the leading commercial real-estate company for offices and business parks in the [[Île-de-France|Ile-de-France]] region,<ref>{{Cite book|last=Enright, Theresa,|first=|url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/946160387|title=The making of grand Paris : metropolitan urbanism in the twenty-first century|publisher=|year=|isbn=978-0-262-03469-2|location=Cambridge, Massachusetts|pages=213, 214|oclc=946160387}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|date=June 6, 2016|title=Interview: "Making Icade an integrated real estate operator, leader in France"|url=https://www.lerevenu.com/bourse/valeurs-en-vue/olivier-wigniolle-faire-dicade-un-operateur-immobilier-integre-leader-en}}</ref> is the largest REIT in healthcare sector of France and a key partner of major French cities. The main [[Shareholder|shareholders]] are the parent organization and [[Crédit Agricole]].<ref>{{Cite web|title=Actionnaires|url=https://www.icade.fr/finance/actionnaires|access-date=2020-06-04|website=Icade|language=fr}}</ref>

== History ==
Société Centrale Immobilière de la Caisse des dépôts (SCIC) was founded in 1954 as a subsidiary of Caisse des dépôts et consignations. The company was a housing construction project owner in France, and was particularly active in the [[Paris]] region. During the 1950s and 1960s, it worked with a number of architects architects to build housing at [[Sarcelles]] (France's first large-scale programme, with over 10,000 housing units), [[Créteil]] and [[Massy, Essonne|Massy-Antony]].<ref>{{Cite web|title=Histoire|url=https://www.icade.fr/groupe/histoire|access-date=2020-06-04|website=Icade|language=fr}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://corporate-executives.com/companies/icade/|title=Icade profile|accessdate=May 25, 2020}}</ref> It was not until the 1980s that it started investing in non residential/public properties. By the end of the 1980s it owned around 200,000 rental homes.<ref name=":1" />

SCIC was renamed Icade SA in 2003, and its capital opened up to external [[Shareholder|shareholders]].<ref name=":1" />

The [[initial public offering]] of Icade at the [[Euronext Paris]] on 12 April 2006 was valued at €2,64 billion.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.euronext.com/news/ipos/detail/details.jsp?docid=58593&lan=EN&cha=2050&displayMode=1|title=News|publisher=}}</ref>

Icade gained SIIC (REIT outside France) eligibility in 2007 after combining many of its subsidiaries.

Since 2007, Icade has been gradually selling its housing real-estate assets and service activities, to focus on [[Tertiary sector of the economy|tertiary sector]] real-estate.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Bourse|first=Zone|title=ICADE : se veut très prudent face à la crise {{!}} Zone bourse|url=https://www.zonebourse.com/ICADE-5021/actualite/ICADE-se-veut-tres-prudent-face-a-la-crise-13218963/|access-date=2020-06-04|website=www.zonebourse.com|language=fr}}</ref>

In 2009, the French government considered Icade as a potential "asset in the strategic investment fund that will be key to reviving France's economy". However, this did not ultimately come to pass. In late 2009, Icade acquired Compagnie la Lucette from [[Morgan Stanley]].<ref name="ad">[http://www.icade.fr/en/content/download/8197/85753/version/3/file/2013-02-20-Icade_PR_Annuels+Results_2012.pdf Icade Annual Results (2012)]</ref>

On November 13, 2009 Icade sold about 4745 housing units to a group of 25 social housing investors representing another company SNI. That move brought the number of residential units sold or committed for sale in late 2009 to early 2010 up to 29,452. The value of assets divested adds up to about €2 billion.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.euroinvestor.co.uk/news/story.aspx?id=10735795|title=Icade : Sale of Icade's housing division|work=EuroInvestor}}</ref>

In the summer of 2010 Icade reached an agreement with [[MVRDV]] to develop part of France's first Eco-quarters, a residential complex made up of low energy buildings a first for France.<ref name="independent">{{Cite web|date=2010-08-07|title=Eco-quarters the new trend in city design - Environment - The Independent|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100807032238/https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/ecoquarters-the-new-trend-in-city-design-2041467.html|access-date=2020-06-03|website=web.archive.org}}</ref>

Icade and Silic [[Mergers and acquisitions|merged]] on 31 December 2013.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Icade et Silic annoncent leur fusion effective pour le 31 décembre|url=https://investir.lesechos.fr/actions/actualites/icade-et-silic-annoncent-leur-fusion-effective-pour-le-31-decembre-939589.php|access-date=2020-06-04|website=Investir|language=fr}}</ref> Since the merger, the new company has divested a number of assets in order to finance new construction projects and acquire more assets outside of France.<ref>{{cite web|date=January 12, 2011|title=Icade négocie le rachat de la part de Groupama dans Silic|url=http://www.agefi.fr/corporate/actualites/quotidien/20111201/icade-negocie-rachat-part-groupama-dans-silic-96989}}</ref>

On February 17th, 2015, Chairman and CEO of Icade, Serge Grzybowski, resigns. Icade SA appoints Jean-Paul Faugere as Chairman of the Board of Icade and Nathalie Palladitcheff as Chief Executive Officer on a temporary basis.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSFWN0VR02220150217|title=BRIEF-Chairman and CEO of Icade, Serge Grzybowski, resigns|date=February 17, 2015}}</ref>

In 2017 Icade acquired ANF for 400 million euro.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2017-07-24|title=Immobilier : Icade rachète ANF|url=https://www.lesechos.fr/2017/07/immobilier-icade-rachete-anf-176722|access-date=2020-06-03|website=Les Echos|language=fr}}</ref> The merger into Icade was completed on 29 june 2018.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2019-02-24|title=ANF immobilier|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190224121126/https://www.anf-immobilier.com/en/homepage/|access-date=2020-06-03|website=web.archive.org}}</ref>

In December 2018 Icade sold their main office in Issy-les-Moulineaux for 100 million euro. They continue to occupy the building as a tenant.<ref name=":0">{{cite web|url=https://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-eco/2019/01/03/97002-20190103FILWWW00207-immobilier-icade-cede-les-murs-de-son-siege.php|title=Immobilier: Icade cède les murs de son siege|date=January 3, 2019}}</ref>

In 2018 Icade bought several retirement homes for 100 million euro in [[Italy]].<ref name=":0" /> In 2019 it acquired 19 long term care homes in [[Germany]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/trending/ljw_uih5xpixxwi1nbpmrw2|title=Icade reveals plans to establish first Europe-wide healthcare REIT |date=July 23, 2018}}</ref>
== Key figures ==
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! !! 31/12/2012 !! 31/12/2013
|-
| Net profit group share (million €) || 53 || 127
|-
| EPRA triple net NAV per share (€) || 80.7 || 77.3
|-
| Net worth (billion €) || 6.8 || 9.1
|-
| Employees || 1,721 || 1,479
|-
| Square metres owned by Icade || 2,436,759 || 3,085,000
|-
| Clinics owned by Icade || 55 || 59
|-
|}

== Assets ==
Icade's assets include offices, shopping centres, business parks, healthcare facilities.
* Offices: In France, Icade handles office properties most of which are located in and around Paris.<ref name=ad/>
* Business parks: Icade's business parks are located in Paris, Saint-Denis, Aubervilliers, Rungis, Nanterre-Seine, Colombes...
* Icade owns two shopping centres: Le Millénaire in Aubervilliers (north-eastern Paris suburbs), opened in April 2011 (50%-owned by Klépierre) and "Le Parc de Fresnes".

The alternative assets portfolio (Icade Santé) : Icade owns 62 establishments as at 30/06/2014.

Many of the buildings in [[La Défense]] belong to Icade.<ref name="telegraph" /> 

== References ==
{{Reflist}}

== External links ==
{{commonscatinline}}
* {{Official|http://www.icade.fr/en }}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Icade}}
[[Category:Real estate companies of France]]
[[Category:Companies based in Paris]]
[[Category:Real estate companies established in 1954]]
[[Category:1954 establishments in France]]
{{CAC Mid 60}}

Icade

2020-06-04T20:18:31Z

Dwaro: add shareholder info

{{Article for deletion/dated|page=Icade|timestamp=20200521233056|year=2020|month=May|day=21|substed=yes|help=off}}


{{Expand language|langcode=fr|Icade|date=June 2020}}
{{about|the investment company|the iPad accessory|iCade|the Spanish schools|ICADE}}
{{Infobox company
| name = Icade
| logo = Icade logo.svg
| type = [[Public company|public]]
| traded_as = {{euronext|ICAD}} [[CAC Mid 60|CAC Mid 60 Component]]
| foundation = 1860 (SCIC) <ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.forbes.com/companies/icade/#767f7b38165f|title=Forbes 2000 list : Icade|accessdate=May 25, 2020}}</ref>F
| location = [[Issy-les-Moulineaux]], [[Paris]], [[France]]
| key_people = Olivier Wigniolle, CEO <ref name=ceo>[http://www.icade.fr/en/icade/direction/executive-committee/olivier-wigniolle, "Icade's page on Olivier Wigniolle". ''Icade.fr (EN)'']</ref>
| industry = [[real estate investment trust|Real-estate investment company]]
| assets = € 11.3 billion (on December 31, 2018)<ref name=financial>[http://www.icade.fr/en/content/download/17548/208726/version/2/file/PR_Icade-FY_2018-Financial_results.pdf, "Icade Annual Results (2018)"]</ref>
| revenue = € 1.77 billion (on December 31, 2018)<ref name=financial/>
| net_income = € 300.2 million (2019)
| homepage = [http://www.icade.fr/en/ Icade (EN)]
}}
[[File:ICADE SA logo.jpg|thumb|Previous logo]]
'''Icade SA''' is a [[Multinational corporation|multinational]] [[real estate investment trust]] (REIT) that is [[Headquarters|headquartered]] in [[Issy-les-Moulineaux]], [[Paris]], [[France]] and is a subsidiary of [[Caisse des dépôts et consignations]]. The name is an abbreviation of '''I'''mmobilière '''Ca'''isse des '''Dé'''pôts.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web|title=Cession du pôle logement d'Immobilière Caisse des dépôts - Sénat|url=https://www.senat.fr/questions/base/2009/qSEQ09010409S.html|access-date=2020-06-03|website=www.senat.fr}}</ref> It invests in various types of properties including health care, offices, [[Business park|business parks]], housing and public facilities. It is one of the largest property businesses of France.<ref name="telegraph">{{cite web|date=July 18, 2018|title=Questor: this French property firm could be a beneficiary of a 'hard Brexit'|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/investing/shares/questor-share-tip-buy-icade-could-benefit-hard-brexit/}}</ref> Icade became the leading commercial real-estate company for offices and business parks in the [[Île-de-France|Ile-de-France]] region,<ref>{{Cite book|last=Enright, Theresa,|first=|url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/946160387|title=The making of grand Paris : metropolitan urbanism in the twenty-first century|publisher=|year=|isbn=978-0-262-03469-2|location=Cambridge, Massachusetts|pages=213, 214|oclc=946160387}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|date=June 6, 2016|title=Interview: "Making Icade an integrated real estate operator, leader in France"|url=https://www.lerevenu.com/bourse/valeurs-en-vue/olivier-wigniolle-faire-dicade-un-operateur-immobilier-integre-leader-en}}</ref> is the largest REIT in healthcare sector of France and a key partner of major French cities. The main [[Shareholder|shareholders]] are the parent organization and [[Crédit Agricole]].<ref>{{Cite web|title=Actionnaires|url=https://www.icade.fr/finance/actionnaires|access-date=2020-06-04|website=Icade|language=fr}}</ref>

== History ==
Société Centrale Immobilière de la Caisse des dépôts (SCIC) was founded in 1954 as a subsidiary of Caisse des dépôts et consignations. The company was a housing construction project owner in France, and was particularly active in the [[Paris]] region. During the 1950s and 1960s, it worked with a number of architects architects to build housing at [[Sarcelles]] (France's first large-scale programme, with over 10,000 housing units), [[Créteil]] and [[Massy, Essonne|Massy-Antony]].<ref>{{Cite web|title=Histoire|url=https://www.icade.fr/groupe/histoire|access-date=2020-06-04|website=Icade|language=fr}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://corporate-executives.com/companies/icade/|title=Icade profile|accessdate=May 25, 2020}}</ref> It was not until the 1980s that it started investing in non residential/public properties. By the end of the 1980s it owned around 200,000 rental homes.<ref name=":1" />

SCIC was renamed Icade SA in 2003, and its capital opened up to external [[Shareholder|shareholders]].<ref name=":1" />

The [[initial public offering]] of Icade at the [[Euronext Paris]] on 12 April 2006 was valued at €2,64 billion.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.euronext.com/news/ipos/detail/details.jsp?docid=58593&lan=EN&cha=2050&displayMode=1|title=News|publisher=}}</ref>

Icade gained SIIC (REIT outside France) eligibility in 2007 after combining many of its subsidiaries.

Since 2007, Icade has been gradually selling its housing real-estate assets and service activities, to focus on [[Tertiary sector of the economy|tertiary sector]] real-estate.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Bourse|first=Zone|title=ICADE : se veut très prudent face à la crise {{!}} Zone bourse|url=https://www.zonebourse.com/ICADE-5021/actualite/ICADE-se-veut-tres-prudent-face-a-la-crise-13218963/|access-date=2020-06-04|website=www.zonebourse.com|language=fr}}</ref>

In 2009, the French government considered Icade as a potential "asset in the strategic investment fund that will be key to reviving France's economy". However, this did not ultimately come to pass. In late 2009, Icade acquired Compagnie la Lucette from [[Morgan Stanley]].<ref name="ad">[http://www.icade.fr/en/content/download/8197/85753/version/3/file/2013-02-20-Icade_PR_Annuels+Results_2012.pdf Icade Annual Results (2012)]</ref>

On November 13, 2009 Icade sold about 4745 housing units to a group of 25 social housing investors representing another company SNI. That move brought the number of residential units sold or committed for sale in late 2009 to early 2010 up to 29,452. The value of assets divested adds up to about €2 billion.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.euroinvestor.co.uk/news/story.aspx?id=10735795|title=Icade : Sale of Icade's housing division|work=EuroInvestor}}</ref>

In the summer of 2010 Icade reached an agreement with [[MVRDV]] to develop part of France's first Eco-quarters, a residential complex made up of low energy buildings a first for France.<ref name="independent">{{Cite web|date=2010-08-07|title=Eco-quarters the new trend in city design - Environment - The Independent|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100807032238/https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/ecoquarters-the-new-trend-in-city-design-2041467.html|access-date=2020-06-03|website=web.archive.org}}</ref>

Icade and Silic [[Mergers and acquisitions|merged]] on 31 December 2013.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Icade et Silic annoncent leur fusion effective pour le 31 décembre|url=https://investir.lesechos.fr/actions/actualites/icade-et-silic-annoncent-leur-fusion-effective-pour-le-31-decembre-939589.php|access-date=2020-06-04|website=Investir|language=fr}}</ref> Since the merger, the new company has divested a number of assets in order to finance new construction projects and acquire more assets outside of France.<ref>{{cite web|date=January 12, 2011|title=Icade négocie le rachat de la part de Groupama dans Silic|url=http://www.agefi.fr/corporate/actualites/quotidien/20111201/icade-negocie-rachat-part-groupama-dans-silic-96989}}</ref>

On February 17th, 2015, Chairman and CEO of Icade, Serge Grzybowski, resigns. Icade SA appoints Jean-Paul Faugere as Chairman of the Board of Icade and Nathalie Palladitcheff as Chief Executive Officer on a temporary basis.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSFWN0VR02220150217|title=BRIEF-Chairman and CEO of Icade, Serge Grzybowski, resigns|date=February 17, 2015}}</ref>

In 2017 Icade acquired ANF for 400 million euro.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2017-07-24|title=Immobilier : Icade rachète ANF|url=https://www.lesechos.fr/2017/07/immobilier-icade-rachete-anf-176722|access-date=2020-06-03|website=Les Echos|language=fr}}</ref> The merger into Icade was completed on 29 june 2018.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2019-02-24|title=ANF immobilier|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190224121126/https://www.anf-immobilier.com/en/homepage/|access-date=2020-06-03|website=web.archive.org}}</ref>

In December 2018 Icade sold their main office in Issy-les-Moulineaux for 100 million euro. They continue to occupy the building as a tenant.<ref name=":0">{{cite web|url=https://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-eco/2019/01/03/97002-20190103FILWWW00207-immobilier-icade-cede-les-murs-de-son-siege.php|title=Immobilier: Icade cède les murs de son siege|date=January 3, 2019}}</ref>

In 2018 Icade bought several retirement homes for 100 million euro in [[Italy]].<ref name=":0" /> In 2019 it acquired 19 long term care homes in [[Germany]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/trending/ljw_uih5xpixxwi1nbpmrw2|title=Icade reveals plans to establish first Europe-wide healthcare REIT |date=July 23, 2018}}</ref>
== Key figures ==
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! !! 31/12/2012 !! 31/12/2013
|-
| Net profit group share (million €) || 53 || 127
|-
| EPRA triple net NAV per share (€) || 80.7 || 77.3
|-
| Net worth (billion €) || 6.8 || 9.1
|-
| Employees || 1,721 || 1,479
|-
| Square metres owned by Icade || 2,436,759 || 3,085,000
|-
| Clinics owned by Icade || 55 || 59
|-
|}

== Assets ==
Icade's assets include offices, shopping centres, business parks, healthcare facilities.
* Offices: In France, Icade handles office properties most of which are located in and around Paris.<ref name=ad/>
* Business parks: Icade's business parks are located in Paris, Saint-Denis, Aubervilliers, Rungis, Nanterre-Seine, Colombes...
* Icade owns two shopping centres: Le Millénaire in Aubervilliers (north-eastern Paris suburbs), opened in April 2011 (50%-owned by Klépierre) and "Le Parc de Fresnes".

The alternative assets portfolio (Icade Santé) : Icade owns 62 establishments as at 30/06/2014.

Many of the buildings in [[La Défense]] belong to Icade.<ref name="telegraph" /> 

== Notes ==
{{Reflist}}

== External links ==
{{commonscatinline}}
* {{Official|http://www.icade.fr/en }}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Icade}}
[[Category:Real estate companies of France]]
[[Category:Companies based in Paris]]
[[Category:Real estate companies established in 1954]]
[[Category:1954 establishments in France]]
{{CAC Mid 60}}

Icade

2020-06-04T20:10:51Z

Dwaro: /* History */ add sentence about selling of real-estate

{{Article for deletion/dated|page=Icade|timestamp=20200521233056|year=2020|month=May|day=21|substed=yes|help=off}}


{{Expand language|langcode=fr|Icade|date=June 2020}}
{{about|the investment company|the iPad accessory|iCade|the Spanish schools|ICADE}}
{{Infobox company
| name = Icade
| logo = Icade logo.svg
| type = [[Public company|public]]
| traded_as = {{euronext|ICAD}} [[CAC Mid 60|CAC Mid 60 Component]]
| foundation = 1860 (SCIC) <ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.forbes.com/companies/icade/#767f7b38165f|title=Forbes 2000 list : Icade|accessdate=May 25, 2020}}</ref>F
| location = [[Issy-les-Moulineaux]], [[Paris]], [[France]]
| key_people = Olivier Wigniolle, CEO <ref name=ceo>[http://www.icade.fr/en/icade/direction/executive-committee/olivier-wigniolle, "Icade's page on Olivier Wigniolle". ''Icade.fr (EN)'']</ref>
| industry = [[real estate investment trust|Real-estate investment company]]
| assets = € 11.3 billion (on December 31, 2018)<ref name=financial>[http://www.icade.fr/en/content/download/17548/208726/version/2/file/PR_Icade-FY_2018-Financial_results.pdf, "Icade Annual Results (2018)"]</ref>
| revenue = € 1.77 billion (on December 31, 2018)<ref name=financial/>
| net_income = € 300.2 million (2019)
| homepage = [http://www.icade.fr/en/ Icade (EN)]
}}
[[File:ICADE SA logo.jpg|thumb|Previous logo]]
'''Icade SA''' is a [[Multinational corporation|multinational]] [[real estate investment trust]] (REIT) that is [[Headquarters|headquartered]] in [[Issy-les-Moulineaux]], [[Paris]], [[France]] and is a subsidiary of [[Caisse des dépôts et consignations]]. The name is an abbreviation of '''I'''mmobilière '''Ca'''isse des '''Dé'''pôts.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web|title=Cession du pôle logement d'Immobilière Caisse des dépôts - Sénat|url=https://www.senat.fr/questions/base/2009/qSEQ09010409S.html|access-date=2020-06-03|website=www.senat.fr}}</ref> It invests in various types of properties including health care, offices, [[Business park|business parks]], housing and public facilities. It is one of the largest property businesses of France.<ref name="telegraph">{{cite web|date=July 18, 2018|title=Questor: this French property firm could be a beneficiary of a 'hard Brexit'|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/investing/shares/questor-share-tip-buy-icade-could-benefit-hard-brexit/}}</ref> Icade became the leading commercial real-estate company for offices and business parks in the [[Île-de-France|Ile-de-France]] region,<ref>{{Cite book|last=Enright, Theresa,|first=|url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/946160387|title=The making of grand Paris : metropolitan urbanism in the twenty-first century|publisher=|year=|isbn=978-0-262-03469-2|location=Cambridge, Massachusetts|pages=213, 214|oclc=946160387}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|date=June 6, 2016|title=Interview: "Making Icade an integrated real estate operator, leader in France"|url=https://www.lerevenu.com/bourse/valeurs-en-vue/olivier-wigniolle-faire-dicade-un-operateur-immobilier-integre-leader-en}}</ref> is the largest REIT in healthcare sector of France and a key partner of major French cities.
== History ==
Société Centrale Immobilière de la Caisse des dépôts (SCIC) was founded in 1954 as a subsidiary of Caisse des dépôts et consignations. The company was a housing construction project owner in France, and was particularly active in the [[Paris]] region. During the 1950s and 1960s, it worked with a number of architects architects to build housing at [[Sarcelles]] (France's first large-scale programme, with over 10,000 housing units), [[Créteil]] and [[Massy, Essonne|Massy-Antony]].<ref>{{Cite web|title=Histoire|url=https://www.icade.fr/groupe/histoire|access-date=2020-06-04|website=Icade|language=fr}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://corporate-executives.com/companies/icade/|title=Icade profile|accessdate=May 25, 2020}}</ref> It was not until the 1980s that it started investing in non residential/public properties. By the end of the 1980s it owned around 200,000 rental homes.<ref name=":1" />

SCIC was renamed Icade SA in 2003, and its capital opened up to external [[Shareholder|shareholders]].<ref name=":1" />

The [[initial public offering]] of Icade at the [[Euronext Paris]] on 12 April 2006 was valued at €2,64 billion.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.euronext.com/news/ipos/detail/details.jsp?docid=58593&lan=EN&cha=2050&displayMode=1|title=News|publisher=}}</ref>

Icade gained SIIC (REIT outside France) eligibility in 2007 after combining many of its subsidiaries.

Since 2007, Icade has been gradually selling its housing real-estate assets and service activities, to focus on [[Tertiary sector of the economy|tertiary sector]] real-estate.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Bourse|first=Zone|title=ICADE : se veut très prudent face à la crise {{!}} Zone bourse|url=https://www.zonebourse.com/ICADE-5021/actualite/ICADE-se-veut-tres-prudent-face-a-la-crise-13218963/|access-date=2020-06-04|website=www.zonebourse.com|language=fr}}</ref>

In 2009, the French government considered Icade as a potential "asset in the strategic investment fund that will be key to reviving France's economy". However, this did not ultimately come to pass. In late 2009, Icade acquired Compagnie la Lucette from [[Morgan Stanley]].<ref name="ad">[http://www.icade.fr/en/content/download/8197/85753/version/3/file/2013-02-20-Icade_PR_Annuels+Results_2012.pdf Icade Annual Results (2012)]</ref>

On November 13, 2009 Icade sold about 4745 housing units to a group of 25 social housing investors representing another company SNI. That move brought the number of residential units sold or committed for sale in late 2009 to early 2010 up to 29,452. The value of assets divested adds up to about €2 billion.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.euroinvestor.co.uk/news/story.aspx?id=10735795|title=Icade : Sale of Icade's housing division|work=EuroInvestor}}</ref>

In the summer of 2010 Icade reached an agreement with [[MVRDV]] to develop part of France's first Eco-quarters, a residential complex made up of low energy buildings a first for France.<ref name="independent">{{Cite web|date=2010-08-07|title=Eco-quarters the new trend in city design - Environment - The Independent|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100807032238/https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/ecoquarters-the-new-trend-in-city-design-2041467.html|access-date=2020-06-03|website=web.archive.org}}</ref>

Icade and Silic [[Mergers and acquisitions|merged]] on 31 December 2013.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Icade et Silic annoncent leur fusion effective pour le 31 décembre|url=https://investir.lesechos.fr/actions/actualites/icade-et-silic-annoncent-leur-fusion-effective-pour-le-31-decembre-939589.php|access-date=2020-06-04|website=Investir|language=fr}}</ref> Since the merger, the new company has divested a number of assets in order to finance new construction projects and acquire more assets outside of France.<ref>{{cite web|date=January 12, 2011|title=Icade négocie le rachat de la part de Groupama dans Silic|url=http://www.agefi.fr/corporate/actualites/quotidien/20111201/icade-negocie-rachat-part-groupama-dans-silic-96989}}</ref>

On February 17th, 2015, Chairman and CEO of Icade, Serge Grzybowski, resigns. Icade SA appoints Jean-Paul Faugere as Chairman of the Board of Icade and Nathalie Palladitcheff as Chief Executive Officer on a temporary basis.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSFWN0VR02220150217|title=BRIEF-Chairman and CEO of Icade, Serge Grzybowski, resigns|date=February 17, 2015}}</ref>

In 2017 Icade acquired ANF for 400 million euro.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2017-07-24|title=Immobilier : Icade rachète ANF|url=https://www.lesechos.fr/2017/07/immobilier-icade-rachete-anf-176722|access-date=2020-06-03|website=Les Echos|language=fr}}</ref> The merger into Icade was completed on 29 june 2018.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2019-02-24|title=ANF immobilier|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190224121126/https://www.anf-immobilier.com/en/homepage/|access-date=2020-06-03|website=web.archive.org}}</ref>

In December 2018 Icade sold their main office in Issy-les-Moulineaux for 100 million euro. They continue to occupy the building as a tenant.<ref name=":0">{{cite web|url=https://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-eco/2019/01/03/97002-20190103FILWWW00207-immobilier-icade-cede-les-murs-de-son-siege.php|title=Immobilier: Icade cède les murs de son siege|date=January 3, 2019}}</ref>

In 2018 Icade bought several retirement homes for 100 million euro in [[Italy]].<ref name=":0" /> In 2019 it acquired 19 long term care homes in [[Germany]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/trending/ljw_uih5xpixxwi1nbpmrw2|title=Icade reveals plans to establish first Europe-wide healthcare REIT |date=July 23, 2018}}</ref>
== Key figures ==
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! !! 31/12/2012 !! 31/12/2013
|-
| Net profit group share (million €) || 53 || 127
|-
| EPRA triple net NAV per share (€) || 80.7 || 77.3
|-
| Net worth (billion €) || 6.8 || 9.1
|-
| Employees || 1,721 || 1,479
|-
| Square metres owned by Icade || 2,436,759 || 3,085,000
|-
| Clinics owned by Icade || 55 || 59
|-
|}

== Assets ==
Icade's assets include offices, shopping centres, business parks, healthcare facilities.
* Offices: In France, Icade handles office properties most of which are located in and around Paris.<ref name=ad/>
* Business parks: Icade's business parks are located in Paris, Saint-Denis, Aubervilliers, Rungis, Nanterre-Seine, Colombes...
* Icade owns two shopping centres: Le Millénaire in Aubervilliers (north-eastern Paris suburbs), opened in April 2011 (50%-owned by Klépierre) and "Le Parc de Fresnes".

The alternative assets portfolio (Icade Santé) : Icade owns 62 establishments as at 30/06/2014.

Many of the buildings in [[La Défense]] belong to Icade.<ref name="telegraph" /> 

== Notes ==
{{Reflist}}

== External links ==
{{commonscatinline}}
* {{Official|http://www.icade.fr/en }}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Icade}}
[[Category:Real estate companies of France]]
[[Category:Companies based in Paris]]
[[Category:Real estate companies established in 1954]]
[[Category:1954 establishments in France]]
{{CAC Mid 60}}

Icade

2020-06-04T17:09:13Z

Dwaro: fix typo, add wikilinks, add ref

{{Article for deletion/dated|page=Icade|timestamp=20200521233056|year=2020|month=May|day=21|substed=yes|help=off}}


{{Expand language|langcode=fr|Icade|date=June 2020}}
{{about|the investment company|the iPad accessory|iCade|the Spanish schools|ICADE}}
{{Infobox company
| name = Icade
| logo = Icade logo.svg
| type = [[Public company|public]]
| traded_as = {{euronext|ICAD}} [[CAC Mid 60|CAC Mid 60 Component]]
| foundation = 1860 (SCIC) <ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.forbes.com/companies/icade/#767f7b38165f|title=Forbes 2000 list : Icade|accessdate=May 25, 2020}}</ref>F
| location = [[Issy-les-Moulineaux]], [[Paris]], [[France]]
| key_people = Olivier Wigniolle, CEO <ref name=ceo>[http://www.icade.fr/en/icade/direction/executive-committee/olivier-wigniolle, "Icade's page on Olivier Wigniolle". ''Icade.fr (EN)'']</ref>
| industry = [[real estate investment trust|Real-estate investment company]]
| assets = € 11.3 billion (on December 31, 2018)<ref name=financial>[http://www.icade.fr/en/content/download/17548/208726/version/2/file/PR_Icade-FY_2018-Financial_results.pdf, "Icade Annual Results (2018)"]</ref>
| revenue = € 1.77 billion (on December 31, 2018)<ref name=financial/>
| net_income = € 300.2 million (2019)
| homepage = [http://www.icade.fr/en/ Icade (EN)]
}}
[[File:ICADE SA logo.jpg|thumb|Previous logo]]
'''Icade SA''' is a [[Multinational corporation|multinational]] [[real estate investment trust]] (REIT) that is [[Headquarters|headquartered]] in [[Issy-les-Moulineaux]], [[Paris]], [[France]] and is a subsidiary of [[Caisse des dépôts et consignations]]. The name is an abbreviation of '''I'''mmobilière '''Ca'''isse des '''Dé'''pôts.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web|title=Cession du pôle logement d'Immobilière Caisse des dépôts - Sénat|url=https://www.senat.fr/questions/base/2009/qSEQ09010409S.html|access-date=2020-06-03|website=www.senat.fr}}</ref> It invests in various types of properties including health care, offices, [[Business park|business parks]], housing and public facilities. It is one of the largest property businesses of France.<ref name="telegraph">{{cite web|date=July 18, 2018|title=Questor: this French property firm could be a beneficiary of a 'hard Brexit'|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/investing/shares/questor-share-tip-buy-icade-could-benefit-hard-brexit/}}</ref> Icade became the leading commercial real-estate company for offices and business parks in the [[Île-de-France|Ile-de-France]] region,<ref>{{Cite book|last=Enright, Theresa,|first=|url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/946160387|title=The making of grand Paris : metropolitan urbanism in the twenty-first century|publisher=|year=|isbn=978-0-262-03469-2|location=Cambridge, Massachusetts|pages=213, 214|oclc=946160387}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|date=June 6, 2016|title=Interview: "Making Icade an integrated real estate operator, leader in France"|url=https://www.lerevenu.com/bourse/valeurs-en-vue/olivier-wigniolle-faire-dicade-un-operateur-immobilier-integre-leader-en}}</ref> is the largest REIT in healthcare sector of France and a key partner of major French cities.
== History ==
Société Centrale Immobilière de la Caisse des dépôts (SCIC) was founded in 1954 as a subsidiary of Caisse des dépôts et consignations. The company was a housing construction project owner in France, and was particularly active in the [[Paris]] region. During the 1950s and 1960s, it worked with a number of architects architects to build housing at [[Sarcelles]] (France's first large-scale programme, with over 10,000 housing units), [[Créteil]] and [[Massy, Essonne|Massy-Antony]].<ref>{{Cite web|title=Histoire|url=https://www.icade.fr/groupe/histoire|access-date=2020-06-04|website=Icade|language=fr}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://corporate-executives.com/companies/icade/|title=Icade profile|accessdate=May 25, 2020}}</ref> It was not until the 1980s that it started investing in non residential/public properties. By the end of the 1980s it owned around 200,000 rental homes.<ref name=":1" />

SCIC was renamed Icade SA in 2003, and its capital opened up to external [[Shareholder|shareholders]].<ref name=":1" />

In 2005, Icade delivered its first commercial building produced using HQE environment-friendly quality processes.

The [[initial public offering]] of Icade at the [[Euronext Paris]] on 12 April 2006 was valued at €2,64 billion.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.euronext.com/news/ipos/detail/details.jsp?docid=58593&lan=EN&cha=2050&displayMode=1|title=News|publisher=}}</ref>

Icade gained SIIC (REIT outside France) eligibility in 2007 after combining many of its subsidiaries.

In 2009, the French government considered Icade as a potential "asset in the strategic investment fund that will be key to reviving France's economy". However, this did not ultimately come to pass. In late 2009, Icade acquired Compagnie la Lucette from [[Morgan Stanley]].<ref name="ad">[http://www.icade.fr/en/content/download/8197/85753/version/3/file/2013-02-20-Icade_PR_Annuels+Results_2012.pdf Icade Annual Results (2012)]</ref>

On November 13, 2009 Icade sold about 4745 housing units to a group of 25 social housing investors representing another company SNI. That move brought the number of residential units sold or committed for sale in late 2009 to early 2010 up to 29,452. The value of assets divested adds up to about €2 billion.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.euroinvestor.co.uk/news/story.aspx?id=10735795|title=Icade : Sale of Icade's housing division|work=EuroInvestor}}</ref>

In the summer of 2010 Icade reached an agreement with [[MVRDV]] to develop part of France's first Eco-quarters, a residential complex made up of low energy buildings a first for France.<ref name="independent">{{Cite web|date=2010-08-07|title=Eco-quarters the new trend in city design - Environment - The Independent|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100807032238/https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/ecoquarters-the-new-trend-in-city-design-2041467.html|access-date=2020-06-03|website=web.archive.org}}</ref>

Icade and Silic [[Mergers and acquisitions|merged]] on 31 December 2013.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Icade et Silic annoncent leur fusion effective pour le 31 décembre|url=https://investir.lesechos.fr/actions/actualites/icade-et-silic-annoncent-leur-fusion-effective-pour-le-31-decembre-939589.php|access-date=2020-06-04|website=Investir|language=fr}}</ref> Since the merger, the new company has divested a number of assets in order to finance new construction projects and acquire more assets outside of France.<ref>{{cite web|date=January 12, 2011|title=Icade négocie le rachat de la part de Groupama dans Silic|url=http://www.agefi.fr/corporate/actualites/quotidien/20111201/icade-negocie-rachat-part-groupama-dans-silic-96989}}</ref>

On February 17th, 2015, Chairman and CEO of Icade, Serge Grzybowski, resigns. Icade SA appoints Jean-Paul Faugere as Chairman of the Board of Icade and Nathalie Palladitcheff as Chief Executive Officer on a temporary basis.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSFWN0VR02220150217|title=BRIEF-Chairman and CEO of Icade, Serge Grzybowski, resigns|date=February 17, 2015}}</ref>

In 2017 Icade acquired ANF for 400 million euro.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2017-07-24|title=Immobilier : Icade rachète ANF|url=https://www.lesechos.fr/2017/07/immobilier-icade-rachete-anf-176722|access-date=2020-06-03|website=Les Echos|language=fr}}</ref> The merger into Icade was completed on 29 june 2018.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2019-02-24|title=ANF immobilier|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190224121126/https://www.anf-immobilier.com/en/homepage/|access-date=2020-06-03|website=web.archive.org}}</ref>

In December 2018 Icade sold their main office in Issy-les-Moulineaux for 100 million euro. They continue to occupy the building as a tenant.<ref name=":0">{{cite web|url=https://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-eco/2019/01/03/97002-20190103FILWWW00207-immobilier-icade-cede-les-murs-de-son-siege.php|title=Immobilier: Icade cède les murs de son siege|date=January 3, 2019}}</ref>

In 2018 Icade bought several retirement homes for 100 million euro in [[Italy]].<ref name=":0" /> In 2019 it acquired 19 long term care homes in [[Germany]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/trending/ljw_uih5xpixxwi1nbpmrw2|title=Icade reveals plans to establish first Europe-wide healthcare REIT |date=July 23, 2018}}</ref>
== Key figures ==
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! !! 31/12/2012 !! 31/12/2013
|-
| Net profit group share (million €) || 53 || 127
|-
| EPRA triple net NAV per share (€) || 80.7 || 77.3
|-
| Net worth (billion €) || 6.8 || 9.1
|-
| Employees || 1,721 || 1,479
|-
| Square metres owned by Icade || 2,436,759 || 3,085,000
|-
| Clinics owned by Icade || 55 || 59
|-
|}

== Assets ==
Icade's assets include offices, shopping centres, business parks, healthcare facilities.
* Offices: In France, Icade handles office properties most of which are located in and around Paris.<ref name=ad/>
* Business parks: Icade's business parks are located in Paris, Saint-Denis, Aubervilliers, Rungis, Nanterre-Seine, Colombes...
* Icade owns two shopping centres: Le Millénaire in Aubervilliers (north-eastern Paris suburbs), opened in April 2011 (50%-owned by Klépierre) and "Le Parc de Fresnes".

The alternative assets portfolio (Icade Santé) : Icade owns 62 establishments as at 30/06/2014.

Many of the buildings in [[La Défense]] belong to Icade.<ref name="telegraph" /> 

== Notes ==
{{Reflist}}

== External links ==
{{commonscatinline}}
* {{Official|http://www.icade.fr/en }}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Icade}}
[[Category:Real estate companies of France]]
[[Category:Companies based in Paris]]
[[Category:Real estate companies established in 1954]]
[[Category:1954 establishments in France]]
{{CAC Mid 60}}

Icade

2020-06-04T17:00:50Z

Dwaro: fix HQ

{{Article for deletion/dated|page=Icade|timestamp=20200521233056|year=2020|month=May|day=21|substed=yes|help=off}}


{{Expand language|langcode=fr|Icade|date=June 2020}}
{{about|the investment company|the iPad accessory|iCade|the Spanish schools|ICADE}}
{{Infobox company
| name = Icade
| logo = Icade logo.svg
| type = [[Public company|public]]
| traded_as = {{euronext|ICAD}} [[CAC Mid 60|CAC Mid 60 Component]]
| foundation = 1860 (SCIC) <ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.forbes.com/companies/icade/#767f7b38165f|title=Forbes 2000 list : Icade|accessdate=May 25, 2020}}</ref>F
| location = [[Issy-les-Moulineaux]], [[Paris]], [[France]]
| key_people = Olivier Wigniolle, CEO <ref name=ceo>[http://www.icade.fr/en/icade/direction/executive-committee/olivier-wigniolle, "Icade's page on Olivier Wigniolle". ''Icade.fr (EN)'']</ref>
| industry = [[real estate investment trust|Real-estate investment company]]
| assets = € 11.3 billion (on December 31, 2018)<ref name=financial>[http://www.icade.fr/en/content/download/17548/208726/version/2/file/PR_Icade-FY_2018-Financial_results.pdf, "Icade Annual Results (2018)"]</ref>
| revenue = € 1.77 billion (on December 31, 2018)<ref name=financial/>
| net_income = € 300.2 million (2019)
| homepage = [http://www.icade.fr/en/ Icade (EN)]
}}
[[File:ICADE SA logo.jpg|thumb|Previous logo]]
'''Icade SA''' is a [[Multinational corporation|multinational]] [[real estate investment trust]] (REIT) that is [[Headquarters|headquartered]] in [[Issy-les-Moulineaux]], [[Paris]], [[France]] and is a subsidiary of [[Caisse des dépôts et consignations]]. The name is an abbreviation of '''I'''mmobilière '''Ca'''isse des '''Dé'''pôts.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web|title=Cession du pôle logement d'Immobilière Caisse des dépôts - Sénat|url=https://www.senat.fr/questions/base/2009/qSEQ09010409S.html|access-date=2020-06-03|website=www.senat.fr}}</ref> It invests in various types of properties including health care, offices, business parks, housing and public facilities. It is one of the largest property businesses of France.<ref name="telegraph">{{cite web|date=July 18, 2018|title=Questor: this French property firm could be a beneficiary of a 'hard Brexit'|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/investing/shares/questor-share-tip-buy-icade-could-benefit-hard-brexit/}}</ref> Icade became the leading commercial real-estate company for offices and business parks in the [[Île-de-France|Ile-de-France]] region,<ref>{{Cite book|last=Enright, Theresa,|first=|url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/946160387|title=The making of grand Paris : metropolitan urbanism in the twenty-first century|publisher=|year=|isbn=978-0-262-03469-2|location=Cambridge, Massachusetts|pages=213, 214|oclc=946160387}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|date=June 6, 2016|title=Interview: "Making Icade an integrated real estate operator, leader in France"|url=https://www.lerevenu.com/bourse/valeurs-en-vue/olivier-wigniolle-faire-dicade-un-operateur-immobilier-integre-leader-en}}</ref> is the largest real-estate investment company in healthcare sector of France and a key partner of major French cities.
== History ==
Société Centrale Immobilière de la Caisse des dépôts (SCIC) was founded in 1954 as a subsidiary of Caisse des dépôts et consignations. The company was a housing construction project owner in France, and was particularly active in the [[Paris]] region. During the 1950s and 1960s, it worked with a number of architects architects to build housing at Sarcelles (France's first large-scale programme, with over 10,000 housing units), [[Créteil]] and Massy-Antony. <ref>{{cite web|url=https://corporate-executives.com/companies/icade/|title=Icade profile|accessdate=May 25, 2020}}</ref> It was not until the 1980s that it started investing in non residential/public properties. By the end of the 1980s it owned around 200,000 rental homes.<ref name=":1" />

SCIC was renamed Icade SA in 2003, and its capital opened up to external [[Shareholder|shareholders]].<ref name=":1" />

In 2005, Icade delivered its first commercial building produced using HQE environment-friendly quality processes.

The [[initial public offering]] of Icade at the [[Euronext Paris]] on 12 April 2006 was valued at €2,64 billion.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.euronext.com/news/ipos/detail/details.jsp?docid=58593&lan=EN&cha=2050&displayMode=1|title=News|publisher=}}</ref>

Icade gained SIIC (REIT outside France) eligibility in 2007 after combining many of its subsidiaries.

In 2009, the French government considered Icade as a potential "asset in the strategic investment fund that will be key to reviving France's economy". However, this did not ultimately come to pass. In late 2009, Icade acquired Compagnie la Lucette from [[Morgan Stanley]].<ref name="ad">[http://www.icade.fr/en/content/download/8197/85753/version/3/file/2013-02-20-Icade_PR_Annuels+Results_2012.pdf Icade Annual Results (2012)]</ref>

On November 13, 2009 Icade sold about 4745 housing units to a group of 25 social housing investors representing another company SNI. That move brought the number of residential units sold or committed for sale in late 2009 to early 2010 up to 29,452. The value of assets divested adds up to about €2 billion.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.euroinvestor.co.uk/news/story.aspx?id=10735795|title=Icade : Sale of Icade's housing division|work=EuroInvestor}}</ref>

In the summer of 2010 Icade reached an agreement with another company called MVRDV to develop part of France's first Eco-quarters, a residential complex made up of low energy buildings a first for France.<ref name="independent">{{Cite web|date=2010-08-07|title=Eco-quarters the new trend in city design - Environment - The Independent|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100807032238/https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/ecoquarters-the-new-trend-in-city-design-2041467.html|access-date=2020-06-03|website=web.archive.org}}</ref>

Icade and Silic [[Mergers and acquisitions|merged]] on 31 December 2013.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Icade et Silic annoncent leur fusion effective pour le 31 décembre|url=https://investir.lesechos.fr/actions/actualites/icade-et-silic-annoncent-leur-fusion-effective-pour-le-31-decembre-939589.php|access-date=2020-06-04|website=Investir|language=fr}}</ref> Since the merger, the new company has divested a number of assets in order to finance new construction projects and acquire more assets outside of France.<ref>{{cite web|date=January 12, 2011|title=Icade négocie le rachat de la part de Groupama dans Silic|url=http://www.agefi.fr/corporate/actualites/quotidien/20111201/icade-negocie-rachat-part-groupama-dans-silic-96989}}</ref>

On February 17th, 2015, Chairman and CEO of Icade, Serge Grzybowski, resigns. Icade SA appoints Jean-Paul Faugere as Chairman of the Board of Icade and Nathalie Palladitcheff as Chief Executive Officer on a temporary basis.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSFWN0VR02220150217|title=BRIEF-Chairman and CEO of Icade, Serge Grzybowski, resigns|date=February 17, 2015}}</ref>

In 2017 Icade acquired ANF for 400 million euro.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2017-07-24|title=Immobilier : Icade rachète ANF|url=https://www.lesechos.fr/2017/07/immobilier-icade-rachete-anf-176722|access-date=2020-06-03|website=Les Echos|language=fr}}</ref> The merger into Icade was completed on 29 june 2018.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2019-02-24|title=ANF immobilier|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190224121126/https://www.anf-immobilier.com/en/homepage/|access-date=2020-06-03|website=web.archive.org}}</ref>

In December 2018 Icade sold their main office in Issy-les-Moulineaux for 100 million euro. They continue to occupy the building as a tentant.<ref name=":0">{{cite web|url=https://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-eco/2019/01/03/97002-20190103FILWWW00207-immobilier-icade-cede-les-murs-de-son-siege.php|title=Immobilier: Icade cède les murs de son siege|date=January 3, 2019}}</ref>

In 2018 Icade bought several retirement homes for 100 million euro in Italy.<ref name=":0" /> In 2019 it acquired 19 long term care homes in Germany.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/trending/ljw_uih5xpixxwi1nbpmrw2|title=Icade reveals plans to establish first Europe-wide healthcare REIT |date=July 23, 2018}}</ref>
== Key figures ==
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! !! 31/12/2012 !! 31/12/2013
|-
| Net profit group share (million €) || 53 || 127
|-
| EPRA triple net NAV per share (€) || 80.7 || 77.3
|-
| Net worth (billion €) || 6.8 || 9.1
|-
| Employees || 1,721 || 1,479
|-
| Square metres owned by Icade || 2,436,759 || 3,085,000
|-
| Clinics owned by Icade || 55 || 59
|-
|}

== Assets ==
Icade's assets include offices, shopping centres, business parks, healthcare facilities.
* Offices: In France, Icade handles office properties most of which are located in and around Paris.<ref name=ad/>
* Business parks: Icade's business parks are located in Paris, Saint-Denis, Aubervilliers, Rungis, Nanterre-Seine, Colombes...
* Icade owns two shopping centres: Le Millénaire in Aubervilliers (north-eastern Paris suburbs), opened in April 2011 (50%-owned by Klépierre) and "Le Parc de Fresnes".

The alternative assets portfolio (Icade Santé) : Icade owns 62 establishments as at 30/06/2014.

Many of the buildings in [[La Défense]] belong to Icade.<ref name="telegraph" /> 

== Notes ==
{{Reflist}}

== External links ==
{{commonscatinline}}
* {{Official|http://www.icade.fr/en }}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Icade}}
[[Category:Real estate companies of France]]
[[Category:Companies based in Paris]]
[[Category:Real estate companies established in 1954]]
[[Category:1954 establishments in France]]
{{CAC Mid 60}}

Immobilière Caisse des Dépôts

2020-06-04T16:53:53Z

Dwaro: create redirect of full name

#REDIRECT [[Icade]]

SCIC

2020-06-04T16:53:21Z

Dwaro: add Icade

'''SCIC''' can mean:

* [[Directorate-General for Interpretation]], abbreviated after its former French name ''Service Commun Interprétation-Conférences''
* Société Centrale Immobilière de la Caisse des dépôts, the predecessor of real-estate investment company [[Icade]]
* the Supreme Council of Islamic Courts, another name for the [[Islamic Courts Union]]
* [[State Capital Investment Corporation]], a state-owned company in Vietnam

{{Disambig}}

Icade SA

2020-06-04T16:51:29Z

Dwaro: ←Redirected page to Icade

#REDIRECT [[Icade]]

Icade

2020-06-04T16:50:25Z

Dwaro: fix history paragraph

{{Article for deletion/dated|page=Icade|timestamp=20200521233056|year=2020|month=May|day=21|substed=yes|help=off}}


{{Expand language|langcode=fr|Icade|date=June 2020}}
{{about|the investment company|the iPad accessory|iCade|the Spanish schools|ICADE}}
{{Infobox company
| name = Icade
| logo = Icade logo.svg
| type = [[Public company|public]]
| traded_as = {{euronext|ICAD}} [[CAC Mid 60|CAC Mid 60 Component]]
| foundation = 1860 (SCIC) <ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.forbes.com/companies/icade/#767f7b38165f|title=Forbes 2000 list : Icade|accessdate=May 25, 2020}}</ref>F
| location = [[Issy-les-Moulineaux]], [[France]]
| key_people = Olivier Wigniolle, CEO <ref name=ceo>[http://www.icade.fr/en/icade/direction/executive-committee/olivier-wigniolle, "Icade's page on Olivier Wigniolle". ''Icade.fr (EN)'']</ref>
| industry = [[real estate investment trust|Real-estate investment company]]
| assets = € 11.3 billion (on December 31, 2018)<ref name=financial>[http://www.icade.fr/en/content/download/17548/208726/version/2/file/PR_Icade-FY_2018-Financial_results.pdf, "Icade Annual Results (2018)"]</ref>
| revenue = € 1.77 billion (on December 31, 2018)<ref name=financial/>
| net_income = € 300.2 million (2019)
| homepage = [http://www.icade.fr/en/ Icade (EN)]
}}
[[File:ICADE SA logo.jpg|thumb|Previous logo]]
'''Icade SA''' is a [[Multinational corporation|multinational]] [[real estate investment trust]] (REIT) that is [[Headquarters|headquartered]] in [[Paris]], [[France]] and is a subsidiary of [[Caisse des dépôts et consignations]]. The name is an abbreviation of '''I'''mmobilière '''Ca'''isse des '''Dé'''pôts.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web|title=Cession du pôle logement d'Immobilière Caisse des dépôts - Sénat|url=https://www.senat.fr/questions/base/2009/qSEQ09010409S.html|access-date=2020-06-03|website=www.senat.fr}}</ref> It invests in various types of properties including health care, offices, business parks, housing and public facilities. It is one of the largest property businesses of France.<ref name="telegraph">{{cite web|date=July 18, 2018|title=Questor: this French property firm could be a beneficiary of a 'hard Brexit'|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/investing/shares/questor-share-tip-buy-icade-could-benefit-hard-brexit/}}</ref> Icade became the leading commercial real-estate company for offices and business parks in the [[Île-de-France|Ile-de-France]] region,<ref>{{Cite book|last=Enright, Theresa,|first=|url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/946160387|title=The making of grand Paris : metropolitan urbanism in the twenty-first century|publisher=|year=|isbn=978-0-262-03469-2|location=Cambridge, Massachusetts|pages=213, 214|oclc=946160387}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|date=June 6, 2016|title=Interview: "Making Icade an integrated real estate operator, leader in France"|url=https://www.lerevenu.com/bourse/valeurs-en-vue/olivier-wigniolle-faire-dicade-un-operateur-immobilier-integre-leader-en}}</ref> is the largest real-estate investment company in healthcare sector of France and a key partner of major French cities.
== History ==
Société Centrale Immobilière de la Caisse des dépôts (SCIC) was founded in 1954 as a subsidiary of Caisse des dépôts et consignations. The company was a housing construction project owner in France, and was particularly active in the [[Paris]] region. During the 1950s and 1960s, it worked with a number of architects architects to build housing at Sarcelles (France's first large-scale programme, with over 10,000 housing units), [[Créteil]] and Massy-Antony. <ref>{{cite web|url=https://corporate-executives.com/companies/icade/|title=Icade profile|accessdate=May 25, 2020}}</ref> It was not until the 1980s that it started investing in non residential/public properties. By the end of the 1980s it owned around 200,000 rental homes.<ref name=":1" />

SCIC was renamed Icade SA in 2003, and its capital opened up to external [[Shareholder|shareholders]].<ref name=":1" />

In 2005, Icade delivered its first commercial building produced using HQE environment-friendly quality processes.

The [[initial public offering]] of Icade at the [[Euronext Paris]] on 12 April 2006 was valued at €2,64 billion.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.euronext.com/news/ipos/detail/details.jsp?docid=58593&lan=EN&cha=2050&displayMode=1|title=News|publisher=}}</ref>

Icade gained SIIC (REIT outside France) eligibility in 2007 after combining many of its subsidiaries.

In 2009, the French government considered Icade as a potential "asset in the strategic investment fund that will be key to reviving France's economy". However, this did not ultimately come to pass. In late 2009, Icade acquired Compagnie la Lucette from [[Morgan Stanley]].<ref name="ad">[http://www.icade.fr/en/content/download/8197/85753/version/3/file/2013-02-20-Icade_PR_Annuels+Results_2012.pdf Icade Annual Results (2012)]</ref>

On November 13, 2009 Icade sold about 4745 housing units to a group of 25 social housing investors representing another company SNI. That move brought the number of residential units sold or committed for sale in late 2009 to early 2010 up to 29,452. The value of assets divested adds up to about €2 billion.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.euroinvestor.co.uk/news/story.aspx?id=10735795|title=Icade : Sale of Icade's housing division|work=EuroInvestor}}</ref>

In the summer of 2010 Icade reached an agreement with another company called MVRDV to develop part of France's first Eco-quarters, a residential complex made up of low energy buildings a first for France.<ref name="independent">{{Cite web|date=2010-08-07|title=Eco-quarters the new trend in city design - Environment - The Independent|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100807032238/https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/ecoquarters-the-new-trend-in-city-design-2041467.html|access-date=2020-06-03|website=web.archive.org}}</ref>

Icade and Silic [[Mergers and acquisitions|merged]] on 31 December 2013.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Icade et Silic annoncent leur fusion effective pour le 31 décembre|url=https://investir.lesechos.fr/actions/actualites/icade-et-silic-annoncent-leur-fusion-effective-pour-le-31-decembre-939589.php|access-date=2020-06-04|website=Investir|language=fr}}</ref> Since the merger, the new company has divested a number of assets in order to finance new construction projects and acquire more assets outside of France.<ref>{{cite web|date=January 12, 2011|title=Icade négocie le rachat de la part de Groupama dans Silic|url=http://www.agefi.fr/corporate/actualites/quotidien/20111201/icade-negocie-rachat-part-groupama-dans-silic-96989}}</ref>

On February 17th, 2015, Chairman and CEO of Icade, Serge Grzybowski, resigns. Icade SA appoints Jean-Paul Faugere as Chairman of the Board of Icade and Nathalie Palladitcheff as Chief Executive Officer on a temporary basis.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSFWN0VR02220150217|title=BRIEF-Chairman and CEO of Icade, Serge Grzybowski, resigns|date=February 17, 2015}}</ref>

In 2017 Icade acquired ANF for 400 million euro.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2017-07-24|title=Immobilier : Icade rachète ANF|url=https://www.lesechos.fr/2017/07/immobilier-icade-rachete-anf-176722|access-date=2020-06-03|website=Les Echos|language=fr}}</ref> The merger into Icade was completed on 29 june 2018.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2019-02-24|title=ANF immobilier|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190224121126/https://www.anf-immobilier.com/en/homepage/|access-date=2020-06-03|website=web.archive.org}}</ref>

In December 2018 Icade sold their main office in Issy-les-Moulineaux for 100 million euro. They continue to occupy the building as a tentant.<ref name=":0">{{cite web|url=https://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-eco/2019/01/03/97002-20190103FILWWW00207-immobilier-icade-cede-les-murs-de-son-siege.php|title=Immobilier: Icade cède les murs de son siege|date=January 3, 2019}}</ref>

In 2018 Icade bought several retirement homes for 100 million euro in Italy.<ref name=":0" /> In 2019 it acquired 19 long term care homes in Germany.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/trending/ljw_uih5xpixxwi1nbpmrw2|title=Icade reveals plans to establish first Europe-wide healthcare REIT |date=July 23, 2018}}</ref>
== Key figures ==
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! !! 31/12/2012 !! 31/12/2013
|-
| Net profit group share (million €) || 53 || 127
|-
| EPRA triple net NAV per share (€) || 80.7 || 77.3
|-
| Net worth (billion €) || 6.8 || 9.1
|-
| Employees || 1,721 || 1,479
|-
| Square metres owned by Icade || 2,436,759 || 3,085,000
|-
| Clinics owned by Icade || 55 || 59
|-
|}

== Assets ==
Icade's assets include offices, shopping centres, business parks, healthcare facilities.
* Offices: In France, Icade handles office properties most of which are located in and around Paris.<ref name=ad/>
* Business parks: Icade's business parks are located in Paris, Saint-Denis, Aubervilliers, Rungis, Nanterre-Seine, Colombes...
* Icade owns two shopping centres: Le Millénaire in Aubervilliers (north-eastern Paris suburbs), opened in April 2011 (50%-owned by Klépierre) and "Le Parc de Fresnes".

The alternative assets portfolio (Icade Santé) : Icade owns 62 establishments as at 30/06/2014.

Many of the buildings in [[La Défense]] belong to Icade.<ref name="telegraph" /> 

== Notes ==
{{Reflist}}

== External links ==
{{commonscatinline}}
* {{Official|http://www.icade.fr/en }}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Icade}}
[[Category:Real estate companies of France]]
[[Category:Companies based in Paris]]
[[Category:Real estate companies established in 1954]]
[[Category:1954 establishments in France]]
{{CAC Mid 60}}

External stakeholders

2020-06-04T16:46:37Z

Dwaro: ←Redirected page to Organizational stakeholders#External stakeholders

#REDIRECT [[Organizational_stakeholders#External_stakeholders]]

Organizational stakeholders

2020-06-04T16:46:08Z

Dwaro: fix capital letters

{{Orphan|date=August 2017}}

In the 1980s, a change in companies [[organizational culture]] began when internal and external actors started to demand more from the company's which they used to acquire goods and services from. Actors wanted companies to reflect their core values, or the values that were established the moment when the organization was created; these values also need to reflect the companies organizational culture . These actors were later on given the name of [[Project stakeholder|stakeholders]], which are people or groups who have an interest, claim, or stake in the organization. To be more specific, they focus on what a company does and how well it performs.<ref name=":0">Edwards, Janice (2017). ''Mastering strategic management''. Retrieved from:http://catalogue.pearsoned.ca/assets/hip/ca/hip_ca_pearsonhighered/samplechapter/0131245228.pdf</ref> As companies began to maximize their profits, stakeholders became more demanding and influential in the [[Decision-making process|decision making process]]. These groups of stakeholders began insisting on a more dynamic, stimulating, and rewarding work environment that would result in better work conditions. In order to fully maximize profit, there must be a complete integration of the interests of both internal and external stakeholders.

== Composition of stakeholders and their contributions ==
{| class="wikitable"
!Stakeholders
!Contribution to the Organisation
|-
|Shareholders
|Money and Capital
|-
|Managers
|Skills and Expertise
|-
|Employees
|Skills and Expertise
|-
|Customers
|Revenue from purchase of goods and services
|-
|Suppliers
|High-quality inputs
|-
|Unions
|Free and fair collective bargaining
|-
|Government
|Rules governing good business practice
|-
|Pressure Groups
|Social and economic infrastructure
|-
|General Public
|Customer loyalty and reputation
|}
<ref name=":0" />

== Internal stakeholders ==
[[File:Stakeholder (en).svg|thumb|Stakeholders can be divided into two main categories: Internal Stakeholders and External Stakeholders. |350x350px]]
Internal stakeholders can be considered the first line of action when it comes to implementing decisions in a company, due to the fact that they have direct influence on its organizational resources.<ref>Greenwood, Michelle (2001). ''The Importance of Stakeholders According to Business Leaders.'' Retrieved from:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/0045-3609.00100/abstract</ref> The classification of internal stakeholders can be divided into three categories: [[shareholder]]s, managerial employees, and employees. Shareholders typically believe that they are the ones with the most power when it comes to influencing decision making because they own a part of the company, however, managerial and nonmanagerial employees should be given the same amount of credit because they are the ones in charge of applying the different politics that have been established at a managerial level to assure the success of company. While managers transmit the organizations goals, the nonmanagers are in charge of putting these goals into practice. The success of a company occurs when these three categories are given the same importance, and therefore, become synchronized to achieve the same goals.

== External stakeholders ==
External stakeholders are people who neither own a part of the organization nor employed by it, but do have some interest in it or its activities. While internal stakeholders are divided specifically into three categories, external stakeholders are made up of a more broad set of actors. These actors can be: Customers, suppliers, [[Trade union|unions]], the government, [[Pressure Groups|pressure groups]], and the general public can all be considered external stakeholders.<ref>Cipsknowledge, (2014). ''Internal, connected and external stakeholders.'' Retrieved from: https://www.cips.org/Documents/Knowledge/Procurement-Topics-and-Skills/2-Procurement-Organisation/Stakeholders/Stakeholders.pdf</ref> The demands put forth by these actors motivate the organization to accomplish there values and goals that were established when the organization was created. On the other hand, the external stakeholders can evaluate the [[effectiveness]] of the organization depending on whether or not they satisfy the interests of these actors.<ref>Grant T. Savage, Timothy W. Nix, Carlton J. Whitehead and John D. Blair, (1991) ''Strategies for Assessing and Managing Organizational Stakeholders.'' Retrieved from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4165008?Search=yes&resultItemClick=true&searchText=organizational&searchText=stakeholders&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3Facc%3Don%26amp%3Bfc%3Doff%26amp%3BQuery%3Dorganizational%2Bstakeholders%26amp%3Bwc%3Don%26amp%3Bgroup%3Dnone&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents</ref> If external stakeholders feel that the company is not handling the issues that they have presented, they have the capacity to indirectly influence the market where the company develops its business, leading to a decrease in the profit of that organization until they have addressed this issue.

== Satisfaction of organizational stakeholders ==

It is clear that the groups that make up organizational stakeholders have their own interests that need to be satisfied, these being either internal or external stakeholders. These interests can vary from financial, technological, or at times can even turn into [[ethical demand]]s. Therefore, an organization, whether big or small, must first find a way to define, fully understand and address these interests that stakeholders are demanding to be taken care of.<ref>Mosaic, (nd). ''Success and Stakeholders''. Retrieved from: http://www.mosaicprojects.com.au/Mag_Articles/N009_Success_and_Stakeholders.pdf</ref> This is a very delicate process that needs to be addressed with discretion, due to the fact that this can identify the long term success of an organization or the failure of the same, “an organisation that does not have the ability to satisfy its stakeholders defeats the purpose of its existence.” <ref>LSM, (2015)''. Defining, understanding and meeting the needs of stakeholders.'' Retrieved from: http://www.londonschoolofmarketing.com/blog/bid/360192/Defining-understanding-and-meeting-the-needs-of-stakeholders</ref>

== See also ==
* [[Stakeholder (corporate)|Stakeholder]]
* [[Organizational culture]]
* [[Strategic planning]]

== References ==
<references />

[[Category:Planning]]

Icade

2020-06-04T13:58:50Z

Dwaro: move text out of the intro and other various source fixes

{{Article for deletion/dated|page=Icade|timestamp=20200521233056|year=2020|month=May|day=21|substed=yes|help=off}}


{{Expand language|langcode=fr|Icade|date=June 2020}}
{{about|the investment company|the iPad accessory|iCade|the Spanish schools|ICADE}}
{{Infobox company
| name = Icade
| logo = Icade logo.svg
| type = [[Public company|public]]
| traded_as = {{euronext|ICAD}} [[CAC Mid 60|CAC Mid 60 Component]]
| foundation = 1860 (SCIC) <ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.forbes.com/companies/icade/#767f7b38165f|title=Forbes 2000 list : Icade|accessdate=May 25, 2020}}</ref>F
| location = [[Issy-les-Moulineaux]], [[France]]
| key_people = Olivier Wigniolle, CEO <ref name=ceo>[http://www.icade.fr/en/icade/direction/executive-committee/olivier-wigniolle, "Icade's page on Olivier Wigniolle". ''Icade.fr (EN)'']</ref>
| industry = [[real estate investment trust|Real-estate investment company]]
| assets = € 11.3 billion (on December 31, 2018)<ref name=financial>[http://www.icade.fr/en/content/download/17548/208726/version/2/file/PR_Icade-FY_2018-Financial_results.pdf, "Icade Annual Results (2018)"]</ref>
| revenue = € 1.77 billion (on December 31, 2018)<ref name=financial/>
| net_income = € 300.2 million (2019)
| homepage = [http://www.icade.fr/en/ Icade (EN)]
}}
[[File:ICADE SA logo.jpg|thumb|Previous logo]]
'''Icade SA''' is a [[Multinational corporation|multinational]] [[real estate investment trust]] (REIT) that is [[Headquarters|headquartered]] in [[Paris]], [[France]] and is a subsidiary of [[Caisse des dépôts et consignations]]. The name is an abbreviation of '''I'''mmobilière '''Ca'''isse des '''Dé'''pôts.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Cession du pôle logement d'Immobilière Caisse des dépôts - Sénat|url=https://www.senat.fr/questions/base/2009/qSEQ09010409S.html|access-date=2020-06-03|website=www.senat.fr}}</ref> It invests in various types of properties including health care, offices, business parks, housing and public facilities. It is one of the largest property businesses of France.<ref name="telegraph">{{cite web|date=July 18, 2018|title=Questor: this French property firm could be a beneficiary of a 'hard Brexit'|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/investing/shares/questor-share-tip-buy-icade-could-benefit-hard-brexit/}}</ref> Icade became the leading commercial real-estate company for offices and business parks in the [[Île-de-France|Ile-de-France]] region,<ref>{{Cite book|last=Enright, Theresa,|first=|url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/946160387|title=The making of grand Paris : metropolitan urbanism in the twenty-first century|publisher=|year=|isbn=978-0-262-03469-2|location=Cambridge, Massachusetts|pages=213, 214|oclc=946160387}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|date=June 6, 2016|title=Interview: "Making Icade an integrated real estate operator, leader in France"|url=https://www.lerevenu.com/bourse/valeurs-en-vue/olivier-wigniolle-faire-dicade-un-operateur-immobilier-integre-leader-en}}</ref> is the largest real-estate investment company in healthcare sector of France and a key partner of major French cities.
== History ==

=== SCIC ===

SCIC was a housing construction project owner in France, and was particularly active in the [[Paris]] region. During the 1950s and 1960s, it worked with a number of architects architects to build housing at Sarcelles (France's first large-scale programme, with over 10,000 housing units), [[Créteil]] and Massy-Antony. <ref>{{cite web|url=https://corporate-executives.com/companies/icade/|title=Icade profile|accessdate=May 25, 2020}}</ref>

=== Icade ===

Icade was created in 1954 as Société Centrale Immobilière de la Caisse des dépôts by Caisse des dépôts as a subsidiary. It was not until the 1980s that it started investing in non residential/public properties. SCIC was renamed Icade SA in 2003, and its capital opened up to shareholders outside the Caisse des dépôts et consignations.

In 2005, Icade delivered its first commercial building produced using HQE environment-friendly quality processes.

The [[initial public offering]] of Icade at the [[Euronext Paris]] on 12 April 2006 was valued at €2,64 billion.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.euronext.com/news/ipos/detail/details.jsp?docid=58593&lan=EN&cha=2050&displayMode=1|title=News|publisher=}}</ref>

Icade gained SIIC (REIT outside France) eligibility in 2007 after combining many of its subsidiaries.

In 2009, the French government considered Icade as a potential "asset in the strategic investment fund that will be key to reviving France's economy". However, this did not ultimately come to pass. In late 2009, Icade acquired Compagnie la Lucette from [[Morgan Stanley]].<ref name="ad">[http://www.icade.fr/en/content/download/8197/85753/version/3/file/2013-02-20-Icade_PR_Annuels+Results_2012.pdf Icade Annual Results (2012)]</ref>

On November 13, 2009 Icade sold about 4745 housing units to a group of 25 social housing investors representing another company SNI. That move brought the number of residential units sold or committed for sale in late 2009 to early 2010 up to 29,452. The value of assets divested adds up to about €2 billion.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.euroinvestor.co.uk/news/story.aspx?id=10735795|title=Icade : Sale of Icade's housing division|work=EuroInvestor}}</ref>

In the summer of 2010 Icade reached an agreement with another company called MVRDV to develop part of France's first Eco-quarters, a residential complex made up of low energy buildings a first for France.<ref name="independent">{{Cite web|date=2010-08-07|title=Eco-quarters the new trend in city design - Environment - The Independent|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100807032238/https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/ecoquarters-the-new-trend-in-city-design-2041467.html|access-date=2020-06-03|website=web.archive.org}}</ref>

Icade and Silic [[Mergers and acquisitions|merged]] on 31 December 2013.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Icade et Silic annoncent leur fusion effective pour le 31 décembre|url=https://investir.lesechos.fr/actions/actualites/icade-et-silic-annoncent-leur-fusion-effective-pour-le-31-decembre-939589.php|access-date=2020-06-04|website=Investir|language=fr}}</ref> Since the merger, the new company has divested a number of assets in order to finance new construction projects and acquire more assets outside of France.<ref>{{cite web|date=January 12, 2011|title=Icade négocie le rachat de la part de Groupama dans Silic|url=http://www.agefi.fr/corporate/actualites/quotidien/20111201/icade-negocie-rachat-part-groupama-dans-silic-96989}}</ref>

On February 17th, 2015, Chairman and CEO of Icade, Serge Grzybowski, resigns. Icade SA appoints Jean-Paul Faugere as Chairman of the Board of Icade and Nathalie Palladitcheff as Chief Executive Officer on a temporary basis.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSFWN0VR02220150217|title=BRIEF-Chairman and CEO of Icade, Serge Grzybowski, resigns|date=February 17, 2015}}</ref>

In 2017 Icade acquired ANF for 400 million euro.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2017-07-24|title=Immobilier : Icade rachète ANF|url=https://www.lesechos.fr/2017/07/immobilier-icade-rachete-anf-176722|access-date=2020-06-03|website=Les Echos|language=fr}}</ref> The merger into Icade was completed on 29 june 2018.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2019-02-24|title=ANF immobilier|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190224121126/https://www.anf-immobilier.com/en/homepage/|access-date=2020-06-03|website=web.archive.org}}</ref>

In December 2018 Icade sold their main office in Issy-les-Moulineaux for 100 million euro. They continue to occupy the building as a tentant.<ref name=":0">{{cite web|url=https://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-eco/2019/01/03/97002-20190103FILWWW00207-immobilier-icade-cede-les-murs-de-son-siege.php|title=Immobilier: Icade cède les murs de son siege|date=January 3, 2019}}</ref>

In 2018 Icade bought several retirement homes for 100 million euro in Italy.<ref name=":0" /> In 2019 it acquired 19 long term care homes in Germany.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/trending/ljw_uih5xpixxwi1nbpmrw2|title=Icade reveals plans to establish first Europe-wide healthcare REIT |date=July 23, 2018}}</ref>
== Key figures ==
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! !! 31/12/2012 !! 31/12/2013
|-
| Net profit group share (million €) || 53 || 127
|-
| EPRA triple net NAV per share (€) || 80.7 || 77.3
|-
| Net worth (billion €) || 6.8 || 9.1
|-
| Employees || 1,721 || 1,479
|-
| Square metres owned by Icade || 2,436,759 || 3,085,000
|-
| Clinics owned by Icade || 55 || 59
|-
|}

== Assets ==
Icade's assets include offices, shopping centres, business parks, healthcare facilities.
* Offices: In France, Icade handles office properties most of which are located in and around Paris.<ref name=ad/>
* Business parks: Icade's business parks are located in Paris, Saint-Denis, Aubervilliers, Rungis, Nanterre-Seine, Colombes...
* Icade owns two shopping centres: Le Millénaire in Aubervilliers (north-eastern Paris suburbs), opened in April 2011 (50%-owned by Klépierre) and "Le Parc de Fresnes".

The alternative assets portfolio (Icade Santé) : Icade owns 62 establishments as at 30/06/2014.

Many of the buildings in [[La Défense]] belong to Icade.<ref name="telegraph" /> 

== Notes ==
{{Reflist}}

== External links ==
{{commonscatinline}}
* {{Official|http://www.icade.fr/en }}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Icade}}
[[Category:Real estate companies of France]]
[[Category:Companies based in Paris]]
[[Category:Real estate companies established in 1954]]
[[Category:1954 establishments in France]]
{{CAC Mid 60}}

Issy-les-Moulineaux

2020-06-03T22:06:58Z

Dwaro: /* Economy */ add Icade

{{Expand French|Issy-les-Moulineaux|date=July 2014|topic=geo}}

{{Infobox French commune
|name = Issy-les-Moulineaux
|commune status = [[Communes of France|Commune]]
|image = Petit Bras de Seine @ Issy-les-Moulineaux @ Paris (30184037683).jpg
|caption = [[Île Saint-Germain]], [[Seine]] River and [[Val de Seine]] business district in the background
|map = Issy-les-Moulineaux_map.svg
|map caption = Paris and [[Petite Couronne|inner ring]] départements
|coordinates = {{coord|48.8239|2.27|format=dms|display=inline,title}}
|image coat of arms = Blason ville fr Issy-les-Moulineaux (Hauts-de-Seine).svg
|region = Île-de-France
|department = Hauts-de-Seine
|arrondissement = Boulogne-Billancourt
|canton = Issy-les-Moulineaux
|INSEE = 92040
|postal code = 92130
|mayor = [[André Santini]] ([[New Centre|NC]])
|term =
|intercommunality = [[Grand Paris]]
|elevation m =
|elevation min m = 28
|elevation max m = 96
|area km2 = 4.25
|population = {{France metadata Wikidata|population_total}}
|population date = {{France metadata Wikidata|population_as_of}}
|population footnotes = {{France metadata Wikidata|population_footnotes}}
}}

'''Issy-les-Moulineaux''' ({{IPA-fr|isi le mulino}}) is a [[Communes of France|commune]] in the southwestern suburban area of Paris, France, lying on the left bank of the river [[Seine]]. It is one of Paris' entrances and is located {{convert|6.6|km|mi|abbr=on}} from Notre-Dame Church, which is considered [[Kilometre zero]] of France. On 1 January 2010, Issy-les-Moulineaux became part of the ''Grand Paris Seine Ouest'' [[agglomeration communities in France|agglomeration community]], which merged into the [[Métropole du Grand Paris]] in January 2016.

Issy-les-Moulineaux has successfully moved its economy from an old manufacturing base to high value-added service sectors and is at the heart of the [[Val de Seine]] [[central business district|business district]], the largest cluster of telecommunication and media businesses in France hosting the headquarters of most major French TV networks.

==Name==
Originally, Issy-les-Moulineaux was simply called Issy. The name Issy comes from [[Medieval Latin]] ''Issiacum'' or ''Isciacum'', perhaps meaning "estate of Isicius (or Iccius)", a [[Gallo-Roman]] landowner, although some think the name comes from a [[Celtic languages|Celtic]] radical meaning "under the wood". Local legend recounted on the city's official website mentions alternative origin of the name arising from a temple of the Egyptian goddess Isis said to be under the site of the Church of Saint Stephen.<ref>'' L'Eglise Sainte-Etienne severement touchee par les bombardements'' http://www.issy/taxonomy/term/492/leglise-saint-etienne</ref>

In 1893 Issy officially became Issy-les-Moulineaux. Les Moulineaux was the name of a hamlet on the territory of the commune, apparently named Les Moulineaux due to the windmills ({{Lang-fr|moulins}}) that stood there.

==History==
The town was once the location of the [[Château d'Issy]], destroyed in 1871, former home of the [[Princes of Conti]]. On 1 January 1860, the city of Paris was enlarged by annexing neighboring communes. On that occasion, about a third of the commune of Issy-les-Moulineaux was annexed to Paris, and forms now the neighborhood of [[Javel, France|Javel]], in the [[15th arrondissement of Paris]].

Issy-les-Moulineaux is home to a community of 5,000 Armenians that have established themselves in the area since the 1930s.<ref>{{cite news|title=Conférence: la présence arménienne à Issy|url=http://www.armenews.com/article.php3?id_article=109633|agency=Nouvelles d'Arménie Magazine|date=30 March 2015|language=French}}</ref> The community has two Armenian churches, an athletic club, a school, a monument dedicated to the [[Armenian Genocide]], and a street named after [[Armenia]] called ''Rue d'Armenie'', and ''Rue d'Erevan'' named after Armenia's capital [[Yerevan]].<ref name=asbarez>{{cite news|last1=Yessayan|first1=Catherine|title=Armenians of Issy-les-Moulineaux|url=http://asbarez.com/104286/armenians-of-issy-les-moulineaux/|agency=Asbarez|date=20 July 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last1=Marès|first1=Antoine|last2=Milza|first2=Pierre|title=Le Paris des étrangers depuis 1945|date=1994|publisher=Publications de la Sorbonne|isbn=2859442561|page=211|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ruZUfQqFYicC}}</ref> Issy-les-Moulineaux became twin cities with [[Vagharshapat|Echmiadzin]], Armenia in December 1989.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Hovanessian|first1=Martine|title=Les Arméniens et leurs territoires|date=1995|publisher=Editions Autrement|isbn=286260531X|page=133|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=dtSaAAAAIAAJ|language=French}}</ref>

==Airfield==
[[File:Bits & Pieces - BP374 - Test flight of Pescara's helicopter - 1922 - EYE FLM7760 - OB105716.ogv|thumb|Silent film of a test flight of [[Raúl Pateras Pescara|Pescara]]'s helicopter on the aerodrome of Issy-les-Moulineaux, 1922. [[EYE Film Institute Netherlands]].]]
[[File:lfpi.jpg|thumb|A [[Eurocopter AS365 Dauphin]] taking off from the heliport, with the [[Eiffel tower]] behind.]]
In the late 19th century, an expansive field in Issy had been dedicated to military exercises. This land, owned by the French Army, was made into an airfield in the 1900s during the [[History of aviation#The Pioneer Era (1903–1914)|pioneering era of aviation]]. Issy-les-Moulineaux soon became a hot spot for aviation in France, the most active airfield in Paris, and the site of many flight experiments. Photographers, newspaper reporters and intelligence agents from other countries gathered there to report on developments.<ref>{{cite book |last=Gibbs-Smith |first=Charles Harvard |authorlink=Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith | title=The Aeroplane: An Historical Survey of Its Origins and Development |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=mzcZAAAAIAAJ |year=1960 |location=London |publisher=Her Majesty's Stationery Office}}</ref>

The airfield of Issy-les-Moulineaux was the starting point of the [[1911 Paris to Madrid air race]]. One of the competing planes crashed into the audience during take-off, killing the French Minister of War [[Henri Maurice Berteaux]]. It hosted the [[trap shooting|trap]] [[Shooting at the 1924 Summer Olympics|shooting]] events for the [[1924 Summer Olympics]].<ref>[http://www.la84foundation.org/6oic/OfficialReports/1924/1924.pdf 1924 Olympics official report.] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110505162957/http://www.la84foundation.org/6oic/OfficialReports/1924/1924.pdf |date=2011-05-05 }} pp. 544-6. {{in lang|fr}}</ref>

The firm of [[Voisin|Appareils d'Aviation Les Frères Voisin]], the world's first commercial airplane factory (1908) which was initially located in [[Boulogne-Billancourt]],{{citation needed|date=June 2011}} transformed itself into a luxury automobile manufacturing company named [[Avions Voisin]] in 1920. Most of Voisin's manufacturing facilities were then relocated in neighboring Issy-les-Moulineaux. Avions Voisin closed its doors in 1940.

The last fixed wing flight occurred in 1953, after which the aerodrome handled only helicopters; it continues to do this, with the [[ICAO]] code LFPI. It is operated by [[Aéroports de Paris]].

==Demographics==

===Immigration===
{{France immigration
|collectivity_name=Issy-les-Moulineaux
|census_year=1999
|metropolitan_France=82.5
|outside_metropolitan_France=17.5
|overseas_France=1.3
|foreign_French=3.6
|EU-15=3.7
|non-EU-15=8.9
}}

==Administration==
Since the French [[Cantons of France|canton]] reorganisation which came into effect in March 2015, Issy forms one canton: [[Canton of Issy-les-Moulineaux]].<ref>[http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000028664297 Décret n° 2014-256 du 26 février 2014 portant délimitation des cantons dans le département des Hauts-de-Seine]</ref>

Mayors of Issy-les-Moulineaux:
* 1903–1908: [[Auguste Gervais]]
* 1908–1911: [[Henri Mayer]]
* 1911–1919: [[Léon-Victor Clément]]
* 1919–1922: [[Justin Oudin]]
* February – May 1923: [[Saint-Martin]] (Special delegation)
* May – October 1923: [[Eugène Demarne]]
* 1923–1935: [[Justin Oudin]]
* 1935–1939: [[Victor Cresson]]
* 1945–1949: [[Fernand Maillet]]
* 1949–1953: [[Jacques Madaule]]
* May – July 1953: Fernand Maillet
* 1953–1973: [[Bonaventure Leca]]
* 1973–1980: [[Raymond Menand]]
*1980 – present: [[André Santini]]

==Economy==
[[Eurosport]],<ref>"[http://www.eurosportcorporate.com]."</ref><ref>"[http://www.eurosport.com]."</ref> the [[Canal+ Group]],<ref>"[http://www.canalplusgroup.com/cid5460-pid136.htm Mentions legales] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100327154751/http://www.canalplusgroup.com/cid5460-pid136.htm |date=2010-03-27 }}." [[Canal+ Group]]. Retrieved on 5 March 2010.</ref> Coca-Cola France, [[France 24]],<ref>"[http://www.france24.com/en/contact-us Contact Us]." [[France 24]]. Retrieved on 29 October 2009.</ref> [[Microsoft]] France and Europe,<ref>"[http://www.microsoft.com/france/microsoft-en-france/microsoft-france/come-to-see-Microsoft-France.aspx Microsoft Campus in France]." [[Microsoft]]. Retrieved on 9 February 2012</ref> [[Sodexo]],<ref>"[http://www.sodexo.com/group_en/contact-communication-form.asp Contact Us] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110716101648/http://www.sodexo.com/group_en/contact-communication-form.asp |date=2011-07-16 }}." [[Sodexo]]. Retrieved on 1 June 2010.</ref>, [[Icade]]<ref>{{Cite web|last=AFP|first=Le Figaro fr avec|date=2019-01-03|title=Immobilier: Icade cède les murs de son siège|url=https://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-eco/2019/01/03/97002-20190103FILWWW00207-immobilier-icade-cede-les-murs-de-son-siege.php|access-date=2020-06-03|website=Le Figaro.fr|language=fr}}</ref> and [[Technicolor SA]]<ref>"[http://www.technicolor.com/GlobalEnglish/legal/Pages/default.aspx Legal] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100315223047/http://www.technicolor.com/GlobalEnglish/legal/Pages/default.aspx |date=2010-03-15 }}." [[Technicolor SA]]. Retrieved on 23 March 2010.</ref> are based in Issy-les-Moulineaux.

==Transport==
Issy-les-Moulineaux is served by two stations on [[Paris Métro Line 12]]: [[Corentin Celton (Paris Métro)|Corentin Celton]] and [[Mairie d'Issy (Paris Métro)|Mairie d'Issy]], two stations on Paris [[RER C|RER line C]]: [[ssy–Val de Seine station|Issy–Val de Seine]] and [[Issy (Paris RER)|Issy]] and three stations on [[Île-de-France tramway Line 2]]: Les Moulineaux, Jacques-Henri Lartigue and Issy–Val de Seine. Multiple [[RATP Group|RATP]] [[Bus (RATP)|bus]] lines have [[bus stop|stops]] or their arrival/departure [[bus station|station]] in the city.

Multiple [[Vélib']] and [[Autolib']] stations allow subscribers of those services to share bicycles or electric cars.

There was also a [[Aerial tramway|cable car]]<ref>[http://www.telepherique-issy.com/index.html Project's website] ({{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071005002015/http://www.telepherique-issy.com/index.html |date=October 5, 2007 }})</ref> project, abandoned in February 2008.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.leparisien.fr/hauts-de-seine/le-telepherique-sacrifie-sur-fond-de-campagne-19-02-2008-3296068056.php|title=Issy-les-Moulineaux - Le téléphérique sacrifié sur fond de campagne|newspaper=[[Le Parisien]]|date=2008-02-19|accessdate=2012-04-16 | language = French }}</ref>

==Education==
The commune has 17 public preschools,<ref>"[http://issy.com/vie-quotidienne/enfance/education/les-etablissements-scolaires-a-issy/les-ecoles-maternelles Les écoles maternelles]." Issy-les-Moulineaux. Retrieved on September 4, 2016.</ref> 16 public elementary schools.<ref>"[http://issy.com/vie-quotidienne/enfance/education/les-etablissements-scolaires-a-issy/les-ecoles-elementaires Les écoles élémentaires]." Issy-les-Moulineaux. Retrieved on September 4, 2016.</ref> four public junior high schools, one public senior high school,<ref>"[http://issy.com/vie-quotidienne/enfance/education/les-etablissements-scolaires-a-issy/l-enseignement-secondaire L'enseignement secondaire]." Issy-les-Moulineaux. Retrieved on September 4, 2016.</ref> and three private schools.<ref>"[http://issy.com/vie-quotidienne/enfance/education/les-etablissements-scolaires-a-issy/les-etablissements-prives Les établissements privés]." Issy-les-Moulineaux. Retrieved on September 4, 2016.</ref>

Junior high schools:
* Collège de la Paix
* Collège Henri Matisse
* Collège Georges Mandel
* Collège Victor Hugo

[[Lycée Eugène-Ionesco]] is the community's public senior high school.

Private schools:
* [[Groupe scolaire La Salle Saint Nicolas]] (junior and senior high school)
* École Arménienne « TARKMANTCHATZ » (preschool and elementary school) - An [[French Armenians|Armenian]] school
* École Sainte-Clotilde (preschool and elementary school)

==Personalities==
* [[Mickaël Brisset]], footballer
* [[Peter Leo Gerety]], Roman Catholic Archbishop (July 19, 1912 – September 20, 2016)
* [[Christelle Diallo]], basketball player
* [[Rahavi Kifouéti]], footballer
* [[Jean Jansem]], painter
* [[Leïla Bekhti]], actress
* [[Ali (French rapper)|Ali]], rapper
* [[Robert Charpentier]], cyclist
* [[Manu Larcenet]], comics writer
* [[Gilles Vincent]], (born 1958), writer

==Twin towns - sister cities==
Issy-les-Moulineaux is twinned with:<ref>{{cite web |title=Villes jumelles|url=https://www.issy.com/villesjumelles|website=issy.com|publisher=Issy-les-Moulineaux|language=fr|accessdate=2019-11-14}}</ref>
{{div col|colwidth=20em}}
*{{flagicon|GER}} [[Weiden in der Oberpfalz]], Germany, since 1954
*{{flagicon|BEL}} [[Frameries]], Belgium, since 1979
*{{flagicon|ITA}} [[Macerata]], Italy, since 1982
*{{flagicon|ENG}} [[London Borough of Hounslow|Hounslow]], London, United Kingdom, since 1982
*{{flagicon|TOG}} [[Dapaong]], Togo, since 1989
*{{flagicon|ARM}} [[Echmiadzin]], Armenia, since 1989
*{{flagicon|ESP}} [[Pozuelo de Alarcón]], Spain, since 1990
*{{flagicon|ISR}} [[Nahariya]], Israel, since 1994
*{{flagicon|CHN}} [[Dongcheng District, Beijing]], China, since 1998
*{{flagicon|CHN}} [[Leshan]], China
*{{flagicon|KOR}} [[Guro District, Seoul]], South Korea, since 2005
*{{flagicon|JPN}} [[Ichikawa, Chiba|Ichikawa]], Japan
*{{flagicon|IRN}} [[New Julfa|New Julfa (Isfahan)]], Iran
{{div col end}}

==Sites of interest==
* [[Île Saint-Germain]], an island located in the Seine. The island is divided into two parts, the urban side includes the offices and a residential area. The other side includes a park with the ''[[Tour aux Figures]]'' (Tower of Figures) [http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20051207223135/http://194.254.135.72/parcs/parcs/germain/images/isgtour.jpg] by [[Jean Dubuffet]]. The [[Île Seguin]] is downstream.
* [[Musée Français de la Carte à Jouer]], a museum of [[playing card]]s

==Gallery==
<gallery>
Image:Issy-les-Moulineaux mairie.jpg|City hall of Issy-les-Moulineaux ''(Mairie d'Issy)''.
Image:Villa-haussmann.jpg|Villa Haussmann (modern copy of architecture in the style of [[Georges-Eugène Haussmann]]) in Issy-les-Moulineaux.
Image:Issy seminaire Saint-Sulpice avec bassin.jpg|Saint-Sulpice Seminary, between Corentin Celton and Mairie d'Issy [[Paris Métro|metro]] stations.
Image:Issy 6.JPG|Rue Ernest Renan in Issy-les-Moulineaux, nearby Corentin Celton [[Paris Métro|metro]] station.
Image:IssyValSeine.jpg|Issy [[Val de Seine|Val-de-Seine]] business district.
Image:Metro - Paris - Ligne 12 - Mairie d Issy MF67.jpg|Mairie d'Issy [[Paris Métro|metro]] station ([[Paris Métro Line 12|Line 12]]).
</gallery>

==See also==
{{Portal|France}}
* [[Communes of the Hauts-de-Seine department]]
* [[List of works by Auguste Carli]]

==References==
* [http://www.insee.fr/en/home/home_page.asp INSEE]
{{Reflist}}

==External links==
{{Commons category|Issy-les-Moulineaux}}
* [http://issy.com Issy City Hall]
* [https://archive.is/20130127212743/http://issytourisme.com/en/ Issy Tourism Office]
* [http://www.issy.tv/ Issy TV]
{{Issy-les-Moulineaux}}
{{Paris Metropolitan Area}}
{{Hauts-de-Seine communes}}
{{1924 Summer Olympic venues}}
{{Olympic venues shooting}}

{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Issylesmoulineaux}}
[[Category:Venues of the 1924 Summer Olympics]]
[[Category:Olympic shooting venues]]
[[Category:Communes of Hauts-de-Seine]]
[[Category:Armenian diaspora communities]]
[[Category:Articles containing video clips]]
[[Category:Hauts-de-Seine communes articles needing translation from French Wikipedia]]

Icade

2020-06-03T21:24:44Z

Dwaro: various fixes and cleanups

{{Article for deletion/dated|page=Icade|timestamp=20200521233056|year=2020|month=May|day=21|substed=yes|help=off}}


{{Expand language|langcode=fr|Icade|date=June 2020}}
{{about|the investment company|the iPad accessory|iCade|the Spanish schools|ICADE}}
{{Infobox company
| name = Icade
| logo = Icade logo.svg
| type = [[Public company|public]]
| traded_as = {{euronext|ICAD}} [[CAC Mid 60|CAC Mid 60 Component]]
| foundation = 1860 (SCIC) <ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.forbes.com/companies/icade/#767f7b38165f|title=Forbes 2000 list : Icade|accessdate=May 25, 2020}}</ref>F
| location = [[Issy-les-Moulineaux]], [[France]]
| key_people = Olivier Wigniolle, CEO <ref name=ceo>[http://www.icade.fr/en/icade/direction/executive-committee/olivier-wigniolle, "Icade's page on Olivier Wigniolle". ''Icade.fr (EN)'']</ref>
| industry = [[real estate investment trust|Real-estate investment company]]
| assets = € 11.3 billion (on December 31, 2018)<ref name=financial>[http://www.icade.fr/en/content/download/17548/208726/version/2/file/PR_Icade-FY_2018-Financial_results.pdf, "Icade Annual Results (2018)"]</ref>
| revenue = € 1.77 billion (on December 31, 2018)<ref name=financial/>
| net_income = € 300.2 million (2019)
| homepage = [http://www.icade.fr/en/ Icade (EN)]
}}
[[File:ICADE SA logo.jpg|thumb|Previous logo]]
'''Icade SA''' is a [[Multinational corporation|multinational]] [[real estate investment trust]] (REIT) that is [[Headquarters|headquartered]] in [[Paris]], [[France]] and is a subsidiary of [[Caisse des dépôts et consignations]]. The name is an abbreviation of '''I'''mmobilière '''Ca'''isse des '''Dé'''pôts.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Cession du pôle logement d'Immobilière Caisse des dépôts - Sénat|url=https://www.senat.fr/questions/base/2009/qSEQ09010409S.html|access-date=2020-06-03|website=www.senat.fr}}</ref> It invests in various types of properties including health care, offices, business parks, housing and public facilities. Icade gained SIIC (REIT outside France) eligibility in 2007 after combining many of its subsidiaries. It is one of France's largest property businesses.<ref name="telegraph">{{cite web|date=July 18, 2018|title=Questor: this French property firm could be a beneficiary of a 'hard Brexit'|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/investing/shares/questor-share-tip-buy-icade-could-benefit-hard-brexit/}}</ref> Icade became the leading commercial real-estate company for offices and business parks in the [[Île-de-France|Ile-de-France]] region,<ref>{{Cite book|last=Enright, Theresa,|first=|url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/946160387|title=The making of grand Paris : metropolitan urbanism in the twenty-first century|publisher=|year=|isbn=978-0-262-03469-2|location=Cambridge, Massachusetts|pages=213, 214|oclc=946160387}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|date=June 6, 2016|title=Interview: "Making Icade an integrated real estate operator, leader in France"|url=https://www.lerevenu.com/bourse/valeurs-en-vue/olivier-wigniolle-faire-dicade-un-operateur-immobilier-integre-leader-en}}</ref> is the largest real-estate investment company in healthcare sector of France and a key partner of major French cities. Many of the buildings in [[La Défense]] belong to Icade.<ref name="telegraph" />

Icade and Silic [[Mergers and acquisitions|merged]] on 31 December 2013. Since the merger, the new company has divested a number of assets in order to finance new construction projects and acquire more assets outside of France.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.lesechos.fr/2017/07/immobilier-icade-rachete-anf-176722|title=Immobilier : Icade rachète ANF|date=July 24, 2017}}</ref>
== History ==

=== SCIC ===

SCIC was a housing construction project owner in France, and was particularly active in the [[Paris]] region. During the 1950s and 1960s, it worked with a number of architects architects to build housing at Sarcelles (France's first large-scale programme, with over 10,000 housing units), [[Créteil]] and Massy-Antony. <ref>{{cite web|url=https://corporate-executives.com/companies/icade/|title=Icade profile|accessdate=May 25, 2020}}</ref>

=== Icade ===

Icade was created in 1954 as Société Centrale Immobilière de la Caisse des dépôts by Caisse des dépôts as a subsidiary. It was not until the 1980s that it started investing in non residential/public properties. SCIC was renamed Icade SA in 2003, and its capital opened up to shareholders outside the Caisse des dépôts et consignations.

In 2005, Icade delivered its first commercial building produced using HQE environment-friendly quality processes.

The [[initial public offering]] of Icade at the [[Euronext Paris]] on 12 April 2006 was valued at €2,64 billion.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.euronext.com/news/ipos/detail/details.jsp?docid=58593&lan=EN&cha=2050&displayMode=1|title=News|publisher=}}</ref>

In 2009, the French government considered Icade as a potential "asset in the strategic investment fund that will be key to reviving France's economy". However, this did not ultimately come to pass. In late 2009, Icade acquired Compagnie la Lucette from [[Morgan Stanley]].<ref name="ad">[http://www.icade.fr/en/content/download/8197/85753/version/3/file/2013-02-20-Icade_PR_Annuels+Results_2012.pdf Icade Annual Results (2012)]</ref>

On November 13, 2009 Icade sold about 4745 housing units to a group of 25 social housing investors representing another company SNI. That move brought the number of residential units sold or committed for sale in late 2009 to early 2010 up to 29,452. The value of assets divested adds up to about €2 billion.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.euroinvestor.co.uk/news/story.aspx?id=10735795|title=Icade : Sale of Icade's housing division|work=EuroInvestor}}</ref>

In the summer of 2010 Icade reached an agreement with another company called MVRDV to develop part of France's first Eco-quarters, a residential complex made up of low energy buildings a first for France.<ref name="independent">{{Cite web|date=2010-08-07|title=Eco-quarters the new trend in city design - Environment - The Independent|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100807032238/https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/ecoquarters-the-new-trend-in-city-design-2041467.html|access-date=2020-06-03|website=web.archive.org}}</ref>

In 2013 the Merger-absorption of Silic by Icade occured.<ref>{{cite web|date=January 12, 2011|title=Icade négocie le rachat de la part de Groupama dans Silic|url=http://www.agefi.fr/corporate/actualites/quotidien/20111201/icade-negocie-rachat-part-groupama-dans-silic-96989}}</ref>

On February 17th, 2015, Chairman and CEO of Icade, Serge Grzybowski, resigns. Icade SA appoints Jean-Paul Faugere as Chairman of the Board of Icade and Nathalie Palladitcheff as Chief Executive Officer on a temporary basis.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSFWN0VR02220150217|title=BRIEF-Chairman and CEO of Icade, Serge Grzybowski, resigns|date=February 17, 2015}}</ref>

In 2017 Icade acquired ANF for 400 million euro.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2017-07-24|title=Immobilier : Icade rachète ANF|url=https://www.lesechos.fr/2017/07/immobilier-icade-rachete-anf-176722|access-date=2020-06-03|website=Les Echos|language=fr}}</ref> The merger into Icade was completed on 29 june 2018.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2019-02-24|title=ANF immobilier|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190224121126/https://www.anf-immobilier.com/en/homepage/|access-date=2020-06-03|website=web.archive.org}}</ref>

In December 2018 Icade sold their main office in Issy-les-Moulineaux for 100 million euro. They continue to occupy the building as a tentant.<ref name=":0">{{cite web|url=https://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-eco/2019/01/03/97002-20190103FILWWW00207-immobilier-icade-cede-les-murs-de-son-siege.php|title=Immobilier: Icade cède les murs de son siege|date=January 3, 2019}}</ref>

In 2018 Icade bought several retirement homes for 100 million euro in Italy.<ref name=":0" /> In 2019 it acquired 19 long term care homes in Germany.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/trending/ljw_uih5xpixxwi1nbpmrw2|title=Icade reveals plans to establish first Europe-wide healthcare REIT |date=July 23, 2018}}</ref>
== Key figures ==
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! !! 31/12/2012 !! 31/12/2013
|-
| Net profit group share (million €) || 53 || 127
|-
| EPRA triple net NAV per share (€) || 80.7 || 77.3
|-
| Net worth (billion €) || 6.8 || 9.1
|-
| Employees || 1,721 || 1,479
|-
| Square metres owned by Icade || 2,436,759 || 3,085,000
|-
| Clinics owned by Icade || 55 || 59
|-
|}

== Assets ==
Icade's assets include offices, shopping centres, business parks, healthcare facilities.
* Offices: In France, Icade handles office properties most of which are located in and around Paris.<ref name=ad/>
* Business parks: Icade's business parks are located in Paris, Saint-Denis, Aubervilliers, Rungis, Nanterre-Seine, Colombes...
* Icade owns two shopping centres: Le Millénaire in Aubervilliers (north-eastern Paris suburbs), opened in April 2011 (50%-owned by Klépierre) and "Le Parc de Fresnes".

The alternative assets portfolio (Icade Santé) : Icade owns 62 establishments as at 30/06/2014.

 

== Notes ==
{{Reflist}}

== External links ==
{{commonscatinline}}
* {{Official|http://www.icade.fr/en }}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Icade}}
[[Category:Real estate companies of France]]
[[Category:Companies based in Paris]]
[[Category:Real estate companies established in 1954]]
[[Category:1954 establishments in France]]
{{CAC Mid 60}}

Icade

2020-06-03T20:43:36Z

Dwaro: add completion of merge

{{Article for deletion/dated|page=Icade|timestamp=20200521233056|year=2020|month=May|day=21|substed=yes|help=off}}


{{Expand language|langcode=fr|Icade}}
{{about|the investment company|the iPad accessory|iCade|the Spanish schools|ICADE}}
{{Infobox company
| name = Icade
| logo = Icade logo.svg
| type = [[Public company|public]]
| traded_as = {{euronext|ICAD}} [[CAC Mid 60|CAC Mid 60 Component]]
| foundation = 1860 (SCIC) <ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.forbes.com/companies/icade/#767f7b38165f|title=Forbes 2000 list : Icade|accessdate=May 25, 2020}}</ref>F
| location = [[Issy-les-Moulineaux]], [[France]]
| key_people = Olivier Wigniolle, CEO <ref name=ceo>[http://www.icade.fr/en/icade/direction/executive-committee/olivier-wigniolle, "Icade's page on Olivier Wigniolle". ''Icade.fr (EN)'']</ref>
| industry = [[real estate investment trust|Real-estate investment company]]
| assets = € 11.3 billion (on December 31, 2018)<ref name=financial>[http://www.icade.fr/en/content/download/17548/208726/version/2/file/PR_Icade-FY_2018-Financial_results.pdf, "Icade Annual Results (2018)"]</ref>
| revenue = € 1.77 billion (on December 31, 2018)<ref name=financial/>
| net_income = € 300.2 million (2019)
| homepage = [http://www.icade.fr/en/ Icade (EN)]
}}
[[File:ICADE SA logo.jpg|thumb|Previous logo]]
'''Icade SA''' is a [[Multinational corporation|multinational]] [[real estate investment trust]] (REIT) that is [[Headquarters|headquartered]] in [[Paris]], [[France]] and is a subsidiary of [[Caisse des dépôts et consignations]]. The name is an abbreviation of '''I'''mmobilière '''Ca'''isse des '''Dé'''pôts.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Cession du pôle logement d'Immobilière Caisse des dépôts - Sénat|url=https://www.senat.fr/questions/base/2009/qSEQ09010409S.html|access-date=2020-06-03|website=www.senat.fr}}</ref> It invests in various types of properties including health care, offices, business parks, housing and public facilities. Icade gained SIIC (REIT outside France) eligibility in 2007 after combining many of its subsidiaries. It is one of France's largest property businesses.<ref name="telegraph">{{cite web|date=July 18, 2018|title=Questor: this French property firm could be a beneficiary of a 'hard Brexit'|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/investing/shares/questor-share-tip-buy-icade-could-benefit-hard-brexit/}}</ref> Icade became the leading commercial real-estate company for offices and business parks in the [[Île-de-France|Ile-de-France]] region,<ref>{{Cite book|last=Enright, Theresa,|first=|url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/946160387|title=The making of grand Paris : metropolitan urbanism in the twenty-first century|publisher=|year=|isbn=978-0-262-03469-2|location=Cambridge, Massachusetts|pages=213, 214|oclc=946160387}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|date=June 6, 2016|title=Interview: "Making Icade an integrated real estate operator, leader in France"|url=https://www.lerevenu.com/bourse/valeurs-en-vue/olivier-wigniolle-faire-dicade-un-operateur-immobilier-integre-leader-en}}</ref> is the largest real-estate investment company in healthcare sector of France and a key partner of major French cities. Many of the buildings in [[La Défense]] belong to Icade.<ref name="telegraph" />

Icade and Silic [[Mergers and acquisitions|merged]] on 31 December 2013. Since the merger, the new company has divested a number of assets in order to finance new construction projects and acquire more assets outside of France.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.lesechos.fr/2017/07/immobilier-icade-rachete-anf-176722|title=Immobilier : Icade rachète ANF|date=July 24, 2017}}</ref>
== History ==

=== SCIC ===

SCIC was a housing construction project owner in France, and was particularly active in the [[Paris]] region. During the 1950s and 1960s, it worked with a number of architects architects to build housing at Sarcelles (France's first large-scale programme, with over 10,000 housing units), [[Créteil]] and Massy-Antony. <ref>{{cite web|url=https://corporate-executives.com/companies/icade/|title=Icade profile|accessdate=May 25, 2020}}</ref>

=== Icade ===

Icade was created in 1954 as Société Centrale Immobilière de la Caisse des dépôts by Caisse des dépôts as a subsidiary. It was not until the 1980s that it started investing in non residential/public properties. SCIC was renamed Icade SA in 2003, and its capital opened up to shareholders outside the Caisse des dépôts et consignations.

In 2005, Icade delivered its first commercial building produced using HQE environment-friendly quality processes.

Icade was successfully floated on the Paris Euronext stock exchange on 12 April 2006, under Étienne Bertier (CEO of Icade from October 2003 to August 2007). It had an ipo of about €2.64 billion.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.euronext.com/news/ipos/detail/details.jsp?docid=58593&lan=EN&cha=2050&displayMode=1|title=News|publisher=}}</ref>

In 2009, the French government considered Icade as a potential "asset in the strategic investment fund that will be key to reviving France's economy". However, this did not ultimately come to pass. In late 2009, Icade acquired Compagnie la Lucette from Morgan Stanley.<ref name="ad">[http://www.icade.fr/en/content/download/8197/85753/version/3/file/2013-02-20-Icade_PR_Annuels+Results_2012.pdf Icade Annual Results (2012)]</ref>

On November 13, 2009 Icade sold about 4745 housing units to a group of 25 social housing investors representing another company SNI. That move brought the number of residential units sold or committed for sale in late 2009 to early 2010 up to 29,452. The value of assets divested adds up to about €2 billion.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.euroinvestor.co.uk/news/story.aspx?id=10735795|title=Icade : Sale of Icade's housing division|work=EuroInvestor}}</ref>

In the summer of 2010 Icade reached an agreement with another company called MVRDV to develop part of France's first Eco-quarters, a residential complex made up of low energy buildings a first for France.<ref name="independent">{{Cite web|date=2010-08-07|title=Eco-quarters the new trend in city design - Environment - The Independent|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100807032238/https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/ecoquarters-the-new-trend-in-city-design-2041467.html|access-date=2020-06-03|website=web.archive.org}}</ref>

In 2013 the Merger-absorption of Silic by Icade occured.<ref>{{cite web|date=January 12, 2011|title=Icade négocie le rachat de la part de Groupama dans Silic|url=http://www.agefi.fr/corporate/actualites/quotidien/20111201/icade-negocie-rachat-part-groupama-dans-silic-96989}}</ref>

On February 17th, 2015, Chairman and CEO of Icade, Serge Grzybowski, resigns. Icade SA appoints Jean-Paul Faugere as Chairman of the Board of Icade and Nathalie Palladitcheff as Chief Executive Officer on a temporary basis <ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSFWN0VR02220150217|title=BRIEF-Chairman and CEO of Icade, Serge Grzybowski, resigns|date=February 17, 2015}}</ref>.

In 2017 Icade acquired ANF for 400 million euro.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2017-07-24|title=Immobilier : Icade rachète ANF|url=https://www.lesechos.fr/2017/07/immobilier-icade-rachete-anf-176722|access-date=2020-06-03|website=Les Echos|language=fr}}</ref> The merger into Icade was completed on 29 june 2018.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2019-02-24|title=ANF immobilier|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190224121126/https://www.anf-immobilier.com/en/homepage/|access-date=2020-06-03|website=web.archive.org}}</ref>

Major construction is currently underway to the West of Paris.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-eco/2019/01/03/97002-20190103FILWWW00207-immobilier-icade-cede-les-murs-de-son-siege.php|title=Immobilier: Icade cède les murs de son siege|date=January 3, 2019}}</ref>

In 2019 it established a major presence in Germany with the acquisition of 19 long term care homes. It is part of a plan to become the first ''Europe-wide reit''<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/trending/ljw_uih5xpixxwi1nbpmrw2|title=Icade reveals plans to establish first Europe-wide healthcare REIT |date=July 23, 2018}}</ref>

== Key figures ==
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! !! 31/12/2012 !! 31/12/2013
|-
| Net profit group share (million €) || 53 || 127
|-
| EPRA triple net NAV per share (€) || 80.7 || 77.3
|-
| Net worth (billion €) || 6.8 || 9.1
|-
| Employees || 1,721 || 1,479
|-
| Square metres owned by Icade || 2,436,759 || 3,085,000
|-
| Clinics owned by Icade || 55 || 59
|-
|}

== Assets ==
Icade's assets include offices, shopping centres, business parks, healthcare facilities.
* Offices: In France, Icade handles office properties most of which are located in and around Paris.<ref name=ad/>
* Business parks: Icade's business parks are located in Paris, Saint-Denis, Aubervilliers, Rungis, Nanterre-Seine, Colombes...
* Icade owns two shopping centres: Le Millénaire in Aubervilliers (north-eastern Paris suburbs), opened in April 2011 (50%-owned by Klépierre) and "Le Parc de Fresnes".

The alternative assets portfolio (Icade Santé) : Icade owns 62 establishments as at 30/06/2014.

 

== Notes ==
{{Reflist}}

== External links ==
{{commonscatinline}}
* {{Official|http://www.icade.fr/en }}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Icade}}
[[Category:Real estate companies of France]]
[[Category:Companies based in Paris]]
[[Category:Real estate companies established in 1954]]
[[Category:1954 establishments in France]]
{{CAC Mid 60}}

ANF (real estate)

2020-06-03T20:39:41Z

Dwaro: Non-notable company, has been sold to Icade. Make redirect

#REDIRECT [[Icade]]

Icade

2020-06-03T20:35:26Z

Dwaro: /* Icade */ add ANF acquisition

{{Article for deletion/dated|page=Icade|timestamp=20200521233056|year=2020|month=May|day=21|substed=yes|help=off}}


{{Expand language|langcode=fr|Icade}}
{{about|the investment company|the iPad accessory|iCade|the Spanish schools|ICADE}}
{{Infobox company
| name = Icade
| logo = Icade logo.svg
| type = [[Public company|public]]
| traded_as = {{euronext|ICAD}} [[CAC Mid 60|CAC Mid 60 Component]]
| foundation = 1860 (SCIC) <ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.forbes.com/companies/icade/#767f7b38165f|title=Forbes 2000 list : Icade|accessdate=May 25, 2020}}</ref>F
| location = [[Issy-les-Moulineaux]], [[France]]
| key_people = Olivier Wigniolle, CEO <ref name=ceo>[http://www.icade.fr/en/icade/direction/executive-committee/olivier-wigniolle, "Icade's page on Olivier Wigniolle". ''Icade.fr (EN)'']</ref>
| industry = [[real estate investment trust|Real-estate investment company]]
| assets = € 11.3 billion (on December 31, 2018)<ref name=financial>[http://www.icade.fr/en/content/download/17548/208726/version/2/file/PR_Icade-FY_2018-Financial_results.pdf, "Icade Annual Results (2018)"]</ref>
| revenue = € 1.77 billion (on December 31, 2018)<ref name=financial/>
| net_income = € 300.2 million (2019)
| homepage = [http://www.icade.fr/en/ Icade (EN)]
}}
[[File:ICADE SA logo.jpg|thumb|Previous logo]]
'''Icade SA''' is a [[Multinational corporation|multinational]] [[real estate investment trust]] (REIT) that is [[Headquarters|headquartered]] in [[Paris]], [[France]] and is a subsidiary of [[Caisse des dépôts et consignations]]. The name is an abbreviation of '''I'''mmobilière '''Ca'''isse des '''Dé'''pôts.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Cession du pôle logement d'Immobilière Caisse des dépôts - Sénat|url=https://www.senat.fr/questions/base/2009/qSEQ09010409S.html|access-date=2020-06-03|website=www.senat.fr}}</ref> It invests in various types of properties including health care, offices, business parks, housing and public facilities. Icade gained SIIC (REIT outside France) eligibility in 2007 after combining many of its subsidiaries. It is one of France's largest property businesses.<ref name="telegraph">{{cite web|date=July 18, 2018|title=Questor: this French property firm could be a beneficiary of a 'hard Brexit'|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/investing/shares/questor-share-tip-buy-icade-could-benefit-hard-brexit/}}</ref> Icade became the leading commercial real-estate company for offices and business parks in the [[Île-de-France|Ile-de-France]] region,<ref>{{Cite book|last=Enright, Theresa,|first=|url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/946160387|title=The making of grand Paris : metropolitan urbanism in the twenty-first century|publisher=|year=|isbn=978-0-262-03469-2|location=Cambridge, Massachusetts|pages=213, 214|oclc=946160387}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|date=June 6, 2016|title=Interview: "Making Icade an integrated real estate operator, leader in France"|url=https://www.lerevenu.com/bourse/valeurs-en-vue/olivier-wigniolle-faire-dicade-un-operateur-immobilier-integre-leader-en}}</ref> is the largest real-estate investment company in healthcare sector of France and a key partner of major French cities. Many of the buildings in [[La Défense]] belong to Icade.<ref name="telegraph" />

Icade and Silic [[Mergers and acquisitions|merged]] on 31 December 2013. Since the merger, the new company has divested a number of assets in order to finance new construction projects and acquire more assets outside of France.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.lesechos.fr/2017/07/immobilier-icade-rachete-anf-176722|title=Immobilier : Icade rachète ANF|date=July 24, 2017}}</ref>
== History ==

=== SCIC ===

SCIC was a housing construction project owner in France, and was particularly active in the [[Paris]] region. During the 1950s and 1960s, it worked with a number of architects architects to build housing at Sarcelles (France's first large-scale programme, with over 10,000 housing units), [[Créteil]] and Massy-Antony. <ref>{{cite web|url=https://corporate-executives.com/companies/icade/|title=Icade profile|accessdate=May 25, 2020}}</ref>

=== Icade ===

Icade was created in 1954 as Société Centrale Immobilière de la Caisse des dépôts by Caisse des dépôts as a subsidiary. It was not until the 1980s that it started investing in non residential/public properties. SCIC was renamed Icade SA in 2003, and its capital opened up to shareholders outside the Caisse des dépôts et consignations.

In 2005, Icade delivered its first commercial building produced using HQE environment-friendly quality processes.

Icade was successfully floated on the Paris Euronext stock exchange on 12 April 2006, under Étienne Bertier (CEO of Icade from October 2003 to August 2007). It had an ipo of about €2.64 billion.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.euronext.com/news/ipos/detail/details.jsp?docid=58593&lan=EN&cha=2050&displayMode=1|title=News|publisher=}}</ref>

In 2009, the French government considered Icade as a potential "asset in the strategic investment fund that will be key to reviving France's economy". However, this did not ultimately come to pass. In late 2009, Icade acquired Compagnie la Lucette from Morgan Stanley.<ref name="ad">[http://www.icade.fr/en/content/download/8197/85753/version/3/file/2013-02-20-Icade_PR_Annuels+Results_2012.pdf Icade Annual Results (2012)]</ref>

On November 13, 2009 Icade sold about 4745 housing units to a group of 25 social housing investors representing another company SNI. That move brought the number of residential units sold or committed for sale in late 2009 to early 2010 up to 29,452. The value of assets divested adds up to about €2 billion.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.euroinvestor.co.uk/news/story.aspx?id=10735795|title=Icade : Sale of Icade's housing division|work=EuroInvestor}}</ref>

In the summer of 2010 Icade reached an agreement with another company called MVRDV to develop part of France's first Eco-quarters, a residential complex made up of low energy buildings a first for France.<ref name="independent">{{Cite web|date=2010-08-07|title=Eco-quarters the new trend in city design - Environment - The Independent|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100807032238/https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/ecoquarters-the-new-trend-in-city-design-2041467.html|access-date=2020-06-03|website=web.archive.org}}</ref>

In 2013 the Merger-absorption of Silic by Icade occured.<ref>{{cite web|date=January 12, 2011|title=Icade négocie le rachat de la part de Groupama dans Silic|url=http://www.agefi.fr/corporate/actualites/quotidien/20111201/icade-negocie-rachat-part-groupama-dans-silic-96989}}</ref>

On February 17th, 2015, Chairman and CEO of Icade, Serge Grzybowski, resigns. Icade SA appoints Jean-Paul Faugere as Chairman of the Board of Icade and Nathalie Palladitcheff as Chief Executive Officer on a temporary basis <ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSFWN0VR02220150217|title=BRIEF-Chairman and CEO of Icade, Serge Grzybowski, resigns|date=February 17, 2015}}</ref>.

In 2017 Icade acquired ANF for 400 million euro.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2017-07-24|title=Immobilier : Icade rachète ANF|url=https://www.lesechos.fr/2017/07/immobilier-icade-rachete-anf-176722|access-date=2020-06-03|website=Les Echos|language=fr}}</ref>

Major construction is currently underway to the West of Paris.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-eco/2019/01/03/97002-20190103FILWWW00207-immobilier-icade-cede-les-murs-de-son-siege.php|title=Immobilier: Icade cède les murs de son siege|date=January 3, 2019}}</ref>

In 2019 it established a major presence in Germany with the acquisition of 19 long term care homes. It is part of a plan to become the first ''Europe-wide reit''<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/trending/ljw_uih5xpixxwi1nbpmrw2|title=Icade reveals plans to establish first Europe-wide healthcare REIT |date=July 23, 2018}}</ref>

== Key figures ==
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! !! 31/12/2012 !! 31/12/2013
|-
| Net profit group share (million €) || 53 || 127
|-
| EPRA triple net NAV per share (€) || 80.7 || 77.3
|-
| Net worth (billion €) || 6.8 || 9.1
|-
| Employees || 1,721 || 1,479
|-
| Square metres owned by Icade || 2,436,759 || 3,085,000
|-
| Clinics owned by Icade || 55 || 59
|-
|}

== Assets ==
Icade's assets include offices, shopping centres, business parks, healthcare facilities.
* Offices: In France, Icade handles office properties most of which are located in and around Paris.<ref name=ad/>
* Business parks: Icade's business parks are located in Paris, Saint-Denis, Aubervilliers, Rungis, Nanterre-Seine, Colombes...
* Icade owns two shopping centres: Le Millénaire in Aubervilliers (north-eastern Paris suburbs), opened in April 2011 (50%-owned by Klépierre) and "Le Parc de Fresnes".

The alternative assets portfolio (Icade Santé) : Icade owns 62 establishments as at 30/06/2014.

 

== Notes ==
{{Reflist}}

== External links ==
{{commonscatinline}}
* {{Official|http://www.icade.fr/en }}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Icade}}
[[Category:Real estate companies of France]]
[[Category:Companies based in Paris]]
[[Category:Real estate companies established in 1954]]
[[Category:1954 establishments in France]]
{{CAC Mid 60}}

Icade

2020-06-03T20:29:06Z

Dwaro: change section

{{Article for deletion/dated|page=Icade|timestamp=20200521233056|year=2020|month=May|day=21|substed=yes|help=off}}


{{Expand language|langcode=fr|Icade}}
{{about|the investment company|the iPad accessory|iCade|the Spanish schools|ICADE}}
{{Infobox company
| name = Icade
| logo = Icade logo.svg
| type = [[Public company|public]]
| traded_as = {{euronext|ICAD}} [[CAC Mid 60|CAC Mid 60 Component]]
| foundation = 1860 (SCIC) <ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.forbes.com/companies/icade/#767f7b38165f|title=Forbes 2000 list : Icade|accessdate=May 25, 2020}}</ref>F
| location = [[Issy-les-Moulineaux]], [[France]]
| key_people = Olivier Wigniolle, CEO <ref name=ceo>[http://www.icade.fr/en/icade/direction/executive-committee/olivier-wigniolle, "Icade's page on Olivier Wigniolle". ''Icade.fr (EN)'']</ref>
| industry = [[real estate investment trust|Real-estate investment company]]
| assets = € 11.3 billion (on December 31, 2018)<ref name=financial>[http://www.icade.fr/en/content/download/17548/208726/version/2/file/PR_Icade-FY_2018-Financial_results.pdf, "Icade Annual Results (2018)"]</ref>
| revenue = € 1.77 billion (on December 31, 2018)<ref name=financial/>
| net_income = € 300.2 million (2019)
| homepage = [http://www.icade.fr/en/ Icade (EN)]
}}
[[File:ICADE SA logo.jpg|thumb|Previous logo]]
'''Icade SA''' is a [[Multinational corporation|multinational]] [[real estate investment trust]] (REIT) that is [[Headquarters|headquartered]] in [[Paris]], [[France]] and is a subsidiary of [[Caisse des dépôts et consignations]]. The name is an abbreviation of '''I'''mmobilière '''Ca'''isse des '''Dé'''pôts.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Cession du pôle logement d'Immobilière Caisse des dépôts - Sénat|url=https://www.senat.fr/questions/base/2009/qSEQ09010409S.html|access-date=2020-06-03|website=www.senat.fr}}</ref> It invests in various types of properties including health care, offices, business parks, housing and public facilities. Icade gained SIIC (REIT outside France) eligibility in 2007 after combining many of its subsidiaries. It is one of France's largest property businesses.<ref name="telegraph">{{cite web|date=July 18, 2018|title=Questor: this French property firm could be a beneficiary of a 'hard Brexit'|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/investing/shares/questor-share-tip-buy-icade-could-benefit-hard-brexit/}}</ref> Icade became the leading commercial real-estate company for offices and business parks in the [[Île-de-France|Ile-de-France]] region,<ref>{{Cite book|last=Enright, Theresa,|first=|url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/946160387|title=The making of grand Paris : metropolitan urbanism in the twenty-first century|publisher=|year=|isbn=978-0-262-03469-2|location=Cambridge, Massachusetts|pages=213, 214|oclc=946160387}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|date=June 6, 2016|title=Interview: "Making Icade an integrated real estate operator, leader in France"|url=https://www.lerevenu.com/bourse/valeurs-en-vue/olivier-wigniolle-faire-dicade-un-operateur-immobilier-integre-leader-en}}</ref> is the largest real-estate investment company in healthcare sector of France and a key partner of major French cities. Many of the buildings in [[La Défense]] belong to Icade.<ref name="telegraph" />

Icade and Silic [[Mergers and acquisitions|merged]] on 31 December 2013. Since the merger, the new company has divested a number of assets in order to finance new construction projects and acquire more assets outside of France.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.lesechos.fr/2017/07/immobilier-icade-rachete-anf-176722|title=Immobilier : Icade rachète ANF|date=July 24, 2017}}</ref>
== History ==

=== SCIC ===

SCIC was a housing construction project owner in France, and was particularly active in the [[Paris]] region. During the 1950s and 1960s, it worked with a number of architects architects to build housing at Sarcelles (France's first large-scale programme, with over 10,000 housing units), [[Créteil]] and Massy-Antony. <ref>{{cite web|url=https://corporate-executives.com/companies/icade/|title=Icade profile|accessdate=May 25, 2020}}</ref>

=== Icade ===

Icade was created in 1954 as Société Centrale Immobilière de la Caisse des dépôts by Caisse des dépôts as a subsidiary. It was not until the 1980s that it started investing in non residential/public properties. SCIC was renamed Icade SA in 2003, and its capital opened up to shareholders outside the Caisse des dépôts et consignations.

In 2005, Icade delivered its first commercial building produced using HQE environment-friendly quality processes.

Icade was successfully floated on the Paris Euronext stock exchange on 12 April 2006, under Étienne Bertier (CEO of Icade from October 2003 to August 2007). It had an ipo of about €2.64 billion.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.euronext.com/news/ipos/detail/details.jsp?docid=58593&lan=EN&cha=2050&displayMode=1|title=News|publisher=}}</ref>

In 2009, the French government considered Icade as a potential "asset in the strategic investment fund that will be key to reviving France's economy". However, this did not ultimately come to pass. In late 2009, Icade acquired Compagnie la Lucette from Morgan Stanley.<ref name="ad">[http://www.icade.fr/en/content/download/8197/85753/version/3/file/2013-02-20-Icade_PR_Annuels+Results_2012.pdf Icade Annual Results (2012)]</ref>

On November 13, 2009 Icade sold about 4745 housing units to a group of 25 social housing investors representing another company SNI. That move brought the number of residential units sold or committed for sale in late 2009 to early 2010 up to 29,452. The value of assets divested adds up to about €2 billion.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.euroinvestor.co.uk/news/story.aspx?id=10735795|title=Icade : Sale of Icade's housing division|work=EuroInvestor}}</ref>

In the summer of 2010 Icade reached an agreement with another company called MVRDV to develop part of France's first Eco-quarters, a residential complex made up of low energy buildings a first for France.<ref name="independent">{{Cite web|date=2010-08-07|title=Eco-quarters the new trend in city design - Environment - The Independent|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100807032238/https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/ecoquarters-the-new-trend-in-city-design-2041467.html|access-date=2020-06-03|website=web.archive.org}}</ref>

In 2013 the Merger-absorption of Silic by Icade occured.<ref>{{cite web|date=January 12, 2011|title=Icade négocie le rachat de la part de Groupama dans Silic|url=http://www.agefi.fr/corporate/actualites/quotidien/20111201/icade-negocie-rachat-part-groupama-dans-silic-96989}}</ref>

On February 17th, 2015, Chairman and CEO of Icade, Serge Grzybowski, resigns. Icade SA appoints Jean-Paul Faugere as Chairman of the Board of Icade and Nathalie Palladitcheff as Chief Executive Officer on a temporary basis <ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSFWN0VR02220150217|title=BRIEF-Chairman and CEO of Icade, Serge Grzybowski, resigns|date=February 17, 2015}}</ref>.

Major construction is currently underway to the West of Paris.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-eco/2019/01/03/97002-20190103FILWWW00207-immobilier-icade-cede-les-murs-de-son-siege.php|title=Immobilier: Icade cède les murs de son siege|date=January 3, 2019}}</ref>

In 2019 it established a major presence in Germany with the acquisition of 19 long term care homes. It is part of a plan to become the first ''Europe-wide reit''<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/trending/ljw_uih5xpixxwi1nbpmrw2|title=Icade reveals plans to establish first Europe-wide healthcare REIT |date=July 23, 2018}}</ref>

== Key figures ==
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! !! 31/12/2012 !! 31/12/2013
|-
| Net profit group share (million €) || 53 || 127
|-
| EPRA triple net NAV per share (€) || 80.7 || 77.3
|-
| Net worth (billion €) || 6.8 || 9.1
|-
| Employees || 1,721 || 1,479
|-
| Square metres owned by Icade || 2,436,759 || 3,085,000
|-
| Clinics owned by Icade || 55 || 59
|-
|}

== Assets ==
Icade's assets include offices, shopping centres, business parks, healthcare facilities.
* Offices: In France, Icade handles office properties most of which are located in and around Paris.<ref name=ad/>
* Business parks: Icade's business parks are located in Paris, Saint-Denis, Aubervilliers, Rungis, Nanterre-Seine, Colombes...
* Icade owns two shopping centres: Le Millénaire in Aubervilliers (north-eastern Paris suburbs), opened in April 2011 (50%-owned by Klépierre) and "Le Parc de Fresnes".

The alternative assets portfolio (Icade Santé) : Icade owns 62 establishments as at 30/06/2014.

 

== Notes ==
{{Reflist}}

== External links ==
{{commonscatinline}}
* {{Official|http://www.icade.fr/en }}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Icade}}
[[Category:Real estate companies of France]]
[[Category:Companies based in Paris]]
[[Category:Real estate companies established in 1954]]
[[Category:1954 establishments in France]]
{{CAC Mid 60}}

Icade

2020-06-03T20:24:45Z

Dwaro: add ref

{{Article for deletion/dated|page=Icade|timestamp=20200521233056|year=2020|month=May|day=21|substed=yes|help=off}}


{{Expand language|langcode=fr|Icade}}
{{about|the investment company|the iPad accessory|iCade|the Spanish schools|ICADE}}
{{Infobox company
| name = Icade
| logo = Icade logo.svg
| type = [[Public company|public]]
| traded_as = {{euronext|ICAD}} [[CAC Mid 60|CAC Mid 60 Component]]
| foundation = 1860 (SCIC) <ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.forbes.com/companies/icade/#767f7b38165f|title=Forbes 2000 list : Icade|accessdate=May 25, 2020}}</ref>F
| location = [[Issy-les-Moulineaux]], [[France]]
| key_people = Olivier Wigniolle, CEO <ref name=ceo>[http://www.icade.fr/en/icade/direction/executive-committee/olivier-wigniolle, "Icade's page on Olivier Wigniolle". ''Icade.fr (EN)'']</ref>
| industry = [[real estate investment trust|Real-estate investment company]]
| assets = € 11.3 billion (on December 31, 2018)<ref name=financial>[http://www.icade.fr/en/content/download/17548/208726/version/2/file/PR_Icade-FY_2018-Financial_results.pdf, "Icade Annual Results (2018)"]</ref>
| revenue = € 1.77 billion (on December 31, 2018)<ref name=financial/>
| net_income = € 300.2 million (2019)
| homepage = [http://www.icade.fr/en/ Icade (EN)]
}}
[[File:ICADE SA logo.jpg|thumb|Previous logo]]
'''Icade SA''' is a [[Multinational corporation|multinational]] [[real estate investment trust]] (REIT) that is [[Headquarters|headquartered]] in [[Paris]], [[France]] and is a subsidiary of [[Caisse des dépôts et consignations]]. The name is an abbreviation of '''I'''mmobilière '''Ca'''isse des '''Dé'''pôts.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Cession du pôle logement d'Immobilière Caisse des dépôts - Sénat|url=https://www.senat.fr/questions/base/2009/qSEQ09010409S.html|access-date=2020-06-03|website=www.senat.fr}}</ref> It invests in various types of properties including health care, offices, business parks, housing and public facilities. Icade gained SIIC (REIT outside France) eligibility in 2007 after combining many of its subsidiaries. It is one of France's largest property businesses.<ref name="telegraph">{{cite web|date=July 18, 2018|title=Questor: this French property firm could be a beneficiary of a 'hard Brexit'|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/investing/shares/questor-share-tip-buy-icade-could-benefit-hard-brexit/}}</ref> Icade became the leading commercial real-estate company for offices and business parks in the [[Île-de-France|Ile-de-France]] region,<ref>{{Cite book|last=Enright, Theresa,|first=|url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/946160387|title=The making of grand Paris : metropolitan urbanism in the twenty-first century|publisher=|year=|isbn=978-0-262-03469-2|location=Cambridge, Massachusetts|pages=213, 214|oclc=946160387}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|date=June 6, 2016|title=Interview: "Making Icade an integrated real estate operator, leader in France"|url=https://www.lerevenu.com/bourse/valeurs-en-vue/olivier-wigniolle-faire-dicade-un-operateur-immobilier-integre-leader-en}}</ref> is the largest real-estate investment company in healthcare sector of France and a key partner of major French cities. Many of the buildings in [[La Défense]] belong to Icade.<ref name="telegraph" />

Icade and Silic [[Mergers and acquisitions|merged]] on 31 December 2013. Since the merger, the new company has divested a number of assets in order to finance new construction projects and acquire more assets outside of France.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.lesechos.fr/2017/07/immobilier-icade-rachete-anf-176722|title=Immobilier : Icade rachète ANF|date=July 24, 2017}}</ref>
== History ==

=== SCIC ===

SCIC was a housing construction project owner in France, and was particularly active in the [[Paris]] region. During the 1950s and 1960s, it worked with a number of architects architects to build housing at Sarcelles (France's first large-scale programme, with over 10,000 housing units), [[Créteil]] and Massy-Antony. <ref>{{cite web|url=https://corporate-executives.com/companies/icade/|title=Icade profile|accessdate=May 25, 2020}}</ref>

=== Icade ===

Icade was created in 1954 as Société Centrale Immobilière de la Caisse des dépôts by Caisse des dépôts as a subsidiary. It was not until the 1980s that it started investing in non residential/public properties. SCIC was renamed Icade SA in 2003, and its capital opened up to shareholders outside the Caisse des dépôts et consignations.

In 2005, Icade delivered its first commercial building produced using HQE environment-friendly quality processes.

Icade was successfully floated on the Paris Euronext stock exchange on 12 April 2006, under Étienne Bertier (CEO of Icade from October 2003 to August 2007). It had an ipo of about €2.64 billion.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.euronext.com/news/ipos/detail/details.jsp?docid=58593&lan=EN&cha=2050&displayMode=1|title=News|publisher=}}</ref>

In 2009, the French government considered Icade as a potential "asset in the strategic investment fund that will be key to reviving France's economy". However, this did not ultimately come to pass. In late 2009, Icade acquired Compagnie la Lucette from Morgan Stanley.<ref name="ad">[http://www.icade.fr/en/content/download/8197/85753/version/3/file/2013-02-20-Icade_PR_Annuels+Results_2012.pdf Icade Annual Results (2012)]</ref>

On November 13, 2009 Icade sold about 4745 housing units to a group of 25 social housing investors representing another company SNI. That move brought the number of residential units sold or committed for sale in late 2009 to early 2010 up to 29,452. The value of assets divested adds up to about €2 billion.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.euroinvestor.co.uk/news/story.aspx?id=10735795|title=Icade : Sale of Icade's housing division|work=EuroInvestor}}</ref>

In the summer of 2010 Icade reached an agreement with another company called MVRDV to develop part of France's first Eco-quarters, a residential complex made up of low energy buildings a first for France.<ref name="independent">{{Cite web|date=2010-08-07|title=Eco-quarters the new trend in city design - Environment - The Independent|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100807032238/https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/ecoquarters-the-new-trend-in-city-design-2041467.html|access-date=2020-06-03|website=web.archive.org}}</ref>

In 2013 the Merger-absorption of Silic by Icade occured.<ref>{{cite web|date=January 12, 2011|title=Icade négocie le rachat de la part de Groupama dans Silic|url=http://www.agefi.fr/corporate/actualites/quotidien/20111201/icade-negocie-rachat-part-groupama-dans-silic-96989}}</ref>

On February 17th, 2015, Chairman and CEO of Icade, Serge Grzybowski, resigns. Icade SA appoints Jean-Paul Faugere as Chairman of the Board of Icade and Nathalie Palladitcheff as Chief Executive Officer on a temporary basis <ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSFWN0VR02220150217|title=BRIEF-Chairman and CEO of Icade, Serge Grzybowski, resigns|date=February 17, 2015}}</ref>.

Major construction is currently underway to the West of Paris.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-eco/2019/01/03/97002-20190103FILWWW00207-immobilier-icade-cede-les-murs-de-son-siege.php|title=Immobilier: Icade cède les murs de son siege|date=January 3, 2019}}</ref>

In 2019 it established a major presence in Germany with the acquisition of 19 long term care homes. It is part of a plan to become the first ''Europe-wide reit''<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/trending/ljw_uih5xpixxwi1nbpmrw2|title=Icade reveals plans to establish first Europe-wide healthcare REIT |date=July 23, 2018}}</ref>

== Key figures ==
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! !! 31/12/2012 !! 31/12/2013
|-
| Net profit group share (million €) || 53 || 127
|-
| EPRA triple net NAV per share (€) || 80.7 || 77.3
|-
| Net worth (billion €) || 6.8 || 9.1
|-
| Employees || 1,721 || 1,479
|-
| Square metres owned by Icade || 2,436,759 || 3,085,000
|-
| Clinics owned by Icade || 55 || 59
|-
|}

== Activities ==

=== Property investment ===
Icade's assets include offices, shopping centres, business parks, healthcare facilities.
* Offices: In France, Icade handles office properties most of which are located in and around Paris.<ref name=ad/>
* Business parks: Icade's business parks are located in Paris, Saint-Denis, Aubervilliers, Rungis, Nanterre-Seine, Colombes...
* Icade owns two shopping centres: Le Millénaire in Aubervilliers (north-eastern Paris suburbs), opened in April 2011 (50%-owned by Klépierre) and "Le Parc de Fresnes".

The alternative assets portfolio (Icade Santé) : Icade owns 62 establishments as at 30/06/2014.

 

== Notes ==
{{Reflist}}

== External links ==
{{commonscatinline}}
* {{Official|http://www.icade.fr/en }}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Icade}}
[[Category:Real estate companies of France]]
[[Category:Companies based in Paris]]
[[Category:Real estate companies established in 1954]]
[[Category:1954 establishments in France]]
{{CAC Mid 60}}

Icade

2020-06-03T20:22:54Z

Dwaro: add infobox items, hatnote and fix intro

{{Article for deletion/dated|page=Icade|timestamp=20200521233056|year=2020|month=May|day=21|substed=yes|help=off}}


{{Expand language|langcode=fr|Icade}}
{{about|the investment company|the iPad accessory|iCade|the Spanish schools|ICADE}}
{{Infobox company
| name = Icade
| logo = Icade logo.svg
| type = [[Public company|public]]
| traded_as = {{euronext|ICAD}} [[CAC Mid 60|CAC Mid 60 Component]]
| foundation = 1860 (SCIC) <ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.forbes.com/companies/icade/#767f7b38165f|title=Forbes 2000 list : Icade|accessdate=May 25, 2020}}</ref>F
| location = [[Issy-les-Moulineaux]], [[France]]
| key_people = Olivier Wigniolle, CEO <ref name=ceo>[http://www.icade.fr/en/icade/direction/executive-committee/olivier-wigniolle, "Icade's page on Olivier Wigniolle". ''Icade.fr (EN)'']</ref>
| industry = [[real estate investment trust|Real-estate investment company]]
| assets = € 11.3 billion (on December 31, 2018)<ref name=financial>[http://www.icade.fr/en/content/download/17548/208726/version/2/file/PR_Icade-FY_2018-Financial_results.pdf, "Icade Annual Results (2018)"]</ref>
| revenue = € 1.77 billion (on December 31, 2018)<ref name=financial/>
| net_income = € 300.2 million (2019)
| homepage = [http://www.icade.fr/en/ Icade (EN)]
}}
[[File:ICADE SA logo.jpg|thumb|Previous logo]]
'''Icade SA''' is a [[Multinational corporation|multinational]] [[real estate investment trust]] (REIT) that is [[Headquarters|headquartered]] in [[Paris]], [[France]] and is a subsidiary of [[Caisse des dépôts et consignations]]. The name is an abbreviation of '''I'''mmobilière '''Ca'''isse des '''Dé'''pôts. It invests in various types of properties including health care, offices, business parks, housing and public facilities. Icade gained SIIC (REIT outside France) eligibility in 2007 after combining many of its subsidiaries. It is one of France's largest property businesses.<ref name="telegraph">{{cite web|date=July 18, 2018|title=Questor: this French property firm could be a beneficiary of a 'hard Brexit'|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/investing/shares/questor-share-tip-buy-icade-could-benefit-hard-brexit/}}</ref> Icade became the leading commercial real-estate company for offices and business parks in the [[Île-de-France|Ile-de-France]] region,<ref>{{Cite book|last=Enright, Theresa,|first=|url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/946160387|title=The making of grand Paris : metropolitan urbanism in the twenty-first century|publisher=|year=|isbn=978-0-262-03469-2|location=Cambridge, Massachusetts|pages=213, 214|oclc=946160387}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|date=June 6, 2016|title=Interview: "Making Icade an integrated real estate operator, leader in France"|url=https://www.lerevenu.com/bourse/valeurs-en-vue/olivier-wigniolle-faire-dicade-un-operateur-immobilier-integre-leader-en}}</ref> is the largest real-estate investment company in healthcare sector of France and a key partner of major French cities. Many of the buildings in [[La Défense]] belong to Icade.<ref name="telegraph" />

Icade and Silic [[Mergers and acquisitions|merged]] on 31 December 2013. Since the merger, the new company has divested a number of assets in order to finance new construction projects and acquire more assets outside of France.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.lesechos.fr/2017/07/immobilier-icade-rachete-anf-176722|title=Immobilier : Icade rachète ANF|date=July 24, 2017}}</ref>
== History ==

=== SCIC ===

SCIC was a housing construction project owner in France, and was particularly active in the [[Paris]] region. During the 1950s and 1960s, it worked with a number of architects architects to build housing at Sarcelles (France's first large-scale programme, with over 10,000 housing units), [[Créteil]] and Massy-Antony. <ref>{{cite web|url=https://corporate-executives.com/companies/icade/|title=Icade profile|accessdate=May 25, 2020}}</ref>

=== Icade ===

Icade was created in 1954 as Société Centrale Immobilière de la Caisse des dépôts by Caisse des dépôts as a subsidiary. It was not until the 1980s that it started investing in non residential/public properties. SCIC was renamed Icade SA in 2003, and its capital opened up to shareholders outside the Caisse des dépôts et consignations.

In 2005, Icade delivered its first commercial building produced using HQE environment-friendly quality processes.

Icade was successfully floated on the Paris Euronext stock exchange on 12 April 2006, under Étienne Bertier (CEO of Icade from October 2003 to August 2007). It had an ipo of about €2.64 billion.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.euronext.com/news/ipos/detail/details.jsp?docid=58593&lan=EN&cha=2050&displayMode=1|title=News|publisher=}}</ref>

In 2009, the French government considered Icade as a potential "asset in the strategic investment fund that will be key to reviving France's economy". However, this did not ultimately come to pass. In late 2009, Icade acquired Compagnie la Lucette from Morgan Stanley.<ref name="ad">[http://www.icade.fr/en/content/download/8197/85753/version/3/file/2013-02-20-Icade_PR_Annuels+Results_2012.pdf Icade Annual Results (2012)]</ref>

On November 13, 2009 Icade sold about 4745 housing units to a group of 25 social housing investors representing another company SNI. That move brought the number of residential units sold or committed for sale in late 2009 to early 2010 up to 29,452. The value of assets divested adds up to about €2 billion.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.euroinvestor.co.uk/news/story.aspx?id=10735795|title=Icade : Sale of Icade's housing division|work=EuroInvestor}}</ref>

In the summer of 2010 Icade reached an agreement with another company called MVRDV to develop part of France's first Eco-quarters, a residential complex made up of low energy buildings a first for France.<ref name="independent">{{Cite web|date=2010-08-07|title=Eco-quarters the new trend in city design - Environment - The Independent|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100807032238/https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/ecoquarters-the-new-trend-in-city-design-2041467.html|access-date=2020-06-03|website=web.archive.org}}</ref>

In 2013 the Merger-absorption of Silic by Icade occured.<ref>{{cite web|date=January 12, 2011|title=Icade négocie le rachat de la part de Groupama dans Silic|url=http://www.agefi.fr/corporate/actualites/quotidien/20111201/icade-negocie-rachat-part-groupama-dans-silic-96989}}</ref>

On February 17th, 2015, Chairman and CEO of Icade, Serge Grzybowski, resigns. Icade SA appoints Jean-Paul Faugere as Chairman of the Board of Icade and Nathalie Palladitcheff as Chief Executive Officer on a temporary basis <ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSFWN0VR02220150217|title=BRIEF-Chairman and CEO of Icade, Serge Grzybowski, resigns|date=February 17, 2015}}</ref>.

Major construction is currently underway to the West of Paris.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-eco/2019/01/03/97002-20190103FILWWW00207-immobilier-icade-cede-les-murs-de-son-siege.php|title=Immobilier: Icade cède les murs de son siege|date=January 3, 2019}}</ref>

In 2019 it established a major presence in Germany with the acquisition of 19 long term care homes. It is part of a plan to become the first ''Europe-wide reit''<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/trending/ljw_uih5xpixxwi1nbpmrw2|title=Icade reveals plans to establish first Europe-wide healthcare REIT |date=July 23, 2018}}</ref>

== Key figures ==
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! !! 31/12/2012 !! 31/12/2013
|-
| Net profit group share (million €) || 53 || 127
|-
| EPRA triple net NAV per share (€) || 80.7 || 77.3
|-
| Net worth (billion €) || 6.8 || 9.1
|-
| Employees || 1,721 || 1,479
|-
| Square metres owned by Icade || 2,436,759 || 3,085,000
|-
| Clinics owned by Icade || 55 || 59
|-
|}

== Activities ==

=== Property investment ===
Icade's assets include offices, shopping centres, business parks, healthcare facilities.
* Offices: In France, Icade handles office properties most of which are located in and around Paris.<ref name=ad/>
* Business parks: Icade's business parks are located in Paris, Saint-Denis, Aubervilliers, Rungis, Nanterre-Seine, Colombes...
* Icade owns two shopping centres: Le Millénaire in Aubervilliers (north-eastern Paris suburbs), opened in April 2011 (50%-owned by Klépierre) and "Le Parc de Fresnes".

The alternative assets portfolio (Icade Santé) : Icade owns 62 establishments as at 30/06/2014.

 

== Notes ==
{{Reflist}}

== External links ==
{{commonscatinline}}
* {{Official|http://www.icade.fr/en }}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Icade}}
[[Category:Real estate companies of France]]
[[Category:Companies based in Paris]]
[[Category:Real estate companies established in 1954]]
[[Category:1954 establishments in France]]
{{CAC Mid 60}}

Talk:Hackaday

2020-06-03T18:52:46Z

Dwaro: /* Hackaday Prize */ add comment

{{WP Magazines|class=Start}}
{{Connected contributor (paid)|checked=|User1=Szczys|U1-employer=Hackaday|U1-client=Hackaday|U1-EH=yes|U1-banned=no|U1-otherlinks=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hackaday&oldid=614143142}}
==Full Disclosure:==
I'm the Managing Editor of Hackaday.com. I understand the possibly biased nature of my editing this page and for that reason I have worked to better organize the page and augment the information provided rather than substantively changing it. It is my hope that readers of Hackaday.com will assist in fully fleshing out this entry.
[[User:Szczys|Szczys]] ([[User talk:Szczys|talk]]) 20:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

{{u|Szczys}} thanks for disclosing your COI. Note that enthusiastic users of your site may also probably have a COI (although a lesser one) so care will need to be taken by all. On the upside, Hackaday isn't political or anything that would cause major controversies, so true [[WP:NPOV]] issues are unlikely. The biggest problem is that wikipedia requires everything to be [[WP:V]]erifiable from [[WP:RS]] and newspapers and magazines generally don't write much about non-controversial geek blogs. Thats going to keep the information that is allowed in the article to a pretty low threshhold. If you are are aware of articles written by reliable sources (not other blogs etc) you could list them here, which would provide a resource for editors to use to flesh out the article. [[User:Gaijin42|Gaijin42]] ([[User talk:Gaijin42|talk]]) 02:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

== Should this page be Moved? ==

When the site started out about 10 years ago it featured 1 article per day. This is the reason for the name "Hack a Day". For many years we have published far more than one article per day and the way we refer to ourselves has changed to "Hackaday". This has been the case for at least 1 year if not several more than that. With this in mind I feel the article [[Hack a Day]] should be moved to [[Hackaday]] which is now just a redirect.
[[User:Szczys|Szczys]] ([[User talk:Szczys|talk]]) 21:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

=== Website Title ===

On the main page at hackaday.com, the title at the top of the page says "Hack A Day". The title tag in the HTML however says "Hackaday". I thought I'd just point out that this could cause confusion. Perhaps if you want one of these to become 'the' one and only title, you should make sure the website is consistent.
[[User:Danieljabailey|Danieljabailey]] ([[User talk:Danieljabailey|talk]]) 08:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
:Agreed, there needs to be some consistency in what the site is shown as over at Hackaday. Perhaps you could deal with that at your end Mike? [[User:Fraggle81|Fraggle81]] ([[User talk:Fraggle81|talk]]) 09:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

You don't make it easy do you Hackaday though? You refer to yourself as either far too often: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Hack-a-Day/136115233068429, Sees you use Hack A Day.Twitter sees you use Hackaday:https://twitter.com/hackaday but then the logo at the top of every page says Hack A Day. You really need some brand consistency. [[User:Narom|Narom]] ([[User talk:Narom|talk]]) 12:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

{{done}} page has been moved with a redirect at the old title. Probably should get the site logos and such cleaned up though. [[User:Gaijin42|Gaijin42]] ([[User talk:Gaijin42|talk]]) 18:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

== Featured by media section ==

The following comment was posted to my talk page by {{u|FalconZero}} I am copying the comment here, and replying here so that others may contribute to the conversation.

<blockquote>Hi, You recently deleted a number of references from the Hackaday article citing [[Wikipedia:RS|WP:RS]], however I believe 6 of the entries you removed to be in error.

Specifically links to Joystiq, Gizmodo and The Register. Rather than revert or talk on the article, I felt it best to raise this directly with you given the current COI situation on the article (FD: I read Hackaday).

Though Joystick, Gizmodo and The Register are all blogs, WP:RS and [[Wikipedia:V|WP:V]] specifically exempt professional outlets self declaring as 'blogs'. All three are commercial entities employing professional writers, and all three have significant circulation and/or [[Alexa_Internet|Alexa]] ranking (eg Register circulation is 350,000 per day (per WP), Gizmodo Alexa rank is 483 (per WP)). Would you consider reviewing your edit on this basis?

[[User:FalconZero|FalconZero]] ([[User talk:FalconZero|talk]]) 05:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
</blockquote>

{{od}}First, thanks for discussing this instead of immediately reverting. It helps things to get off on the right foot. Second, the register deletion was inadvertent. I will revert that bit. Third, I have several objections to the section/content in general
* A single blog, saying "hey this is cool, go check it out" isn't really of lasting encyclopedic value. No substantial commentary/content about the hack, or the site is in those links.
* I find it difficult to qualify the above as "getting picked up" or "gaining traction" or "featured" as the current text used. Again, a single transient hat-tip is not really notable, thats just the way the blogsphere works in general.
* Due to the prior issue (lack of any "meat" content in the secondary sources), we are essentially using the source to comment on its own activities. That is [[WP:PRIMARY]] based [[WP:OR]]. To invoke [[WP:RS]] (to source the fact that a blog picked up the story) we would need a third source saying "Secondary source X commented on hackaday story Y, saying Z". That is separate from using those sources to cite something that those sources actually say, but as I noted above, they don't actually say much.

In any case, we can see what others have to say, and start an RFC if needed to resolve it. [[User:Gaijin42|Gaijin42]] ([[User talk:Gaijin42|talk]]) 14:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

== Another example of some Wikipedia editor's stupidity ==

[[Hackaday]] has been deleted. Wow!

It should have at least been a redirect to this page, since many people have noted that Hackaday is synonymous with Hack A Day. No - it was deleted. It was pointed out in the deletion discussion that the two terms were equivalent and redirects would solve the apparent conflict of there being two pages. But no - it was summarily deleted.

Now there is no redirect and no response to a search on "hackaday" other than Wikipedia telling us it doesn't exist.

Could someone please recreate the page and redirect here as an intelligent resolution would suggest. I have no interest in creating an account right now just so I can have permission to do so. [[Special:Contributions/99.245.230.104|99.245.230.104]] ([[User talk:99.245.230.104|talk]]) 17:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

:It was deleted intentionally, because '''this''' article should be a redirect to that article. It was done for technical reasons to make room for the move. Maybe next time don't immediately start insulting people when you don't know whats going on. [[User:Gaijin42|Gaijin42]] ([[User talk:Gaijin42|talk]]) 18:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

==COI hatnote explained==
It is marked COI, because the editorial decision in section header, order and layout was made directly by the organization's representative and it remains as done back then in [[SPECIAL:Diff/614141694]] [[User:Graywalls|Graywalls]] ([[User talk:Graywalls|talk]]) 19:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC) You also should consider that the managing editor from the organization itself created the page before it was deleted for technical reasons to create place to move the pre-existing alias page. [[Hack A Day]][[User_talk:Szczys#Speedy_deletion_nomination_of_Hackaday]] [[User:Graywalls|Graywalls]] ([[User talk:Graywalls|talk]]) 19:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
: {{ping|Graywalls}} Yes, I understand why it is marked for COI. But the hatnote states "It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view.". I have read the article, and I don't see any problems regarding that. Can you point to specific policies that are violated in this article? I don't really see the point of this hatnote otherwise. [[User:Dwaro|Dwaro]] ([[User talk:Dwaro|talk]]) 19:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
:: It doesn't have to have a specific policy violation within the contents to be seen as possible COI. When sections like Accolades are added by the COMPANY itself, to highlight what it wants to be seen, that is a COI. [[User:Graywalls|Graywalls]] ([[User talk:Graywalls|talk]]) 19:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
::: Sure, that is a COI. How do you want to address this issue? It seems pretty trivial as your complaint is only about a single sentence. [[User:Dwaro|Dwaro]] ([[User talk:Dwaro|talk]]) 19:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
:::: Adding hackaday.io only on their voice unduly favors the presentation of view from Hackaday, given the amount of voice they already have in the article and very little third party contents. When the article is written in the tone "[w]e at Hackaday have been writing about amazing feats of hardware sorcery found throughout the broad community. ", that says it is written on behalf of Hackaday and thus making it like an announcement for Hackaday. [[WP:DUE|due weight]] concerns are different from whether the information is reliable. See concern raised by Gaijin42 also. [[User:Graywalls|Graywalls]] ([[User talk:Graywalls|talk]]) 20:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
::::: Yes, I know that due weight and reliability are not the same. I agree that the source is written in a promotional way. But this does not need to be reflected on WP, the information from that source can be written in a neutral tone. It is a large part of their history and organisation and should be mentioned imo. I still don't see how it violates [[WP:DUE]] [[User:Dwaro|Dwaro]] ([[User talk:Dwaro|talk]]) 21:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

== Hackaday Prize ==

{{ping|Graywalls}} removed some information about the Hackaday Prize. I'd like to discuss this.

Some years the prize was featured in independent sources, which are still mentioned in the article. Some years weren't, and you removed those. Considering that it was featured in media like the BBC and the IEEE Spectrum, it's not just a paragraph made out of primary references. For the sake of completion, can we add the subsection years too? I don't see a good reason to not add them and I think it does improve the article. I have read [[WP:ONUS]] and I disagree and it don't think that it violates [[WP:IINFO]] either. [[User:Dwaro|Dwaro]] ([[User talk:Dwaro|talk]]) 10:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
:The ones that were mentioned in those sources were left in place. Other ones only sourced only to the article connected source Hackaday, given the length of article, that is being dedicated to the presentation from that source's presentation is excessive as it will snowball into rattling off every prize issued BY THE organization. Wikipedia is not a [[WP:NOTAWEBHOST|webhost]] and such information is better left on their website. Similarly, a magazine's long list of editor's choice and such that only references that magazine shouldn't be included. This is the [[Special:Diff/960445382|edit]] in question, I imagine. Per [[WP:SPS]], if it's noteworthy enough, a reliable source other than than the source of prize would have discussed it. It's a [[WP:DUE|due weight]] issue, because including those lends disproportionate weight of the article space to the presentation of contents by this magazine, thus making it more like an extension of their own page. [[User:Graywalls|Graywalls]] ([[User talk:Graywalls|talk]]) 17:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
:: It's not that much information. And it's not representing a subjective viewpoint of Hackaday, only facts about the prize from a primary source. Wikipedia is indeed not a webhost, but just 4 bullet points is a very little amount of information and I don't think the policy was intended for this. You argue that it's better left to their website, but at the same time the purpose of Wikipedia is also providing summaries of information based on reliable sources. I think it is beneficial to the Wikipedia reader to complete the list of prizes. In case you still disagree, I'm opening a [[WP:3O]]. [[User:Dwaro|Dwaro]] ([[User talk:Dwaro|talk]]) 18:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Icade

2020-06-03T15:51:25Z

Dwaro: /* History */ remove subsections for single sentences, fix chronology, fix references, remove double information

{{Article for deletion/dated|page=Icade|timestamp=20200521233056|year=2020|month=May|day=21|substed=yes|help=off}}


{{about|the investment company|the iPad accessory|iCade|the Spanish schools|ICADE}}
{{Infobox company
| name = Icade
| logo = Icade logo.svg
| type = [[Public company|public]]
| traded_as = {{euronext|ICAD}} [[CAC Mid 60|CAC Mid 60 Component]]
| foundation = 1860 (SCIC) <ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.forbes.com/companies/icade/#767f7b38165f|title=Forbes 2000 list : Icade|accessdate=May 25, 2020}}</ref>F
| location = [[Paris]], [[France]]
| key_people = Olivier Wigniolle, CEO <ref name=ceo>[http://www.icade.fr/en/icade/direction/executive-committee/olivier-wigniolle, "Icade's page on Olivier Wigniolle". ''Icade.fr (EN)'']</ref>
| industry = [[Real-estate investment company]]
| assets = € 11.3 billion (on December 31, 2018)<ref name=financial>[http://www.icade.fr/en/content/download/17548/208726/version/2/file/PR_Icade-FY_2018-Financial_results.pdf, "Icade Annual Results (2018)"]</ref>
| revenue = € 1.77 billion (on December 31, 2018)<ref name=financial/>
| net_income = € 300.2 million (2019)
| homepage = [http://www.icade.fr/en/ Icade (EN)]
}}
[[File:ICADE SA logo.jpg|thumb|Previous logo]]
'''Icade SA''' is a [[Multinational corporation|multinational]] [[real estate investment trust]] (REIT) that is [[Headquarters|headquartered]] in [[Paris]], [[France]]. It invests in various types of properties including both public (health care) and private (residential, company properties). As a [[service provider]] it consults [[Real estate development|property developers]] and assists them with management. Icade gained SIIC (REIT outside France) eligibility in 2007 after combining many of its subsidiaries. It is one of France's largest property businesses.<ref name="telegraph">{{cite web|date=July 18, 2018|title=Questor: this French property firm could be a beneficiary of a 'hard Brexit'|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/investing/shares/questor-share-tip-buy-icade-could-benefit-hard-brexit/}}</ref> Icade became the leading commercial real-estate company for offices and business parks in the [[Île-de-France|Ile-de-France]] region,<ref>{{Cite book|last=Enright, Theresa,|first=|url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/946160387|title=The making of grand Paris : metropolitan urbanism in the twenty-first century|publisher=|year=|isbn=978-0-262-03469-2|location=Cambridge, Massachusetts|pages=213, 214|oclc=946160387}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|date=June 6, 2016|title=Interview: "Making Icade an integrated real estate operator, leader in France"|url=https://www.lerevenu.com/bourse/valeurs-en-vue/olivier-wigniolle-faire-dicade-un-operateur-immobilier-integre-leader-en}}</ref> is the largest real-estate investment company in healthcare sector of France and a key partner of major French cities. Many of the buildings in [[La Défense]] belong to Icade.<ref name="telegraph" />

Icade and Silic [[Mergers and acquisitions|merged]] on 31 December 2013. Since the merger, the new company has divested a number of assets in order to finance new construction projects and acquire more assets outside of France.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.lesechos.fr/2017/07/immobilier-icade-rachete-anf-176722|title=Immobilier : Icade rachète ANF|date=July 24, 2017}}</ref>
== History ==

=== SCIC ===

SCIC was a housing construction project owner in France, and was particularly active in the [[Paris]] region. During the 1950s and 1960s, it worked with a number of architects architects to build housing at Sarcelles (France's first large-scale programme, with over 10,000 housing units), [[Créteil]] and Massy-Antony. <ref>{{cite web|url=https://corporate-executives.com/companies/icade/|title=Icade profile|accessdate=May 25, 2020}}</ref>

=== Icade ===

Icade was created in 1954 as Société Centrale Immobilière de la Caisse des dépôts by Caisse des dépôts as a subsidiary. It was not until the 1980s that it started investing in non residential/public properties. SCIC was renamed Icade SA in 2003, and its capital opened up to shareholders outside the Caisse des dépôts et consignations.

In 2005, Icade delivered its first commercial building produced using HQE environment-friendly quality processes.

Icade was successfully floated on the Paris Euronext stock exchange on 12 April 2006, under Étienne Bertier (CEO of Icade from October 2003 to August 2007). It had an ipo of about €2.64 billion.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.euronext.com/news/ipos/detail/details.jsp?docid=58593&lan=EN&cha=2050&displayMode=1|title=News|publisher=}}</ref>

In 2009, the French government considered Icade as a potential "asset in the strategic investment fund that will be key to reviving France's economy". However, this did not ultimately come to pass. In late 2009, Icade acquired Compagnie la Lucette from Morgan Stanley.<ref name="ad">[http://www.icade.fr/en/content/download/8197/85753/version/3/file/2013-02-20-Icade_PR_Annuels+Results_2012.pdf Icade Annual Results (2012)]</ref>

On November 13, 2009 Icade sold about 4745 housing units to a group of 25 social housing investors representing another company SNI. That move brought the number of residential units sold or committed for sale in late 2009 to early 2010 up to 29,452. The value of assets divested adds up to about €2 billion.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.euroinvestor.co.uk/news/story.aspx?id=10735795|title=Icade : Sale of Icade's housing division|work=EuroInvestor}}</ref>

In the summer of 2010 Icade reached an agreement with another company called MVRDV to develop part of France's first Eco-quarters, a residential complex made up of low energy buildings a first for France.<ref name="independent">{{Cite web|date=2010-08-07|title=Eco-quarters the new trend in city design - Environment - The Independent|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100807032238/https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/ecoquarters-the-new-trend-in-city-design-2041467.html|access-date=2020-06-03|website=web.archive.org}}</ref>

In 2013 the Merger-absorption of Silic by Icade occured.<ref>{{cite web|date=January 12, 2011|title=Icade négocie le rachat de la part de Groupama dans Silic|url=http://www.agefi.fr/corporate/actualites/quotidien/20111201/icade-negocie-rachat-part-groupama-dans-silic-96989}}</ref>

On February 17th, 2015, Chairman and CEO of Icade, Serge Grzybowski, resigns. Icade SA appoints Jean-Paul Faugere as Chairman of the Board of Icade and Nathalie Palladitcheff as Chief Executive Officer on a temporary basis <ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSFWN0VR02220150217|title=BRIEF-Chairman and CEO of Icade, Serge Grzybowski, resigns|date=February 17, 2015}}</ref>.

Major construction is currently underway to the West of Paris.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-eco/2019/01/03/97002-20190103FILWWW00207-immobilier-icade-cede-les-murs-de-son-siege.php|title=Immobilier: Icade cède les murs de son siege|date=January 3, 2019}}</ref>

In 2019 it established a major presence in Germany with the acquisition of 19 long term care homes. It is part of a plan to become the first ''Europe-wide reit''<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/trending/ljw_uih5xpixxwi1nbpmrw2|title=Icade reveals plans to establish first Europe-wide healthcare REIT |date=July 23, 2018}}</ref>

== Key figures ==
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! !! 31/12/2012 !! 31/12/2013
|-
| Net profit group share (million €) || 53 || 127
|-
| EPRA triple net NAV per share (€) || 80.7 || 77.3
|-
| Net worth (billion €) || 6.8 || 9.1
|-
| Employees || 1,721 || 1,479
|-
| Square metres owned by Icade || 2,436,759 || 3,085,000
|-
| Clinics owned by Icade || 55 || 59
|-
|}

== Activities ==

=== Property investment ===
Icade's assets include offices, shopping centres, business parks, healthcare facilities.
* Offices: In France, Icade handles office properties most of which are located in and around Paris.<ref name=ad/>
* Business parks: Icade's business parks are located in Paris, Saint-Denis, Aubervilliers, Rungis, Nanterre-Seine, Colombes...
* Icade owns two shopping centres: Le Millénaire in Aubervilliers (north-eastern Paris suburbs), opened in April 2011 (50%-owned by Klépierre) and "Le Parc de Fresnes".

The alternative assets portfolio (Icade Santé) : Icade owns 62 establishments as at 30/06/2014.

 

== Notes ==
{{Reflist}}

== External links ==
{{commonscatinline}}
* {{Official|http://www.icade.fr/en }}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Icade}}
[[Category:Real estate companies of France]]
[[Category:Companies based in Paris]]
[[Category:Real estate companies established in 1954]]
[[Category:1954 establishments in France]]
{{CAC Mid 60}}

Icade

2020-06-03T15:39:59Z

Dwaro: full company name

{{Article for deletion/dated|page=Icade|timestamp=20200521233056|year=2020|month=May|day=21|substed=yes|help=off}}


{{about|the investment company|the iPad accessory|iCade|the Spanish schools|ICADE}}
{{Infobox company
| name = Icade
| logo = Icade logo.svg
| type = [[Public company|public]]
| traded_as = {{euronext|ICAD}} [[CAC Mid 60|CAC Mid 60 Component]]
| foundation = 1860 (SCIC) <ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.forbes.com/companies/icade/#767f7b38165f|title=Forbes 2000 list : Icade|accessdate=May 25, 2020}}</ref>F
| location = [[Paris]], [[France]]
| key_people = Olivier Wigniolle, CEO <ref name=ceo>[http://www.icade.fr/en/icade/direction/executive-committee/olivier-wigniolle, "Icade's page on Olivier Wigniolle". ''Icade.fr (EN)'']</ref>
| industry = [[Real-estate investment company]]
| assets = € 11.3 billion (on December 31, 2018)<ref name=financial>[http://www.icade.fr/en/content/download/17548/208726/version/2/file/PR_Icade-FY_2018-Financial_results.pdf, "Icade Annual Results (2018)"]</ref>
| revenue = € 1.77 billion (on December 31, 2018)<ref name=financial/>
| net_income = € 300.2 million (2019)
| homepage = [http://www.icade.fr/en/ Icade (EN)]
}}
[[File:ICADE SA logo.jpg|thumb|Previous logo]]
'''Icade SA''' is a [[Multinational corporation|multinational]] [[real estate investment trust]] (REIT) that is [[Headquarters|headquartered]] in [[Paris]], [[France]]. It invests in various types of properties including both public (health care) and private (residential, company properties). As a [[service provider]] it consults [[Real estate development|property developers]] and assists them with management. Icade gained SIIC (REIT outside France) eligibility in 2007 after combining many of its subsidiaries. It is one of France's largest property businesses.<ref name="telegraph">{{cite web|date=July 18, 2018|title=Questor: this French property firm could be a beneficiary of a 'hard Brexit'|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/investing/shares/questor-share-tip-buy-icade-could-benefit-hard-brexit/}}</ref> Icade became the leading commercial real-estate company for offices and business parks in the [[Île-de-France|Ile-de-France]] region,<ref>{{Cite book|last=Enright, Theresa,|first=|url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/946160387|title=The making of grand Paris : metropolitan urbanism in the twenty-first century|publisher=|year=|isbn=978-0-262-03469-2|location=Cambridge, Massachusetts|pages=213, 214|oclc=946160387}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|date=June 6, 2016|title=Interview: "Making Icade an integrated real estate operator, leader in France"|url=https://www.lerevenu.com/bourse/valeurs-en-vue/olivier-wigniolle-faire-dicade-un-operateur-immobilier-integre-leader-en}}</ref> is the largest real-estate investment company in healthcare sector of France and a key partner of major French cities. Many of the buildings in [[La Défense]] belong to Icade.<ref name="telegraph" />

Icade and Silic [[Mergers and acquisitions|merged]] on 31 December 2013. Since the merger, the new company has divested a number of assets in order to finance new construction projects and acquire more assets outside of France.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.lesechos.fr/2017/07/immobilier-icade-rachete-anf-176722|title=Immobilier : Icade rachète ANF|date=July 24, 2017}}</ref>
== History ==

=== SCIC ===

SCIC was a housing construction project owner in France, and was particularly active in the [[Paris]] region. During the 1950s and 1960s, it worked with a number of architects architects to build housing at Sarcelles (France's first large-scale programme, with over 10,000 housing units), [[Créteil]] and Massy-Antony. <ref>{{cite web|url=https://corporate-executives.com/companies/icade/|title=Icade profile|accessdate=May 25, 2020}}</ref>

=== Creation of Icade ===

Icade was created in 1954 as Société Centrale Immobilière de la Caisse des dépôts by Caisse des dépôts as a subsidiary. It was not until the 1980s that it started investing in non residential/public properties. SCIC was renamed Icade SA in 2003, and its capital opened up to shareholders outside the Caisse des dépôts et consignations.

In 2005, Icade delivered its first commercial building produced using HQE environment-friendly quality processes.
Icade was successfully floated on the Paris Euronext stock exchange on 12 April 2006, under Étienne Bertier (CEO of Icade from October 2003 to August 2007). It had an ipo of about €2.64 billion.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.euronext.com/news/ipos/detail/details.jsp?docid=58593&lan=EN&cha=2050&displayMode=1|title=News|publisher=}}</ref>

====key dates====
2003: Transformation into Icade
2006: Initial public offering
2013: Merger-absorption of Silic by Icade <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.agefi.fr/corporate/actualites/quotidien/20111201/icade-negocie-rachat-part-groupama-dans-silic-96989|title = Icade négocie le rachat de la part de Groupama dans Silic|date=January 12, 2011}}</ref>

=== Since 2007 ===

In 2009, the French government considered Icade as a potential "asset in the strategic investment fund that will be key to reviving France's economy". However, this did not ultimately come to pass. In late 2009, Icade acquired Compagnie la Lucette from Morgan Stanley.<ref name="ad">[http://www.icade.fr/en/content/download/8197/85753/version/3/file/2013-02-20-Icade_PR_Annuels+Results_2012.pdf Icade Annual Results (2012)]</ref>

On November 13, 2009 Icade sold about 4745 housing units to a group of 25 social housing investors representing another company SNI. That move brought the number of residential units sold or committed for sale in late 2009 to early 2010 up to 29,452. The value of assets divested adds up to about €2 billion.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.euroinvestor.co.uk/news/story.aspx?id=10735795|title=Icade : Sale of Icade's housing division|work=EuroInvestor}}</ref>

In the summer of 2010 Icade reached an agreement with another company called MVRDV to develop part of France's first Eco-quarters, a residential complex made up of low energy buildings a first for France.<ref name=independent>[https://web.archive.org/web/20100807032238/https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/ecoquarters-the-new-trend-in-city-design-2041467.html "Eco-quarters the new trend in city design", ''The Independent (London) 02/08/2010'']</ref>

On February 17th, 2015, Chairman and CEO of Icade, Serge Grzybowski, resigns. Icade SA appoints Jean-Paul Faugere as Chairman of the Board of Icade and Nathalie Palladitcheff as Chief Executive Officer on a temporary basis <ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSFWN0VR02220150217|title=BRIEF-Chairman and CEO of Icade, Serge Grzybowski, resigns|date=February 17, 2015}}</ref>.

Major construction is currently underway to the West of Paris. <ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-eco/2019/01/03/97002-20190103FILWWW00207-immobilier-icade-cede-les-murs-de-son-siege.php|title=Immobilier: Icade cède les murs de son siege|date=January 3, 2019}}</ref>

===France's first low-energy, solar-powered buildings===
In 2010 Icade partnered with design company WVRDV to develop one of the first buildings in the eco-quarter of Paris.<ref name=independent/>

===Europe-Wide Reit===

In 2019 it established a major presence in Germany with the acquisition of 19 long term care homes. It is part of a plan to become the first ''Europe-wide reit''<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/trending/ljw_uih5xpixxwi1nbpmrw2|title=Icade reveals plans to establish first Europe-wide healthcare REIT |date=July 23, 2018}}</ref>

== Key figures ==
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! !! 31/12/2012 !! 31/12/2013
|-
| Net profit group share (million €) || 53 || 127
|-
| EPRA triple net NAV per share (€) || 80.7 || 77.3
|-
| Net worth (billion €) || 6.8 || 9.1
|-
| Employees || 1,721 || 1,479
|-
| Square metres owned by Icade || 2,436,759 || 3,085,000
|-
| Clinics owned by Icade || 55 || 59
|-
|}

== Activities ==

=== Property investment ===
Icade's assets include offices, shopping centres, business parks, healthcare facilities.
* Offices: In France, Icade handles office properties most of which are located in and around Paris.<ref name=ad/>
* Business parks: Icade's business parks are located in Paris, Saint-Denis, Aubervilliers, Rungis, Nanterre-Seine, Colombes...
* Icade owns two shopping centres: Le Millénaire in Aubervilliers (north-eastern Paris suburbs), opened in April 2011 (50%-owned by Klépierre) and "Le Parc de Fresnes".

The alternative assets portfolio (Icade Santé) : Icade owns 62 establishments as at 30/06/2014.

 

== Notes ==
{{Reflist}}

== External links ==
{{commonscatinline}}
* {{Official|http://www.icade.fr/en }}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Icade}}
[[Category:Real estate companies of France]]
[[Category:Companies based in Paris]]
[[Category:Real estate companies established in 1954]]
[[Category:1954 establishments in France]]
{{CAC Mid 60}}

Icade

2020-06-03T15:35:56Z

Dwaro: move text around in the intro

{{Article for deletion/dated|page=Icade|timestamp=20200521233056|year=2020|month=May|day=21|substed=yes|help=off}}


{{about|the investment company|the iPad accessory|iCade|the Spanish schools|ICADE}}
{{Infobox company
| name = Icade
| logo = Icade logo.svg
| type = [[Public company|public]]
| traded_as = {{euronext|ICAD}} [[CAC Mid 60|CAC Mid 60 Component]]
| foundation = 1860 (SCIC) <ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.forbes.com/companies/icade/#767f7b38165f|title=Forbes 2000 list : Icade|accessdate=May 25, 2020}}</ref>F
| location = [[Paris]], [[France]]
| key_people = Olivier Wigniolle, CEO <ref name=ceo>[http://www.icade.fr/en/icade/direction/executive-committee/olivier-wigniolle, "Icade's page on Olivier Wigniolle". ''Icade.fr (EN)'']</ref>
| industry = [[Real-estate investment company]]
| assets = € 11.3 billion (on December 31, 2018)<ref name=financial>[http://www.icade.fr/en/content/download/17548/208726/version/2/file/PR_Icade-FY_2018-Financial_results.pdf, "Icade Annual Results (2018)"]</ref>
| revenue = € 1.77 billion (on December 31, 2018)<ref name=financial/>
| net_income = € 300.2 million (2019)
| homepage = [http://www.icade.fr/en/ Icade (EN)]
}}
[[File:ICADE SA logo.jpg|thumb|Previous logo]]
'''Icade''' is a [[Multinational corporation|multinational]] [[real estate investment trust]] (REIT) that is [[Headquarters|headquartered]] in [[Paris]], [[France]]. It invests in various types of properties including both public (health care) and private (residential, company properties). As a [[service provider]] it consults [[Real estate development|property developers]] and assists them with management. Icade gained SIIC (REIT outside France) eligibility in 2007 after combining many of its subsidiaries. It is one of France's largest property businesses.<ref name="telegraph">{{cite web|date=July 18, 2018|title=Questor: this French property firm could be a beneficiary of a 'hard Brexit'|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/investing/shares/questor-share-tip-buy-icade-could-benefit-hard-brexit/}}</ref> Icade became the leading commercial real-estate company for offices and business parks in the [[Île-de-France|Ile-de-France]] region,<ref>{{Cite book|last=Enright, Theresa,|first=|url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/946160387|title=The making of grand Paris : metropolitan urbanism in the twenty-first century|publisher=|year=|isbn=978-0-262-03469-2|location=Cambridge, Massachusetts|pages=213, 214|oclc=946160387}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|date=June 6, 2016|title=Interview: "Making Icade an integrated real estate operator, leader in France"|url=https://www.lerevenu.com/bourse/valeurs-en-vue/olivier-wigniolle-faire-dicade-un-operateur-immobilier-integre-leader-en}}</ref> is the largest real-estate investment company in healthcare sector of France and a key partner of major French cities. Many of the buildings in [[La Défense]] belong to Icade.<ref name="telegraph" />

Icade and Silic [[Mergers and acquisitions|merged]] on 31 December 2013. Since the merger, the new company has divested a number of assets in order to finance new construction projects and acquire more assets outside of France.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.lesechos.fr/2017/07/immobilier-icade-rachete-anf-176722|title=Immobilier : Icade rachète ANF|date=July 24, 2017}}</ref>
== History ==

=== SCIC ===

SCIC was a housing construction project owner in France, and was particularly active in the [[Paris]] region. During the 1950s and 1960s, it worked with a number of architects architects to build housing at Sarcelles (France's first large-scale programme, with over 10,000 housing units), [[Créteil]] and Massy-Antony. <ref>{{cite web|url=https://corporate-executives.com/companies/icade/|title=Icade profile|accessdate=May 25, 2020}}</ref>

=== Creation of Icade ===

Icade was created in 1954 as Société Centrale Immobilière de la Caisse des dépôts by Caisse des dépôts as a subsidiary. It was not until the 1980s that it started investing in non residential/public properties. SCIC was renamed Icade SA in 2003, and its capital opened up to shareholders outside the Caisse des dépôts et consignations.

In 2005, Icade delivered its first commercial building produced using HQE environment-friendly quality processes.
Icade was successfully floated on the Paris Euronext stock exchange on 12 April 2006, under Étienne Bertier (CEO of Icade from October 2003 to August 2007). It had an ipo of about €2.64 billion.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.euronext.com/news/ipos/detail/details.jsp?docid=58593&lan=EN&cha=2050&displayMode=1|title=News|publisher=}}</ref>

====key dates====
2003: Transformation into Icade
2006: Initial public offering
2013: Merger-absorption of Silic by Icade <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.agefi.fr/corporate/actualites/quotidien/20111201/icade-negocie-rachat-part-groupama-dans-silic-96989|title = Icade négocie le rachat de la part de Groupama dans Silic|date=January 12, 2011}}</ref>

=== Since 2007 ===

In 2009, the French government considered Icade as a potential "asset in the strategic investment fund that will be key to reviving France's economy". However, this did not ultimately come to pass. In late 2009, Icade acquired Compagnie la Lucette from Morgan Stanley.<ref name="ad">[http://www.icade.fr/en/content/download/8197/85753/version/3/file/2013-02-20-Icade_PR_Annuels+Results_2012.pdf Icade Annual Results (2012)]</ref>

On November 13, 2009 Icade sold about 4745 housing units to a group of 25 social housing investors representing another company SNI. That move brought the number of residential units sold or committed for sale in late 2009 to early 2010 up to 29,452. The value of assets divested adds up to about €2 billion.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.euroinvestor.co.uk/news/story.aspx?id=10735795|title=Icade : Sale of Icade's housing division|work=EuroInvestor}}</ref>

In the summer of 2010 Icade reached an agreement with another company called MVRDV to develop part of France's first Eco-quarters, a residential complex made up of low energy buildings a first for France.<ref name=independent>[https://web.archive.org/web/20100807032238/https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/ecoquarters-the-new-trend-in-city-design-2041467.html "Eco-quarters the new trend in city design", ''The Independent (London) 02/08/2010'']</ref>

On February 17th, 2015, Chairman and CEO of Icade, Serge Grzybowski, resigns. Icade SA appoints Jean-Paul Faugere as Chairman of the Board of Icade and Nathalie Palladitcheff as Chief Executive Officer on a temporary basis <ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSFWN0VR02220150217|title=BRIEF-Chairman and CEO of Icade, Serge Grzybowski, resigns|date=February 17, 2015}}</ref>.

Major construction is currently underway to the West of Paris. <ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-eco/2019/01/03/97002-20190103FILWWW00207-immobilier-icade-cede-les-murs-de-son-siege.php|title=Immobilier: Icade cède les murs de son siege|date=January 3, 2019}}</ref>

===France's first low-energy, solar-powered buildings===
In 2010 Icade partnered with design company WVRDV to develop one of the first buildings in the eco-quarter of Paris.<ref name=independent/>

===Europe-Wide Reit===

In 2019 it established a major presence in Germany with the acquisition of 19 long term care homes. It is part of a plan to become the first ''Europe-wide reit''<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/trending/ljw_uih5xpixxwi1nbpmrw2|title=Icade reveals plans to establish first Europe-wide healthcare REIT |date=July 23, 2018}}</ref>

== Key figures ==
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! !! 31/12/2012 !! 31/12/2013
|-
| Net profit group share (million €) || 53 || 127
|-
| EPRA triple net NAV per share (€) || 80.7 || 77.3
|-
| Net worth (billion €) || 6.8 || 9.1
|-
| Employees || 1,721 || 1,479
|-
| Square metres owned by Icade || 2,436,759 || 3,085,000
|-
| Clinics owned by Icade || 55 || 59
|-
|}

== Activities ==

=== Property investment ===
Icade's assets include offices, shopping centres, business parks, healthcare facilities.
* Offices: In France, Icade handles office properties most of which are located in and around Paris.<ref name=ad/>
* Business parks: Icade's business parks are located in Paris, Saint-Denis, Aubervilliers, Rungis, Nanterre-Seine, Colombes...
* Icade owns two shopping centres: Le Millénaire in Aubervilliers (north-eastern Paris suburbs), opened in April 2011 (50%-owned by Klépierre) and "Le Parc de Fresnes".

The alternative assets portfolio (Icade Santé) : Icade owns 62 establishments as at 30/06/2014.

 

== Notes ==
{{Reflist}}

== External links ==
{{commonscatinline}}
* {{Official|http://www.icade.fr/en }}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Icade}}
[[Category:Real estate companies of France]]
[[Category:Companies based in Paris]]
[[Category:Real estate companies established in 1954]]
[[Category:1954 establishments in France]]
{{CAC Mid 60}}

Talk:Icade

2020-06-03T11:19:55Z

Dwaro: /* Removed content */ new section

{{WikiProject France|class=start|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Companies|class=start|importance=low}}
{{Connected contributor (paid)|checked=|User1=MathieuD75|U1-employer=|U1-client=Icade|U1-EH=yes|U1-banned=|U1-otherlinks=massive edits, SPA}}

== Removed content ==

Various text was removed from the article since it's creation, I'm parking it here so it can be put back if it can be reliable sourced.

Today, Icade handles property investment, development and services in many different domains: offices, business parks, shopping centres, healthcare facilities and public amenities.

=== SCIC ===
* By the late 1980s, SCIC owned over 200,000 units of rental accommodation, most of which was state-subsidised social housing. SCIC was also active in the healthcare sector, assisting in construction of hospitals across France (Évry, Caen, Strasbourg, etc.).
* SCIC (later Icade) extended its expertise to all sorts of public and subsequently private amenities, like Rungis market and the Méridien hotel at [[Porte Maillot]].
* As of the 1990s, SCIC introduced a property investment service and extended the scope of its activities to office property5.
* In the 2000s, SCIC began to focus specifically on competitive bids, leaving other Caisse des Dépôts subsidiaries to specialise in public interest projects.
* SCIC was a leading housing estate construction project owner in France, and was particularly active in the [[Paris]] region. During the 1950s and 1960s, it worked with architects like Jean Dubuisson, Marcel Lods, Jacques Henri Labourdette, Bernard Zehrfuss, Raymond Lopez and Charles-Gustave Stoskopf, to build housing at Sarcelles (France's first large-scale programme, with over 10,000 housing units), [[Créteil]] and Massy-Antony. By the late 1980s, SCIC owned over 200,000 units of rental accommodation, most of which was state-subsidised social housing.
* SCIC was also active in the healthcare sector, providing ground-breaking project owner assistance services to support the construction of key hospitals across France (Évry, Caen, Strasbourg, etc.).
* SCIC (later Icade) extended its expertise to all sorts of public and subsequently private amenities, like Rungis market and the Méridien hotel at [[Porte Maillot]].
* As of the 1990s, SCIC introduced a property investment service and extended the scope of its activities to office property5.
* In the 2000s, SCIC began to focus specifically on competitive bids, leaving other Caisse des Dépôts subsidiaries to specialise in public interest projects.

=== Icade ===
* Icade was created in 1954 as Société Centrale Immobilière de la Caisse des dépôts by Caisse des dépôts as a subsidiary. It was not until the 1980s that it started investing in non residential/public properties.
* SCIC was renamed Icade SA in 2003, and its capital opened up to shareholders outside the Caisse des dépôts et consignations.
* Icade SA's revenues and income started growing significantly, facilitated both by favourable economic conditions and the group's unique business model, which combined activities that are normally managed by separate companies: property development, investment and services. This concept, developed by CEO Étienne Bertier and his management team, promoted strong team buy-in to the company strategy. The subsidiary, Icade Patrimoine, is an asset inherited from SCIC, although all social housing assets were sold to another Caisse des Dépôts subsidiary, the Société nationale immobilière (SNI4) in 2006.

=== International ===

=== International presence ===
* Germany – Icade Reit – Mostly commercial/office business properties in Hamburg, Munich, Frankfurt, Berlin and Düsseldorf with tenants that include Deutsche Telekom. In 2006 it purchased assets from Daimler Chrysler. Icade began an exit strategy since 2011.
* Spain – Inmobiliaria de la Caisse des dépôts España – Many university locations – 21 residences in 2006. Icade activities in Spain were sold in 2012.
* Italy – Icade Italia, Newreal – Icade Italia was sold in 2010.
* Belgium, Benelux – Offers services to the European Parliament (2006). Icade Belgium was sold in 2010.

=== Achievements/projects ===

* Le Millénaire 3 • Paris

This seven-storey building includes 34,000m² of office space. All the building's facilities are located on the ground floor, around an atrium with a 1,600m² glass roof: reception area, restaurant, cafeteria, concierge, 200-seat auditorium. By 2015, Le Millénaire 3 will accommodate staff from the French Ministry of justice and civil liberties. The building hopes to achieve Excellent HQE®, HQE® Exploitation and BREEAM® ratings, as well as certification for low energy consumption (BBC label). />

Icade's role: property developer, investor 

Delivery: 2Q 2015 

Architect: Kohn Pedersen Fox Associates (KPF)

* Le Millénaire shopping centre • Paris - Aubervilliers

Located between the Portes de Paris and Le Millénaire business parks, next to the Saint Denis canal, this 59,000m² shopping centre includes a 4,000m² supermarket, 140 shops and restaurants, and 12,000m² of landscaped areas. It was the first shopping centre to have a Very Good HQE® Commerce and BREEAM® rating when it opened. 

Icade's role: investor, property developer. 

Opened: 27 April 2011 

Architect: Antoine Grumbach

* Le Pôle Santé République • Clermont-Ferrand

This 270-bed medical, surgical and obstetric clinic was acquired by Icade Santé. 

Icade's role: investor, owner 

Operator: Médi-Partenaires 

Acquired: September 2011 

Architect: DHA Architectes-Urbanistes

* Le Garance • Paris

This innovative HQE®- and BBC-certified office complex covers a surface area of 26,000m². The architecture is resolutely modern and makes considerable use of natural attributes (space, light, volumes and harmonious use of internal walls and gardens, etc.).

Icade's role: property developer, off-plan sales 

Delivery: 2Q 2015 

Architect: Metra + Associés

* La Tour First • La Défense

Icade is the sole manager of La Tour First, under the terms of the property management mandate granted by its owner, international investor Beacon Capital Strategic Partners V. La Tour First is the highest tower block in France, and has a surface area of 80,000m². 

Icade's role: rental and technical management, management of HQE® and Leed® certification processes 

Delivery: February 2011 

Architects: Kohn Pedersen Fox Associates (KPF) and Cabinet SRA

* MacDonald warehouses • Paris

The 630m-long MacDonald warehouse structure has been fully converted as part of a large-scale urban renewal project for north-eastern Paris (PNE). Total net surface area: 165,000m², including 1,100 housing units, 27,000m² of office space, 32,500m² for retail and 33,000 m² for activities and amenities. 

Icade's role: property developer 

Delivery: 2014 

Coordinating architects: Floris Alkemade and Xaveer de Geyter - (FAA+XDGA), Michel Desvignes (landscape designer)

Building architects: Christian de Portzamparc, Nicolas Michelin, Gigon and Guyer, Raphaëlle Hondelatte and Mathieu Laporte, Brenac-Gonzales, Julien De Smedt, Mia Haag, AUC, Stéphane Maupin, François Leclercq, Marc Mimram, Odile Decq, Thierry Beaulieu, Kengo Kuma and Floris Alkemade – Xaveer de Geyter

* La Tour EQHO • Paris

La Tour EQHO is a 140m-high vertical campus with a total usable surface area of 79,000m² of office space on 42 floors: sufficient to accommodate over 5,000 desks. The building includes numerous communal areas and services (concierge services, baggage drop, sports room and themed restaurants), as well as 1,100 private parking spaces. La Tour EQHO aims to obtain NF HQE® certification for renovated commercial properties, a Very Good BREEAM® rating , HQE® Exploitation certification and the BBC Effinergie Rénovation label. 

Icade's role: investor, property developer 

Delivery: mid-2013 

Architect: Hubert & Roy

* Le Clos Saint-Michel • Chevilly-Larue

This 290-unit housing complex is exceptional as regards its size (24,000m² of land for a total net surface area of 20,000m²), its location in the heart of Chevilly-Larue, and the number of housing types included (social housing, first-time buys, market rental, and housing for different generations). Le Clos Saint-Michel includes 17 housing units specifically tailored to senior citizens. It is also an eco-neighbourhood, 50% of which is green open space (30% parkland), and includes some low energy consumption homes (BBC-certified). 

Icade's role: spatial planner, property developer 

Delivery: 2012 

Architect: RVA - Renaud-Vignaud Associés

* Le Metropolitan • Villejuif

The new LCL head office is located on a campus comprising five HQE® and THPE buildings, each with its own specific identity. Overall harmony is ensured by the glasswork, use of repeated colours, and plant-covered walls. 80,000m2 of office space. An investment of 319 million euros. 

Icade's role: property developer, investor, off-plan sales 

Delivery: between November 2008 and March 2012 

Architects: Hubert Godet & François Leclercq (joint contractors: Icade Arcoba and Berim)

* Le Prélude • Bordeaux

This new 8-storey, HQE® office building has a total net surface area of 9,350m². It was the first office building to acquire the low energy consumption label (BBC), and is located in the heart of the future Euratlantique business district, close to the Bordeaux Saint-Jean mainline train station. 

Icade's role: property developer 

Investor: La Française AM 

Delivery: 1Q 2013 

Architect: Chaix & Morel

* Cité Sanitaire • Saint Nazaire

This 16-hectare complex comprises a surface area of 92,000m², and accommodates the Saint Nazaire hospital and medical facilities for the Harmonie Atlantique clinic, providing 794 beds in all. It was developed through public-private partnership, and is let according to a 35-year hospital lease. 

Investment: 280 million euros 

Icade's role: investor, property developer, technical contractor 

Delivery: February 2012 

Architect: Groupe 6 Architectes Associés

* Les Jardins d’Elise • Souffelweyersheim

Located just 10 minutes from Strasbourg city centre, this innovative building project combines cutting-edge technology, comfort and respect for the environment. The complex comprises five buildings in a landscaped park, and includes 183 individual and collective housing units. 

Icade's role: property developer, marketing 

Delivery: Q2 2013 

Architect: Daufresne-le-Garrec & Associés

* Odysseum • Montpellier

This 150,000m2 open-air leisure and retail complex is the first of its kind, and includes direct access by tram. The combination of culture, leisure facilities and retail outlets makes it unique among France's shopping centres. The Odysseum complex includes a shopping centre with a total net surface area of 51,000m², a 17-screen multiplex cinema, an aquarium, bowling alley, planetarium, ice rink, go-kart circuit, 17 themed restaurants, and more. 

Icade's role: investor (co-investors: Klepierre - Segece), property developer, marketing, manager 

Opened: 24 September 2009 

Architect: Design International and DGLA

* Ambre & Opale • Lyon

This low energy consumption building complex (BBC-certified) comprises two office buildings: Ambre (11,166m²) and Opale (12,169m²). In 2011, Suravenir, a life assurance company owned by the Crédit Mutuel de Bretagne group, bought the Ambre building off-plan, and the entire Opale building has been let to Banque Postale. 

Icade's role: property developer (in conjunction with Altaréa Cogedim) 

Delivery: June 2013 for Ambre, March 2014 for Opale 

Architects: Audart Favaro for Ambre, Marc Mimram for Opale

* Aquaverde • Tourcoing

This residential unit comprises 203 apartments in seven buildings, and fits harmoniously into the new Tourcoing city centre. The Aquaverde residence is located close to the tram service, near the Roubaix canal. 

Icade's role: property development, marketing 

Delivery: 2Q 2012 

Architect: Paindavoine Parmentier

=== Various stuff ===
* The building, is located in the 13th arrondissement, and is one of the first low-energy buildings in France.
* The non-strategic assets portfolio : Icade still owns a collection of shops mainly comprising a network of "Mr Bricolage" DIY Stores. The others non-strategic assets portfolio are warehouses, housing and assets in Germany (as at 30/06/2014).
* Expansion into Germany happened in 2004 where it purchased office buildings, the same year the company began focussing on buying out private subsidiaries (companies that were not publicly traded).
* it also had a significant and growing presence in other European countries like [[Germany]], [[Italy]], [[Spain]] and [[Belgium]].
* Overall, Icade is present in 24 cities.
* <ref name=ad>[http://www.icade.fr/en/content/download/8197/85753/version/3/file/2013-02-20-Icade_PR_Annuels+Results_2012.pdf Icade Annual Results]</ref>
* Icade's public amenities and healthcare facilities include an office complex in Levallois-Perret (north-western Paris suburbs), which is occupied by the French Ministry for internal affairs, and 55 clinics and healthcare establishments (31/12/2012).
* Warehouses: Icade owns 400,000m² of warehouse assets, most of which are rented to the Casino group (31/12/2012).<ref name=ad>[http://www.icade.fr/en/content/download/8197/85753/version/3/file/2013-02-20-Icade_PR_Annuels+Results_2012.pdf Icade Annual Results]</ref>
* Icade's housing portfolio was valued at close to 312 million euros in 2011. Most housing assets were sold in 2009 and 2010 and, as at 31/12/2012, Icade owns 4,246 housing units, 30,300m² of retail surface area and homes for senior citizens, and 152 hectares of investment assets.
* lots of history here too https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Icade&diff=958603725&oldid=958295281&diffmode=source

Pinging {{ping|Grmike}}, maybe for some help to improve the article :-)
[[User:Dwaro|Dwaro]] ([[User talk:Dwaro|talk]]) 11:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Speaking Moistly

2020-06-03T10:24:50Z

Dwaro:

===[[:Speaking Moistly]]===
{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|M}}

<noinclude>{{AFD help}}</noinclude>
:{{la|Speaking Moistly}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Speaking Moistly|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 May 31#{{anchorencode:Speaking Moistly}}|View log]]</noinclude>{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Speaking_Moistly Stats])
:({{Find sources AFD|Speaking Moistly}})
Simply fails [[WP:NSINGLE]]. '''[[User:Vaselineeeeeeee|Vaselineeeeeeee]][[User talk:Vaselineeeeeeee|★★★]]''' 14:43, 17 May 2020 (UTC) 
*'''Delete''' as nom. '''[[User:Vaselineeeeeeee|Vaselineeeeeeee]][[User talk:Vaselineeeeeeee|★★★]]''' 21:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
:I don't think it fais [[WP:NSINGLE]]. It has received much coverage from many [[WP:RS]] news outlets, and even the PM himself tweeted about it. It is a significant quote in the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada. [[User:Félix An|Félix An]] ([[User talk:Félix An|talk]]) 14:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
::Having a few reliable sources about it does not make it notable enough for a standalone article outright. Fails its three criteria and then some. '''[[User:Vaselineeeeeeee|Vaselineeeeeeee]][[User talk:Vaselineeeeeeee|★★★]]''' 15:08, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
*<s>'''Delete'''</s> - I note though that other comical Canadian political events like the [[Shawinigan Handshake]] have their own articles, and like the [[The_finger#Politics_and_military_incidents|Salmon Arm salute]] are mentioned in others. Those events likely were more notable than this one however. I don't think a full merger is appropriate here as the remix is not notable, but I think Trudeau's comment and the reaction is notable enough to mention on either [[Justin Trudeau]] or [[COVID-19 pandemic in Canada]]. It is mentioned on the [[COVID-19_pandemic_in_Canada#Federal|COVID article here]], that seems appropriate based on the citations. Unless this has a more lasting impact though, I don't think more than a sentence or two would be [[WP:DUE]] on [[Justin Trudeau]] (if that).--[[User:Darryl Kerrigan|Darryl Kerrigan]] ([[User talk:Darryl Kerrigan|talk]]) 16:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
::On second thought, '''<s>Weak Redirect to the [[COVID-19_pandemic_in_Canada#Federal|relevant section of COVID-19 pandemic in Canada]]'''</s>. This is notable enough for the mention there. If people want to know what it is all about they can read about it there.--[[User:Darryl Kerrigan|Darryl Kerrigan]] ([[User talk:Darryl Kerrigan|talk]]) 16:27, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
:::{{reply to|Darryl Kerrigan}} Hello! I added a reception section noting it went viral and was viewed over a million times in a day. I also added reviews from [[CBC News|CBC]], [[I Heart Radio]], [[Narcity]], and the [[Daily Hive]]. Would you be willing to take another look and see if that changes your mind in any way? Not trying to pester; just curious of that would make a difference. Thank you! --[[User:Kbabej|Kbabej]] ([[User talk:Kbabej|talk]]) 16:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
::::Yes, I see "the song" has been covered in some [[WP:RS]]. I tend to think that is more for the comedic value, novelty that Trudeau said that and it was awkward (ie more for the event than the song). I do not have strong feelings either way, but I think the relevance of "Speaking Moistly" is more the event (and the reaction to it, including the song) and less the song itself. Of course sometimes these things go viral like the [[Bed Intruder Song]], not sure we can say the "Speaking Moistly" song really has though. I tend to think its notability (or fame) is secondary to the event itself.--[[User:Darryl Kerrigan|Darryl Kerrigan]] ([[User talk:Darryl Kerrigan|talk]]) 16:57, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::{{reply to|Darryl Kerrigan}} Thanks for reasessing. We're now up to 11 sources about the song, with only two about the speech (without mentioning the song) to provide context in the article. I've added ''[[HuffPost]]'' and ''[[Brave Words & Bloody Knuckles|Brave Words]]'' as well as a covers section; I didn't realize at first there have been multiple covers of the song, which I think lends itself for me !voting keep even more. --[[User:Kbabej|Kbabej]] ([[User talk:Kbabej|talk]]) 17:26, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::The song has got a decent amount of coverage and I gather over 2 million views (not sure what qualifies as "viral" these days). Anyway, I am changing/clarifying my !vote to "weak" redirect if that is a thing. If an article is to be left to exist, I am [[Talk:Speaking_Moistly#Scope_of_the_article%2C_and_main_focus|not sure its focus should be this one remix]] (as opposed to Trudeau's statement and ALL the reacions including this remix, other songs - whether covers, or original riffs on Trudeau's words - and t-shirts, lip balm, beer etc.--[[User:Darryl Kerrigan|Darryl Kerrigan]] ([[User talk:Darryl Kerrigan|talk]]) 01:03, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
:{{Outdent|:::::::}} I don't really see expanding the scope as interesting as an article about the song, and, as I stated on the talk page, "the song has gotten far more coverage than, say, the lip balm. There are 13 sources about the song so far. Could you say the same for the lip balm? I think this article makes more sense as an article about the song, not about the phrase in general." --[[User:Kbabej|Kbabej]] ([[User talk:Kbabej|talk]]) 01:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
::That's fine if you don't "want" to expand the scope of the article, that said that isn't really up to you (or me). That said, suggesting all of the reaction to Trudeau's "speaking moistly" comment, was due to the this remix, is simply not true. Its awkwardness was noted by many, Trudeau included, [[Talk:Speaking_Moistly#Scope_of_the_article%2C_and_main_focus|before the remix existed]]. And there have been many reactions not directly related to the remix, including the sale of novelty [https://www.narcity.com/news/ca/face-masks-in-canada-now-include-one-that-has-moistly-on-it masks], [https://www.narcity.com/news/ca/on/ottawa/speaking-moistly-shirts-are-being-sold-in-ottawa-to-honour-trudeaus-terrible-image t-shirts], [https://www.narcity.com/news/ca/on/ottawa/speaking-moistly-beer-is-now-a-thing-in-canada-and-its-already-sold-out-online beer], and [https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/speaking-moistly-lip-balm_ca_5eb45852c5b646b73d29acd5 lip balm], as well as [https://www.narcity.com/news/ca/9-speaking-moistly-memes-that-are-both-hilarious-and-kinda-gross other meme's] and videos including [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/14/moist-breath-zone-covid-19-new-zealand-song-takes-drool-out-of-school this kids video about "moist breath zone"], [https://globalnews.ca/news/6792967/coronavirus-trudeau-speaking-moistly/ this Fake Heritage Minute], [https://www.narcity.com/news/ca/justin-trudeaus-hair-flip-went-viral-and-proves-how-badly-he-needs-a-hair-cut-video this Hair Flip video], [https://london.ctvnews.ca/stratford-actors-speak-moistly-in-video-on-covid-19-1.4899105 this Stratford actors 'speak moistly' video], [https://www.narcity.com/people/ca/on/toronto/the-speaking-moistly-song-just-got-a-toronto-ska-makoever this "cover" by Ska Band] among others. And frankly its notability is less without the other reactions or being about Trudeau actually saying it.--[[User:Darryl Kerrigan|Darryl Kerrigan]] ([[User talk:Darryl Kerrigan|talk]]) 02:28, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
:::I don't care if you support this article or not at this point. You've made your position clear: expand it to the comment and all associated responses, or you want it redirected. I think this article stands on its own, and I think it should be kept in the scope as the starting editor intended. As for your comment "suggesting all of the reaction to Trudeau's "speaking moistly" comment, was due to the this remix", who argued that, and where? Because I certainly didn't. My argument this entire has been there are enough RS to keep the remix article as an article about the song without widening the scope. If you want an article on the reaction of the phrase and all associated products, [[WP:BEBOLD]] and create one. No one is stopping you. If consensus is that ''this'' article should be expanded to cover the phrase and all associated reactions, the AfD should be withdrawn as the article would be eligible for [[WP:HEYMANN]]. --[[User:Kbabej|Kbabej]] ([[User talk:Kbabej|talk]]) 02:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
::::I don't think it is prudent to start a [[Speaking moistly (event)]] page until there is a wider discussion of the scope here. That might result in unnecessary move, deletion and merge discussions, which might be avoided if we get down to brass-tax about whether this article should be about the event. Perhaps input from others will help reach a consensus on how best to proceed.--[[User:Darryl Kerrigan|Darryl Kerrigan]] ([[User talk:Darryl Kerrigan|talk]]) 04:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::Alright, I am going to change my vote to a '''Weak Keep'''. I freely admit that I don't have a good policy based reason for doing so, but I would like to keep this piece of Canadiana around. Perhaps, now I have just watched too many of the "cover videos" on YouTube, and noticed that the single has made it onto Spotify. It is an interesting piece of internet culture, that has got some coverage in [[WP:RS]] and has an interesting link to Canadian politics and the "history" of COVID-19. Not sure it quite passes [[WP:GNG]] or [[WP:NSINGLE]], but I am also not sure batting away all the coverage it has received as [[WP:INDISCRIMINATE]] is fair either. Anyway, it is a very soft keep, for me now.--[[User:Darryl Kerrigan|Darryl Kerrigan]] ([[User talk:Darryl Kerrigan|talk]]) 17:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. NSINGLE states "Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label." The three criteria the nominator is referencing is father down in the NSINGLE criteria, which states "Any of the following factors suggest that a song or single ''may'' be notable enough that a search for coverage in reliable independent sources will be successful." My understanding of NSINGLE is that if a song/single meetins GNG and satisfies the first criteria, they do not necessarily have to meet one of the three criteria (those being: 1. Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts. 2. Has won one or more significant awards or honors, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award. 3. Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups.) The song has been covered by the sources in the article (CBC, The Star, Toronto City News, Narcity), and additional sources as well that are not yet incorporated into the article as of writing this: [https://www.iheartradio.ca/purecountry/london/trudeau-s-speaking-moistly-comment-is-now-a-song-1.11744020 I Heart Radio], [https://www.iheartradio.ca/news/justin-trudeau-sparks-pop-hit-speaking-moistly-1.11750248 I Heart Radio] (again), [https://nationalpost.com/news/a-bunch-of-yahoos-edmonton-musician-who-coined-speaking-moistly-hit-targets-doug-ford-in-new-song National Post], and [https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/trudeau-speaking-moistly-coronavirus-song Daily Hive]. --[[User:Kbabej|Kbabej]] ([[User talk:Kbabej|talk]]) 16:19, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
::''Daily Hive'' isn't a reliable or notability-supporting source — it's essentially a [[WP:BLOGS|blogified]] version of a ''tabloid'', which means it violates ''two'' of our core principles about what it takes to be a reliable source (the operative words being "blog" and "tabloid", if you didn't figure that out.) ''Narcity'', same. ''iHeartRadio Canada'' also is not a notability-making news outlet — it's just the platform on which all Bell Media-owned radio stations have their self-published websites hosted, which means everything that any local radio personality in Canada blogs about on his or her own station's website will always automatically have an "iHeartRadio Canada" URL by definition. So it doesn't constitute evidence of GNG-making media coverage either, because it's not an entity that does news reporting — it still just amounts to blogging by non-journalists. [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] ([[User talk:Bearcat|talk]]) 14:11, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
:::Fair points. But there's also The Toronto Star, CBC News x2, CityNews Toronto, The Loop, Exclaim!, Brave Words, and HuffPost. It's varied enough coverage for me, and I stand by my keep !vote. --[[User:Kbabej|Kbabej]] ([[User talk:Kbabej|talk]]) 01:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
:'''Redirect''' to Canadian pandemic article as per [[WP:INDISCRIMINATE]] and [[WP:NSINGLE]]. Not sure a few clickbait Headliners are sufficient for coverage of an unreleased uncharted song that has zero historical value. This is one of many like this..... Donald Trump song telling us to consume bleach has ten times more hits.--[[User_talk:Moxy|Moxy]] 🍁 21:36, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. As Kbabej mentioned above, there are many [[WP:RS]] news articles talking about the song. [[User:Félix An|Félix An]] ([[User talk:Félix An|talk]]) 00:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
:Note: This discussion has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Music|list of Music-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Darryl Kerrigan|Darryl Kerrigan]] ([[User talk:Darryl Kerrigan|talk]]) 01:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
:Note: This discussion has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Canada|list of Canada-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Darryl Kerrigan|Darryl Kerrigan]] ([[User talk:Darryl Kerrigan|talk]]) 01:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
:Note: This discussion has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politics|list of Politics-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Darryl Kerrigan|Darryl Kerrigan]] ([[User talk:Darryl Kerrigan|talk]]) 01:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
:Note: This discussion has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/COVID-19|list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Darryl Kerrigan|Darryl Kerrigan]] ([[User talk:Darryl Kerrigan|talk]]) 01:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per points above. Many of the available sources aren't considered reliable. The ones that make mention could support a redirect/merge, but I don't see enough to justify such a random song. – [[User:Handoto|ᕼᗩᑎᗪOTO]] ([[User talk:Handoto|talk]]) 20:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. Given the national media coverage this garnered from reputable sources and acknowledgment from the Prime Minister himself, information on this subject should be preserved. Keeping it as its own article makes it easier to find and navigate. [[User:Cmm3|Cmm3]] ([[User talk:Cmm3|talk]]) 21:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
::Odd was going to say the same thing but with a different conclusion [[WP:INDISCRIMINATE]].--[[User_talk:Moxy|Moxy]] 🍁 21:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Redirect''' to [[COVID-19 pandemic in Canada#Public health]], neither of the [[WP:NSONGS|3 possible options for possible notability]] are met, but this is ''slightly'' relevant for that section of the pandemic article (where it's already mentioned), though I don't think the reception part is necessary. If this charts (I doubt it will), please let me know and I will switch my vote to keep. '''[[User:Username6892|Username]][[User talk:Username6892|6892]]''' 19:24, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;">'''{{resize|91%|[[Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}''' 
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, [[User:Naypta|Naypta]] ☺ | [[User talk:Naypta|✉ talk page]] | 15:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC)<noinclude>[[Category:Relisted AfD debates|Speaking Moistly]]</noinclude></div>
*'''Keep''' seems to fall within notability guidelines. [[User:Juno|Juno]] ([[User talk:Juno|talk]]) 23:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Redirect''' to [[COVID-19 pandemic in Canada#Public health]] or [[Justin Trudeau]]: Per [[WP:INDISCRIMINATE]]. Best to discuss the song in any of the articles. [[User:Superastig|ASTIG😎]] ([[User talk:Superastig|ICE T]] • [[Special:Contributions/Superastig|ICE CUBE]]) 03:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', seems there's enough coverage. ---[[User:Another Believer|Another Believer]] ([[User talk:Another Believer|Talk]]) 15:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' or maybe redirect to COVID 19 pandemic in Canada. [[User:Dbrodbeck|Dbrodbeck]] ([[User talk:Dbrodbeck|talk]]) 02:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;">'''{{resize|91%|[[Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}''' 
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, [[User:Sandstein|''' Sandstein ''']] 21:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)<noinclude>[[Category:Relisted AfD debates|Speaking Moistly]]</noinclude></div>
*'''Delete''' easily fails [[WP:NSINGLE]]. This is a one-off trivial edit that got some views on the Internet, and it fails all three criteria of notability. Not encyclopedic. [[Special:Contributions/103.42.214.85|103.42.214.85]] ([[User talk:103.42.214.85|talk]]) 02:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Significant amount of sources have been added since the nomination, does now pass [[WP:GNG]] [[User:Dwaro|Dwaro]] ([[User talk:Dwaro|talk]]) 10:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

2020-06-03T10:15:09Z

Dwaro: /* Hackaday RfC response */

{{short description|Noticeboard for discussing whether particular sources are reliable in context}}
{{Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Header}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 295
|minthreadstoarchivSee = 1
|algo = old(5d)
|archive = Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d
}} __NEWSECTIONLINK__ 

== ''[[Newslaundry]]'' on [[OpIndia]] ==
{{atop|status=generally reliable|result=There is consensus that Newslaundry is generally reliable. Some editors have expressed concerns regarding possible bias in its political narratives and reporting on rival publications; in cases where this could reasonably apply, attribution is recommended, and sufficient.
----
{{pb}}Newslaundry is reliable based on its awards, retractions, transparency and what's known of its editorial procedures/standards, in absence of any compelling case to the contrary. While it would help to have a complete picture of its editorial policies, absence of evidence is not an evidence of absence.
----
For the specific question that was asked, attribution being present, it is acceptable on reliability grounds. On a personal note, this does not amount to a consensus to include; please consider [[WP:DUE]] (and other aspects, if any), which this noticeboard does not, and therefore, did not address. '''[[User:Usedtobecool|Usedtobecool]] [[User talk:Usedtobecool|☎️]]''' 13:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)}}
Is ''[[Newslaundry]]'' ([https://www.newslaundry.com newslaundry.com]) a reliable source for the following content in the [[OpIndia]] article, removed in [[Special:Diff/944447105]]?

{{tq2|A January 2020 report by the media watchdog Newslaundry noted the portal to contain several inflammatory headlines targeting the [[Left-wing politics|leftists]], [[Liberalism|liberals]] and [[Islamophobia|Muslims]].<ref name=":0">{{cite news|url=https://www.newslaundry.com/2020/01/03/fake-news-lies-muslim-bashing-and-ravish-kumar-inside-opindias-harrowing-world|title=Fake news, lies, Muslim bashing, and Ravish Kumar: Inside OpIndia’s harrowing world|last=Kumar|first=Basant|date=3 January 2020|work=Newslaundry|accessdate=3 January 2020|language=en-UK}}</ref> Mainstream media and the political opposition (esp. [[Indian National Congress]]) were oft-criticized; posts published by ''OpIndia'' ''Hindi'' from November 15 to 29 were located to be invariably situated against any criticism of the [[Hindu nationalism|Hindu nationalist]] [[Bharatiya Janata Party]].<ref name=":0" /> On February 12, OpIndia had organised an ideological seminar featuring prominent figures from right wing intelligentsia<ref name=":1">{{Cite news|last=Tiwari|first=Ayush|url=https://www.newslaundry.com/2020/02/16/i-survived-bharat-bodh-and-lived-to-tell-the-tale|title=I braved ‘Bharat Bodh’ and lived to tell the tale : Muslim-baiters, rape-deniers, livelihood-destroyers, apologists of religious violence — the Opindia and My Nation event had’em all.|date=16 February 2020|work=Newslaundry|access-date=17 February 2020|url-status=live}}</ref>; Newslaundry noted the seminar to have spread communally charged conspiracy theories about the [[Kathua rape case]], equate the [[Shaheen Bagh protests]] to formation of mini-Pakistan and engage in other Islamophobic discourse.<ref name=":1" />}}
{{Reflist-talk}}
See related discussion on [[Talk:OpIndia]]. — '''''[[User:Newslinger|Newslinger]]''' [[User talk:Newslinger#top|talk]]'' 15:04, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
:Do they have an editorial policy? I cannot find it.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 15:07, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
{{block indent|em=1.6|{{small|Notified: [[Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics]], [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian politics]], [[Talk:OpIndia]]. — '''''[[User:Newslinger|Newslinger]]''' [[User talk:Newslinger#top|talk]]'' 15:09, 8 March 2020 (UTC)}}}}
*Newslaundry is an unreliable source with a clear bias and no indication of factual reporting. We should not allow Wikipedia becoming a platform to document feuds between the partisan sources in question. [[User:Shashank5988|Shashank5988]] ([[User talk:Shashank5988|talk]]) 19:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
*'''Reliable''': According to [https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/rng-excellence-in-journalism-awards-2015-full-list-of-winners-3733730/ this], they won the [[Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Awards]] for their "investigative reporting".--[[User:SharabSalam|SharʿabSalam▼]] ([[User talk:SharabSalam|talk]]) 20:07, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
*'''Reliable''' According to [https://www.newslaundry.com/about-us their about page] they have won a lot of awards recently on the subject of investigation reporting and their work covering gender and human rights. But I couldn't find an editorial hierarchy. According to their hiring page, it looks like their reporters cover a variety of areas rather than having a "beat" and there isn't information about leadership. But I think the awards count for a lot. [[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]] [[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']] 02:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
*'''Unreliable''' - No information on leadership or editorial policy. As a new media site much like OpIndia, no certification from IFCN regarding fact-checking (which AltNews, cited in the article under criticism, has).[[User:Pectore|Pectore]][[User talk:Pectore|talk]] 06:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
*'''Unreliable''' We have no way of knowing if the editor also writes for it, they appear to have no editorial policy.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 09:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
*They do provide some information at [https://www.newslaundry.com/2014/06/28/our-position-on-newslaundry this webpage]. [[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]] [[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']] 02:08, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

*'''Unreliable''' No published editorial policy. Clear trait of bias as noted by some wiki editors. No redressal mechanism in case of feedback, I tried approaching them with no success. --[[User:Jaydayal|Jaydayal]] ([[User talk:Jaydayal|talk]]) 10:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
*'''Unreliable''' for OpIndia and other Right wing portals atleast. They’re in dirty spat with each others and regularly publish such stories which don’t have much factual accuracies. If we’re going to consider OpIndia (I think we already did) as unreliable then this also falls in same line. — [[User:Brihaspati|Brihaspati ]][[User Talk:Brihaspati|(talk)]] 11:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
*'''Reliable''' and [[WP:GREL|generally reliable]]. ''[[Newslaundry]]'' was awarded the [[Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Awards]] [https://rngfoundation.com/awards/pastawards/2015.html in 2015] for their extensive coverage of a political scandal in which members of parliament (in both the right-wing [[Bharatiya Janata Party]] and the centre-left [[Indian National Congress]]) and other well-known people misappropriated US$15 million of taxpayer money through [[Public sector undertakings in India|public sector undertakings]] for their personal or business interests. This five-part series is archived below:
*# [https://web.archive.org/web/20150906235745/http://www.newslaundry.com/2015/08/26/how-politicians-use-psus-as-cash-vending-machines-an-rti-investigation/ RTI Investigation (part 1): How politicians use PSUs as cash-vending machines]
*# [https://web.archive.org/web/20151001101806/http://www.newslaundry.com/2015/08/28/rti-investigation-part-2-how-vijay-darda-media-baron-and-congress-mp-used-power-ministry-to-forward-his-business-interests/ RTI Investigation (part 2): How Vijay Darda used power ministry to further his business interests]
*# [https://web.archive.org/web/20150910193654/https://www.newslaundry.com/2015/09/01/how-ministers-milk-psus-for-ads-and-sponsorships RTI Investigation (part 3): How ministers milk PSUs for ads and sponsorships]
*# [https://web.archive.org/web/20151103052240/http://www.newslaundry.com/2015/09/16/rti-investigation-part-4-corruption-allegations-surface-against-a-bjp-mp/ RTI Investigation (Part 4): Corruption allegations surface against a BJP MP]
*# [https://web.archive.org/web/20160104172532/https://www.newslaundry.com/2015/12/29/rti-investigation-part-5-psus-are-an-easy-pool-of-money-for-politicians-to-dip-into RTI Investigation (part 5): PSUs are an easy pool of money for politicians to dip into]
{{bi|em=1.6|The extent of the corruption exposed in this report is impressive, and the research involved multiple [[Right to Information Act, 2005|Right to Information]] requests. {{tq|[https://indianexpress.com/article/india/ramnath-goenka-excellence-in-journalism-awards-winners-5524092/ "The Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Awards, the most prestigious annual event in the Indian media calendar, is a recognition of the highest standards of journalism"]}} in India, just as the [[Pulitzer Prize]] is the most renowned form of recognition for American journalism. ''Newslaundry'' also won two [[Red Ink Awards]], [https://www.mumbaipressclub.com/public/index.php/redink2018-winners in 2018] for [https://web.archive.org/web/20181227003115/https://www.newslaundry.com/interactive/cauvery/cauvery-water-dispute-solution.html their coverage] of the [[Kaveri River water dispute]], and [https://www.mumbaipressclub.com/public/index.php/redink2019-winners in 2019] for [https://www.newslaundry.com/2018/08/20/ground-report-sukma-chhattisgarh-naxalites-adivasis-police-encounter their coverage] of a police cover-up of civilian casualties in [[Sukma district|Sukma]]. It's misleading to compare ''Newslaundry'' to [[OpIndia]] just because neither is certified by the [[International Fact-Checking Network]] (IFCN). ''Newslaundry'' is a news site, not a fact-checking site, and the IFCN only certifies fact-checking sites that are {{tq|[https://ifcncodeofprinciples.poynter.org/know-more/what-you-should-know-before-applying "dedicated solely to checking the discourse of politicians or detecting viral hoaxes in social platforms"]}}. Additionally, [https://web.archive.org/web/20190310013235/https://ifcncodeofprinciples.poynter.org/application/public/opindiacom/EED18C9F-C8B2-258A-BB43-7E90FA57C26C OpIndia was explicitly rejected by the IFCN in 2019], while ''Newslaundry'' never applied for certification.Finally, ''Newslaundry'' puts a byline with an author name on each of the pieces they publish. That's better than ''[[The Times of India]]'' {{rspe|The Times of India}}, and it's sufficient for a generally reliable publication. ''Newslaundry'' is like the Indian version of ''[[The Intercept]]'' {{rspe|The Intercept}}, and has even more prestigious awards. — '''''[[User:Newslinger|Newslinger]]''' [[User talk:Newslinger#top|talk]]'' 12:48, 11 March 2020 (UTC)}}
*'''Reliable''' - per Newslinger. In addition, it also doesn't sum up that they would be factually inaccurate while also winning high prestige awards, I've yet to come across an allegation of misreporting against them which even mainstream media agencies face from time to time. Though there may be a degree of editorialisation in their content so care should be taken regarding that. [[User:Tayi Arajakate|'''Tayi Arajakate''']] [[User talk:Tayi Arajakate|'''Talk''']] 14:20, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
*'''Reliable''' has a dedicated staff, uses bylines, has won awards for its journalism, imv [[User:Atlantic306|Atlantic306]] ([[User talk:Atlantic306|talk]]) 16:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
*'''Unreliable''' - No editorial policy available on the website. Concocted click-bait stories based on imagination. Retracted after clarification from the office of President of India. It published fiction instead of fake news. Not trustworthy.
*#[https://www.thetruepicture.org/newslaundry-spreads-fake-news-presidents-puri-visit-creating-caste-animosity/ Newslaundry spreads fake news about president's puri visit] [[User:Shubham2019|Shubham2019]] ([[User talk:Shubham2019|talk]]) 08:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
*#: ''Newslaundry'' was covering an alleged event that was initially covered by ''[https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bhubaneswar/puri-jagannath-temple-body-draws-flak-for-security-breach-of-president/articleshow/64744243.cms The Times of India]'', [https://www.news18.com/news/india/president-kovind-first-lady-harassed-during-jagannath-temple-visit-1791825.html News18], and [https://www.timesnownews.com/india/article/president-ram-nath-kovind-wife-savita-kovind-harassed-misbehaved-with-during-odisha-visit-to-jagannath-temple/246448 Times Now] – other reliable sources. When the press secretary to the President denied the incident, ''Newslaundry'' [https://www.newslaundry.com/2018/07/03/president-ram-nath-kovind-dalit-brahmin-caste-discrimination-jagannath-temple-puri-medias-blind-eye officially retracted the story], demonstrating a strong reputation for error-correction, which is identified in [[WP:NEWSORG]] as a hallmark of a reliable source.As an aside, you're using "[[The True Picture]]" ([https://www.thetruepicture.org thetruepicture.org], formerly thetruepicture.in), a site that was thoroughly discredited as a [[WP:QS|questionable source]] by [https://indianexpress.com/article/india/look-who-is-busting-fake-news-for-13-ministers-site-with-exam-warriors-link-5121254/ a 2018 investigation] from ''[[The Indian Express]]'' and a [https://www.boomlive.in/who-runs-the-website-the-true-picture/ 2018 report] from Boom (a fact checker that is [https://ifcncodeofprinciples.poynter.org/application/public/boom/1AFE35D3-8CF3-4715-094E-CBA320780E63 certified by the IFCN]). ''[[The Quint]]'' has [https://www.thequint.com/news/webqoof/who-runs-the-website-the-true-picture-that-claims-to-bust-fake-news additional coverage] of the exposés. These analyses show that "The True Picture" is closely affiliated with BlueKraft Digital Foundation, a company that {{tq|"has been involved in promoting various government initiatives, including Prime Minister [[Narendra Modi]]’s book ‘Exam Warriors.’"}} From this, it's clear that "The True Picture" is unreliable and has a strong conflict of interest. — '''''[[User:Newslinger|Newslinger]]''' [[User talk:Newslinger#top|talk]]'' 09:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
*#:: This reply is clearly not satisfactory, Newslaundry concocted a casteist angle in the issue. None of the articles cited give a hint of this angle. This was the reason they had to retract their imaginative story while others did not. It was clearly written to promote enimity between the communities and cater to a certain narrative to attack the government.As a side note, this kind of ideological reinforcement is being done by portals like Newslaundry, Altnews,Wire,Quint,Boom,NDTV. All of which are reinforcing each other's position and being cited in a circular manner to counter/manage the narrative or ideological resistance being provided by the portals of contradictory ideology. OpIndia, Republic,Swarajya, TheTruePicture,MediaBias fact check, Fact Hunt all are being campaigned against in wikipedia. The articles which attack the left wing portals are certainly written in Right Wing Portal and vice versa. Yet only one way citations are allowed i.e. against Right Wing Portal. Therefore there is no [[WP:NPOV]].
Either wikipedia has a policy of not allowing different ideological point of views or we seriously need to re-evaluate why all right wing portals are outright dismissed as unreliable/deprecated/questionable and left wing portals are treated as gospels which can't be wrong and don't need to be questioned. [[User:Shubham2019|Shubham2019]] ([[User talk:Shubham2019|talk]]) 16:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
:Bias is not a reason to reject a source. We dismiss sources that can be shown to knowingly and willingly publish falsehoods which they do not retract.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 16:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
: Your argument against ''Newslaundry'' depends solely on criticism from a [[WP:QS|questionable source]] ("The True Picture") against a properly labeled [https://www.newslaundry.com/2018/07/03/president-ram-nath-kovind-dalit-brahmin-caste-discrimination-jagannath-temple-puri-medias-blind-eye {{tq|"opinion"}} piece] from ''Newslaundry''. As the piece from ''Newslaundry'' was retracted before it was [[Help:Archiving a source|archived]], your claims are unverifiable. The fact that ''Newslaundry'' is willing to retract errors is a positive attribute. Compare that to [[OpIndia]], which has yet to retract their coverage of [https://www.boomlive.in/news-outlets-run-fake-letter-claiming-muslim-body-urged-congress-against-supporting-shiv-sena/ a fake letter falsely attributed to a Muslim body president], for example.If the right-wing sites you listed were reliable, they would be recognized with awards and favorable coverage from other reliable sources. But, the [[IFCN]] – a politically neutral organization – [https://web.archive.org/web/20190310013235/https://ifcncodeofprinciples.poynter.org/application/public/opindiacom/EED18C9F-C8B2-258A-BB43-7E90FA57C26C rejected OpIndia in 2018], while it [https://ifcncodeofprinciples.poynter.org/application/public/pravda-media-foundation/D27BB43D-D8FC-F85B-1C25-2AF73DF3A12C certified Alt News in 2019] and [https://ifcncodeofprinciples.poynter.org/application/public/boom/1AFE35D3-8CF3-4715-094E-CBA320780E63 Boom (boomlive.in) in 2019]. ''Newslaundry'' won the [[Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Award]] and two [[Red Ink Awards]], while OpIndia has never won any significant awards. These are some of the reasons ''Newslaundry'', [[Alt News]], and Boom are considered [[WP:RS|reliable]], while OpIndia is not. ''[[Media Bias/Fact Check]]'' {{rspe|Media Bias/Fact Check}} was discussed three times on this noticeboard, and is considered unreliable because it is [[WP:SPS|self-published]], not because it had any discernible overall bias.The [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view policy]] requires us to represent {{tq|"all the significant views that have been published by '''[[WP:RS|reliable sources]]''' on a topic"}} (emphasis added). — '''''[[User:Newslinger|Newslinger]]''' [[User talk:Newslinger#top|talk]]'' 16:59, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

*I wrote to the Newslaundry editorial team and this is what I heard back...I don't think there is any problem sharing the relevant portion of the email message:

::''Thanks for reaching out.''

::''We are currently redesigning our website and we'll have a page explaining our editorial policy on the upgraded site.''

::''Of course, like any credible news organisation, our work goes through a series of editorial filters before it is published. I believe the quality of our work testifies to this. Mr Raman Kirpal, cced in this mail, is our managing editor. He's an award-winning journalist with several decades of experience in the industry and he takes the final call on what appears on Newslaundry.''
:[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]] [[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']] 22:37, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
:: I inspected the source code of older versions of ''Newslaundry''{{'}}s home page, and noticed that ''Newslaundry'' switched its [[content management system]] from a (possibly in-house) platform based on [[AngularJS]] as of [https://web.archive.org/web/20200116232835/https://newslaundry.com/ 16 January 2020] to [[Quintype]] as of [https://web.archive.org/web/20200122171323/https://www.newslaundry.com/ 22 January 2020]. While most of the site has already been migrated to their new platform, there are a few pages that are currently only accessible through archived versions. This includes ''Newslaundry''{{'}}s [https://web.archive.org/web/20200106203816/https://www.newslaundry.com/about About Us page], which includes a list of ''Newslaundry''{{'}}s staff and a list of ''Newslaundry''{{'}}s owners (with percentage ownership specified for each owner). This transparency reflects favorably on ''Newslaundry'', and I expect to see the editorial policy when the site finishes migrating to the Quintype platform. — '''''[[User:Newslinger|Newslinger]]''' [[User talk:Newslinger#top|talk]]'' 01:08, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
*'''Generally reliable''' per Newslinger and others. I'm impressed by the apparent transparency (website transition confusion not withstanding) and their response to Liz. My only comment is that it might be, perhaps, that we should take any news items towards OpIndia (and similar sites) with a grain of salt per the concerns about an apparent on-going spat. [[User:Waggie|Waggie]] ([[User talk:Waggie|talk]]) 02:14, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
*'''Unreliable''' Do they have any Editorial Policy? Half baked stories with facts missing in most of there reporting, completely biased source. [[User:Santoshdts|Santoshdts]] ([[User talk:Santoshdts|talk]]) 10:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
*'''Unreliable''' They don't have a well defined editorial policy. The news reporting is mixed with biased opinions. They generally lampoon and criticises other media sources. There is a clear lack of objectivity. They have also published fake news in the past.[[User:IndianHistoryEnthusiast|IndianHistoryEnthusiast]] ([[User talk:IndianHistoryEnthusiast|talk]]) 21:21, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
*: Do you have a [[WP:RS|reliable source]] to back up the {{!xt|"fake news"}} claim? — '''''[[User:Newslinger|Newslinger]]''' [[User talk:Newslinger#top|talk]]'' 06:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
*:: They published a news story on the President of India, which was denied by the President's office. Newslaundry is not important enough to be covered by other reliable media portals. There are a few sites like these which are engaged in trashing each other online based on ideological differences, they publish hit-pieces on each other at random intervals, their editors and reporters fight on twitter. There's a clear lack of objectivity.[[User:IndianHistoryEnthusiast|IndianHistoryEnthusiast]] ([[User talk:IndianHistoryEnthusiast|talk]]) 08:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
*::: Your comment strikes a [[WP:FALSEBALANCE|false balance]] between ''Newslaundry'' and the near-unanimously condemned [[OpIndia]], and excuses OpIndia's unreliability as "ideological differences". Unlike OpIndia, ''Newslaundry'' corrects or retracts all of its stories that need doing so. — '''''[[User:Newslinger|Newslinger]]''' [[User talk:Newslinger#top|talk]]'' 04:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
*Unarchived from [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 288]] to request closure at [[WP:ANRFC]]. [[User:Cunard|Cunard]] ([[User talk:Cunard|talk]]) 01:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
* '''Generally reliable''' per {{noping|Newslinger}}. Note also that many comments above include uncited allegations. [[User:Daask|Daask]] ([[User talk:Daask|talk]]) 22:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Generally reliable''' per Newslinger. Just because two organisations are in a dispute, does not mean we have to play bothsidesism. [[User:Devonian Wombat|Devonian Wombat]] ([[User talk:Devonian Wombat|talk]]) 04:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
===Published editorial policy===
Per [[WP:NEWSORG]] news organizations do not have to have a published editorial policy. Thus, it looks like many of the above comments are irrelevant. -- [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 13:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
:True they may not publish them, it does not say they do not have to have them. Thus any argument based upon "I have no idea what their editorial policies are" are valid, they may not be strong arguments but they are still valid. Our criteria is "has a reputation for fact checking", whilst no publishing editorial policy is not an indicator they fail this, the lack of one is a good indicator they may not have such a reputation. After all if I have no idea how they decide what to publish I cannot know it is fact checked.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 13:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
* '''Acceptable''' for this, on the face of it: any caveats are addressed by the use of attribution. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' ([[user talk:JzG|help!]]) 16:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
{{abottom}}

== RfC: Burden of proof for disputed ==
{{archive top|No action taken. Based on existing policies and guidelines, there is general agreement that in most cases the [[WP:ONUS]] falls on those seeking to include content. However, as several editors have pointed out the scope of the question posed is unclear, so this RfC does not support any change to any policy or guideline. If the participants would like to discuss specific issues such as [[WP:SPS]] in more detail, then they should hold a discussion focusing on that topic. [[User:King of Hearts|King of ♥]][[User talk:King of Hearts| ♦]][[Special:Contributions/King of Hearts| ♣]][[Special:EmailUser/King of Hearts| ♠]] 13:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)}}
Where a source has been '''appropriately''' tagged '''in good faith''' as disputed, e.g. using {{tl|sps}}, {{tl|dubious}}, {{tl|better}}, on whom does the onus fall? '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' ([[user talk:JzG|help!]]) 12:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
# On those seeking to include the source, to show that it is reliable as used, per [[WP:ONUS]];
# On those seeking to remove the source, to show it is unreliable, per [[WP:PRESERVE]].
=== Opinions (burden of proof)===
* '''1''', because anything else is a POV-pusher's charter. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' ([[user talk:JzG|help!]]) 12:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
* '''1''', since [[WP:PRESERVE]] depends on [[WP:ONUS]]. [[WP:PRESERVE]] states that:
{{bi|em=1.6|{{tq2|Likewise, as long as any of the facts or ideas added to an article [[WP:ONUS|would belong]] in the "finished" article, they should be retained if they meet the three article content retention policies: [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|Neutral point of view]] (which does not mean [[WP:YESPOV|no point of view]]), [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|Verifiability]] and [[Wikipedia:No original research|No original research]].}}
The words {{xt|"would belong"}} link to [[WP:ONUS]], and [[WP:ONUS]] is part of the [[WP:V|verifiability policy]]. [[WP:ONUS]] takes precedence over [[WP:PRESERVE]] regardless of cleanup tags, so the cleanup tags aren't really relevant here. — '''''[[User:Newslinger|Newslinger]]''' [[User talk:Newslinger#top|talk]]'' 13:17, 19 April 2020 (UTC)}}
* '''3.''' Neither, because this is a false dilemma that attempts to misrepresent/strawman the actual issue, as several editors have raised in the discussion section. No one is arguing with JzG about the purported subject of this RfC. [[User:The Drover's Wife|The Drover's Wife]] ([[User talk:The Drover's Wife|talk]]) 13:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
* It depends, as we have had cases of editors in the past that have mass-tagged with these types of labels which have been shown where the tagging is wrong. Where there is consensus that the tag applies, then the onus does fall on those that which to retain the source and/or information to ultimately deal with it, though the process of how that happens depends on numerous factors. So it's not a simply-answered question here. --[[User:Masem|Masem]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 13:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''1''' - this is a rather straightforward application of existing policy, as {{u|Newslinger}} points out. A converse rule also faces the problem of proving a negative. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]][[User talk:Neutrality|talk]] 15:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''1''' - [[WP:BURDEN]] is policy, the countervailing claims aren't. This is straightforward application of fundamental Wikipedia editing policy. Anyone claiming otherwise needs to do the reading - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 21:48, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''1:''' I just took the time to carefully read all of the linked policy/guideline pages (always a good thing to do when one is already pretty sure what they say) and choice 1 is indeed a a rather straightforward application of existing policy. Plus, the person posting it is named "Guy" which I am sure everyone will agree<nowiki>[</nowiki>[[Citation (horse)|Citation]] [[Need, California|Need]][[ed (text editor)|ed]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> is always a big plus. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 03:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''1''' per Newslinger and others, and per [[WP:BURDEN]] and [[WP:DON'T PRESERVE]]. Also, it's better for Wikipedia to not say a thing than to say a false thing, which is why we insist on ''reliable'' sources. [[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']] [[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]] 05:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''1''': [[WP:ONUS]]'s statement that {{tq|The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content}} is a clear unqualified statement.{{pb}}On the other hand, [[WP:PRESERVE]]'s statement is qualified by {{tq|if they meet the three article content retention policies}}, which is predicated on demonstrating that the material indeed completely satisfies [[WP:NPOV]], [[WP:V]], and [[WP:NOR]]. Whether a claim that the material satisfies those policies is assessed, naturally, by consensus. ''Once consensus determines that these are satisfied'', then the content should be preserved. — [[User:MarkH21|MarkH21]][[User talk:MarkH21|talk]] 05:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''1''', unless the source appears in green on the list of perennial sources. If there is already consensus about the source’s reliability then all that editor needs to do is note that consensus (perhaps in the edit summary of a revert) and the onus transfers to the challenger. I’ve seen instances in which the reliability of a source like the NYT or Telegraph is questioned on the talk page and the challenger actually expects to be taken seriously, there is a limit to onus. [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 16:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

*'''Not a valid question as posed''', are we talking about new or long standing content? Is the tag in dispute? I agree with {{U|The Drover's Wife}} that this isn't a valid A/B question and with {{u|Masem}}'s thinking. Certainly if something fails V then it can be removed. However, if a difference citation that passes V is found then we should treat that content the same way we would any other reliably sourced material (sink or swim based on WEIGHT, CONSENSUS etc) and if it was long standing content it should be assumed to have consensus for inclusion. What if the tag is in dispute? If there is no consensus on the validity of the tag then I think we follow the same rules as consensus, that is lack of consensus means keep as is. Else editors could game the system by tagging the sources that support content they don't like as suspect and use that as reason to remove long standing text. So while #1 is the correct answer in many cases it is not the correct answer in all cases. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 17:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

=== Discussion (burden of proof) ===
This is one of two interlinked issues above - they need to be picked apart. This is my attempt to distil the central point {{u|The Drover's Wife}} is making, which seems to me to be a valid question. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' ([[user talk:JzG|help!]]) 12:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
:This is not, in any way, the point I was making. You've got a bad habit of deliberately misrepresenting the explicit points your critics make so you can shoot down your own straw-Wikipedian. As I said below: this is a false dilemma, because sources being tagged as self-published does not mean they're being tagged as "disputed", they're being tagged as self-published, and we have specific guidance as to what to do in those situations in [[WP:SPS]]. If you don't want to follow Wikipedia guidelines regarding self-published sources, you need to propose an RfC to change ''those'' - not to engage in this bizarre attempt at wordplay circumvention where you claim all self-published sources are "disputed", therefore allowing you to ignore existing guidelines. [[User:The Drover's Wife|The Drover's Wife]] ([[User talk:The Drover's Wife|talk]]) 12:51, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

False dilemma? If the problem is serious enough, the whole text being referenced should be removed, not just the source. --[[User:MarioGom|MarioGom]] ([[User talk:MarioGom|talk]]) 12:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

This seems to me to be a false dilemma for a different reason - the addition of a tag to an article does not necessarily imply a substantive dispute about the article's content. Quite a bit of tag-bombing is gratuitous IMO and represents one editor's ideosyncratic opinion rather than an actual dispute. So I would say that content isn't "disputed" unless there is a Talk page discussion underway, in which case BRD, BLPDELETERESTORE and ONUS would be among the competing principles at play. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 12:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

False dilemma, as for the others. A source being tagged as self-published means that it has been tagged as self-published, not that it has been tagged as "disputed" or "unreliable", and so Wikipedia has always provided the guidance in [[WP:SPS]] as to what to do in those situations. JzG evidently disagrees with [[WP:SPS]], so he's been trying to turn this into a burden of proof issue to allow him to sidestep that guidance. He doesn't have to show that it's unreliable, he just has to follow Wikipedia's existing guidelines regarding what self-published sources are appropriate and when even if he doesn't want to. [[User:The Drover's Wife|The Drover's Wife]] ([[User talk:The Drover's Wife|talk]]) 12:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Can we please not rehash this again in a new thread?[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 12:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
:I'm good with closing this [[WP:POINT]] nonsense and sparing the rehash, yes. [[User:The Drover's Wife|The Drover's Wife]] ([[User talk:The Drover's Wife|talk]]) 12:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
::At this point you are involved, and that we not be appropriate.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 12:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
:::I said I was good with closing it, not that I would do it. [[User:The Drover's Wife|The Drover's Wife]] ([[User talk:The Drover's Wife|talk]]) 13:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Don't know the context this arose from (update: what I get for looking at most recent first -- reading through the other discussion now; in any case, it doesn't affect what I write here), but my thoughts are similar to {{u|Newimpartial}}'s here. It's unclear what the implications of this RfC would be. Is a tag considered valid by default? Is the burden on the tagger to present an argument first? Is this about tagging, removal of tags, removal of sources, removal of sourced content, etc.? Why is this based on tagging at all? What difference does that make to a challenged source? Ultimately, [[WP:PRESERVE]] is a good idea to keep in mind, but doesn't trump [[WP:ONUS]]/[[WP:BURDEN]] when material/sources are challenged, but I don't think there's any neat way to frame that in an RfC given the amount of gray area there is. — <samp>[[User:Rhododendrites|Rhododendrites]] [[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</samp> \\ 13:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I think this might be better if rather than this we had a discussion (maybe at village pump) about having a clearer definition of when to use SPS.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 13:58, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
* I am OK with that as well. But there are different kinds of SPS. Blogs, vanity presses and predatory journals are all kinds of SPS. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' ([[user talk:JzG|help!]]) 15:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
::True, but the issue is not "is it an SPS" but "can we uses this SPS". So either the tag "SPS" must mean its a dodgy SPS or it just means its an SPS. What we need is clarity on what the tag is for.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 15:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
:::[[WP:SPS]] and [[WP:ABOUTSELF]] between them cover just about any situation in which I'd think it logical to use an SPS, and both of them are plenty specific - I'm not convinced that we'd be even having this discussion if JzG (and anyone else in that boat) just read the damn policies and acknowledged that they understand that they exist. [[User:The Drover's Wife|The Drover's Wife]] ([[User talk:The Drover's Wife|talk]]) 21:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
::::{{tq|just read the damn policies}} Your assertion that he literally hasn't is frankly bizarre - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 22:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::{{u|David Gerard}}, well, to be fair, they do get edited over time, and not always by people looking to retrospectively make their edits compliant. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' ([[user talk:JzG|help!]]) 22:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
::::::The whole crux of this dispute (at least the portion of it that I'm involved in) involves JzG removing self-published sources that are compliant with [[WP:SPS]] and [[WP:ABOUTSELF]]. It is impossible to resolve it if neither if you will acknowledge that they exist and engage in any way with why you are not following them. There would be no point having this noticeboard at all if everyone responded in every case "I refuse to engage with the existing written consensus guidance on this source or group of source, I argue that it's unreliable anyway and demand that you prove me wrong", which is what the various responses amount to an attempt to do. [[User:The Drover's Wife|The Drover's Wife]] ([[User talk:The Drover's Wife|talk]]) 01:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::::{{u|The Drover's Wife}}, {{tl|citation needed}} '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' ([[user talk:JzG|help!]]) 23:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, no one is saying SPS can never, ever be used. Just that those who want to use it have the burden of demonstrating why it can be and getting consensus for it. Concerns over tag bombing seem irrelevant because the tag is really a side issue - SPS are SPS regardless of tagging. Just because one can tag an SPS instead of removing them does not imply that SPS ''should'' be left in place - material can be tagged as unsourced or OR as well, but the same material can also be removed per [[WP:BURDEN]] and [[WP:NOR]]. Tag vs. removal is optional based on whether you think the content may be reliably sourceable/due and that someone else may find a source. [[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']] [[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]] 06:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
:We already have in/out policies in this area: [[WP:SPS]] and [[WP:ABOUTSELF]], both of which are long-accepted. Refusing to acknowledge that those policies exist and claiming that there's a "burden" of convincing a random editor that they should have to follow said policy is a stance that, if adopted more broadly, would make this entire noticeboard essentially moot: why bother establishing clear guidelines on the usage of sources if they can be ignored on a whim when someone disagrees with them? [[User:The Drover's Wife|The Drover's Wife]] ([[User talk:The Drover's Wife|talk]]) 06:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
:: If a self-published source can be shown to be written by a subject-matter expert, or if the use of the self-published source can be shown to qualify under [[WP:ABOUTSELF]], then [[WP:BURDEN]] is satisfied. — '''''[[User:Newslinger|Newslinger]]''' [[User talk:Newslinger#top|talk]]'' 10:51, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}

== (Infomercial voice) But Wait! There's still more!! (News about ''The Daily Mail'') ==

* [https://boingboing.net/2020/05/01/daily-mail-fakes-own-historica.html Daily Mail fakes own historical front pages] --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]])

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

We need to modify our handling of old pages from ''The Daily Mail'' to say that care must be taken to cite the original historical material and watch out for modern, edited versions. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 15:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
:Christ on a stick, what is wrong with them? This is exactly why some of us do not think the "discouragement" goes far enough.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 15:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

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

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

::I could formulate a rewording ... but idiots try to drive trucks through anything that looks like an exception. So I'd suggest this behaviour is egregious enough to remove the sentence. If people want to argue it case by case they can show they went to a microfilm archive or something, 'cos we literally can't trust the online version or reprints not to make stuff up - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 22:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
:::That would be my take, There are archive versions not held by the Daily Myth. Thus any use if the DM must be independent of the DM.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 22:36, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
::{{yo|XOR'easter}}, in this case BoingBoing seems to be insinuating that the ''Mail'' may have been trying to make themselves look less pro-Nazi, so there is a motive beyond a contempt for journalistic integrity. signed, [[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] [[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']] 23:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
:::To be fair it looks more like a case of "our readers are so shallow they cannot understand anything not couched in modern terms and style". What I do not understand is why bother to make so much effort to create a "Fakesimalie". They could have done a "Yay for us 70 years ago" without "faking" a front page so totally (such as "for King and Empire").[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 09:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
:'''Remove''' wording. This is yet another reason why we cannot trust this source. [[User:Buidhe|b]][[User talk:Buidhe|uidh]][[Special:Contributions/Buidhe|e]] 01:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
:: '''Done'''.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources%2FPerennial_sources&type=revision&diff=955189178&oldid=954862044] --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 12:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
:::I would rather this had been given more time for wider feedback, not that I disagree.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 12:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
::*I am tempted to revert that for 2 main reasons: 1. The inclusion there is the result of two RFC's. The wording is a summary of those RFC outcomes. By changing the wording fundementally in that manner, it no longer reflects the RFC. What that change does is prohibit (at least that is what it will be taken to do) all uses of Daily Mail historical material. It certainly needs a bigger discussion than the brief one here. 2. Its using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The Daily Mail despite its more recent faults has plenty of decent reporting over the decades previous. We cite the original publication, not The Daily Mail's reworked version of it. A more appropriate response would be adding wording to ensure the material cited has been verified from copies of the orignal. We take it on good faith anyway that written sources we dont have access to say what the editor says they do, and any editor using this as an excuse to misrepresent sources would be rumbled pretty quickly. [[User:Only in death|Only in death does duty end]] ([[User talk:Only in death|talk]]) 23:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
:::Personally I would we rather used a nuclear bomb over such blatant crappyness, but I get your point, and said as much myself early on. Yes I would rather you reverted and this was made a formal RFC to overturn the last two.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 09:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
::::See [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources%2FPerennial_sources&type=revision&diff=955351245&oldid=955194814].
::::Looks like I need to start a new Daily Mail RfC in order to make any changes to the Daily mail entry in the perennial sources list. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 09:51, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::See below - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 10:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
:So we are using a situation source (''[[Boing Boing]]'') to determine the RSP entry of the Daily Mail, that seems rather odd. Regards [[User:Spy-cicle| Spy-cicle💥 ]] [[User talk:Spy-cicle#top|''Talk''?]] 11:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
::It would if that were an accurate summary of the above. Fortunately, it isn't - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 12:09, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
::That is an accurate summary of the above and additionally there's no proof. According to [https://www.businessinsider.com/hitler-death-newspapers-2018-4#heres-what-the-new-york-times-looked-like-on-may-2-1945-1 a source as good as boingboing.net] The Times (apparently the May 2 1945 New York Times is meant) said "London newspapers received the announcement of Hitler's death just as the early editions were going to press but the second editions went 'all-out' on the news, with long obituaries of Hitler and biographical sketches of Doenitz ...". Thus the copy with the label "4A.M. Edition" might well greatly differ from what ends up in archives, and layout might greatly differ too if the early-morning audience was more inclined to visuals. The boingboing.net accusation is far more plausible but in the absence of a reliable source, or a copy of a "4A.M. edition" that differs from the picture, it's not established fact. [[User:Peter Gulutzan|Peter Gulutzan]] ([[User talk:Peter Gulutzan|talk]]) 13:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

:The term for it is [[historical negationism]] which has an illustrious history of practitioners. It is [[:wikt:beyond the pale|beyond the pale]] given it is an attempt to rewrite their own history as Nazi sympathizers. -- [[User:GreenC|'''Green''']][[User talk:GreenC|'''C''']] 13:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
===RFC: Remove "reliable historically" sentence from [[WP:RSPDM]] summary===
{{Pin message|}}{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1904479496}}
{{rfc|media|policy|prop|rfcid=FCA01CF}}
The [[WP:RSP]] summary on the Daily Mail includes the sentence "Some editors regard the Daily Mail as reliable historically, so old articles may be used in a historical context". However, the Daily Mail also presents altered versions of its historical content, [[WP:RSN#(Infomercial_voice)_But_Wait!_There's_still_more!!_(News_about_The_Daily_Mail)|as documented above]]. (At the bottom of the altered content was a [https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3064866/Read-history-happened-Extraordinary-Daily-Mail-pages-day-Adolf-Hitler-died-70-years-ago-week.html small single-sentence disclaimer] noting it had been "specially edited and adapted" - which was not noticed by many members of the general public.) This leaves readily available historical versions of Daily Mail content questionable - as well as its untrustworthiness per the 2017 [[WP:DAILYMAIL]] RFC and its 2019 ratification, the site dailymail.co.uk appears not to be trustworthy about the Daily Mail's own past content.

Suggested options:
#'''Remove''' the "reliable historically" sentence from the summary on [[WP:RSP]]
#'''Add a qualifier''': "Note that dailymail.co.uk is not trustworthy as a source of past content that was printed in the Daily Mail."
#'''Do nothing'''
#'''Something else'''

10:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

====Suggested action on [[WP:RSPDM]]====
*'''Remove''' the sentence - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 10:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Remove''' as the material they did publish might be reliable, they are just not reliable for having published it. But if it is reliable someone else would have written about it. Thus (and given the possibly of accidental or deliberate abuse) I have to change to remove, if they cannot be trusted over what they themselves have published they cannot be trusted over anything.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 10:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Remove''' per David Gerard's reasoning below. As a secondary consideration, we should be discoraging use of historical newspaper sources anyway. [[User:Buidhe|b]][[User talk:Buidhe|uidh]][[Special:Contributions/Buidhe|e]] 10:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
* '''Remove''', with the caveat that the ''print'' edition may pass, so a print archive might be acceptable? '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' ([[user talk:JzG|help!]]) 11:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
::So (in essence) remove and add qualifier?[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 11:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
:::I wouldn't even add suggested ways to use the DM, they'll be taken as blanket permissions - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 12:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
:::It doesn't look likely to pass, but an official WP consensus opinion that dailymail.co.uk is not a reliable source for the content of the Daily Mail would certainly be interesting - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 19:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
* '''Remove''' the qualifier, per Slatersteven, and also the notion that these sort of qualifiers confuse the situation. --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron]][[User talk:Jayron32|''32'']] 14:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Add a qualifier''' (though perhaps not needed as obvious). If the dailymail is unreliable, that may extend to their own historical content. But if you pull a dailymail piece off a microfilm archive or online archives not run by the mail ([https://www.historic-newspapers.co.uk/old-newspapers/daily-mail/], [https://www.gale.com/intl/c/daily-mail-historical-archive]) then there shouldn't be any problem in that regard.--[[User:Hippeus|Hippeus]] ([[User talk:Hippeus|talk]]) 14:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
* In my opinion, the best answer is [A] just remove all mention of historical from the Daily mail entry of RSPDM, and [B] have the closing summary of the RfC you are reading now specifically mention that a microfilm archive or online archives not run by The Daily Mail is as good or as bad as the source where you read it. Having this subtlety ''in the RSPDM'' will indeed lead to misuse. Having it in the RfC closing summary will allow any editor to use the historical page (assuming that her local library's microfilm collection or www.historic-newspapers.co.uk are reliable sources for what was printed all of those years ago; if some other source starts faking historical newspaper pages we will deal with that specific source in the usual way). So I !vote '''Remove.''' --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 15:55, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Bad RfC''' I will not say "support" or "oppose" because that might suggest respect for the WP:RSP essay-class page, which I do not have. It is in fact quite easy to see document images for back copies of the Daily Mail via Gale. (I did so for the May 2 1945 front page via my local library site for free, I assume that others have good library sites too.) [[WP:DAILYMAIL]] makes it clear that editors have a right to use such material in some circumstances, regardless what people say in this thread. [[User:Peter Gulutzan|Peter Gulutzan]] ([[User talk:Peter Gulutzan|talk]]) 17:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Remove''' the sentence, and add a statement that historical content on dailymail.co.uk may have been significantly modified from its original version. [[User:XOR'easter|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter|talk]]) 00:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Add a qualifier''' It is possible to trust archives that were archived by trusted sources such as a national library, at the time of publication. Trustworthy archives exist as evidenced by the original BoingBoing post that found the original. -- [[User:GreenC|'''Green''']][[User talk:GreenC|'''C''']] 13:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Something else''' - Clarify, do not make false statements. PRESERVE the indication of where there is good content of Daily Mail. I do not see support given re their current print about history, but if you need precision that the good is historical items not current items about history, it should per [[WP:BATHWATER]] clarify the good is older published work. These might not be readily available elsewhere, as there simply isn’t much historical sources, and if the guide indicates the previously acknowledged good data is bad, then it’s just a case of the guide is giving false information. Cheers [[User:Markbassett|Markbassett]] ([[User talk:Markbassett|talk]]) 19:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
:*There is certainly good content from the Daily Mail... but ''there is no indication'' of which content that is. The OP didn't point out the old content is good, but that it cannot be trusted. They aren't going to put warnings on their stories saying, "This content is okay, the rest is a bit dodgy." It's just not going to happen. This is how these papers compete with each other. They wind up people who otherwise like to believe they ''don't'' want to be ''informed'' about reality, but ''warned'' about reality. They aren't worried about Wikipedia. They are worried about Facebook and Twitter. It feels like they are being thrown out. ''They aren't even here.'' They've little to no interest in what this site represents. They just want to make a splash in the pond, not write an encyclopaedia. ~ [[User:RTG|R]].[[User_Talk:RTG|T]].[[Special:Contributions/RTG|G]] 10:08, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Add the reality''', or what is the point? Anything less is just covering it up more. ~ [[User:RTG|R]].[[User_Talk:RTG|T]].[[Special:Contributions/RTG|G]] 10:08, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Add a qualifier''' that the Daily Mail may change their historical content, making it unreliable. Best practice would be to use another source, or link to a reliable archiving service. [[User:Lawrencekhoo|LK]] ([[User talk:Lawrencekhoo|talk]]) 01:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
* '''Remove''' per nom, or add a qualifier as the second-best option: since they're faking their own historical content, they're not a reliable source even for that. As for the idea of saying that historical content can be cited if one finds and cites the original in a library (and not the current Daily Mail's provably unreliable claims of what the original was)... under what circumstances is a (say) 1951 edition of the ''Daily Mail'' going to be both ''a'' and also ''the only'' reliable source we can find for something, anyway, and under what circumstance is information only reported in one so old edition of them going to be [[WP:DUE]] (or, in the case of an article as a whole, [[WP:NOTABLE]])? I think, if anyone is trying to leave open ''some'' use of the Daily Mail as acceptable, I'd like there to be a concrete example of that being necessary and not just a contrived hypothetical. (Off-topic, discussing using very old documents as sources makes me think of [[Chizerots]], which has three sources, from 1870, 1909, and 2008 respectively, discussing how "the most beautiful" among them is a "type [that] seems more Arabian than Berberic".) [[User:-sche|-sche]] ([[User talk:-sche|talk]]) 15:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Add a qualifier'''. The fact that the Dailymail online cannot be trusted for archives for its past copies does not make their past copies inherently less reliable. You can still find physical copies that can be used for archives. If someone can provide actual evidence of the Daily Mail publishing false stories historically that can be justify the removal of this section. However, that is not the case this situation just makes finding archives of the Daily Mail harder which does not affect reliablity. Regards [[User:Spy-cicle| Spy-cicle💥 ]] [[User talk:Spy-cicle#top|''Talk''?]] 09:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
*'''Remove'''. The Daily Mail has never been a trustworthy publication. There is zero reason to ever source anything to it. Anything notable to include will be sourced elsewhere, and anything that only ever appeared on the Daily Mail is likely fake. No qualifiers; there's absolutely nothing usable about it. [[User:Oknazevad|oknazevad]] ([[User talk:Oknazevad|talk]]) 17:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

====Discussion on [[WP:RSPDM]]====
I think we should just remove the sentence. It's ill-defined and not well supported in the RFCs themselves - when, precisely, was the DM not terrible? By what measure? - and IMO, encrusting a qualifier with further qualifiers is not clear. And qualifiers have historically been used by editors who want to use bad content as an excuse to add otherwise-unusable content - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 10:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
:I was thinking that there are things they are notable for (such as the photo of St Pauls), but then if its notable others would have noted it, we don't need to use the (well this) Daily Myth).[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 10:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
If the result here is "Remove", it would probably also make sense to include an explanation that prevents this from being interpreted as contradicting the original conclusions. Maybe something like, "The original [[WP:DAILYMAIL]] RfC left open the possibility that it {{tq|may have been more reliable historically}}, but a subsequent RfC [link to this discussion] determined..." [[User:Sunrise|''Sunrise'']] ([[User talk:Sunrise|talk]]) 12:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
:certainly - it'll be linked as a third listed RFC, link it from [[WP:DAILYMAIL]] which is the 2017 RFC ... there will be various sensible ways to handle it. The present text has been modified in uncontroversial ways before, e.g. I noted other "dailymail" domains which aren't the DM, and dailymail.com used to be a proper newspaper, the [[Charleston Daily Mail]], which is in fact used as a source in Wikipedia, before the DM bought it from them - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 14:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
:certainly not - that would modify the closed and archived WP:DAILYMAIL RfC even though the subject here (read the topic, read the questions) is not about that, and even if it were it would not be legitimate here. If you want to overturn what the closers concluded in WP:DAILYMAIL your recourse is [[WP:CLOSECHALLENGE]]. [[User:Peter Gulutzan|Peter Gulutzan]] ([[User talk:Peter Gulutzan|talk]]) 14:12, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

:I think [[WP:RSPDM]] in general is not as well written as it could be, and undermines itself in significant ways. In particular, it does not cite its sources or attempt to justify its objections. In order to find those sources we are presumably expected to trawl through a total of 45 separate discussions.

:The Daily Mail is a well-established newspaper with relatively wide circulation. It is well known that it is biased, and it is also well-known to be disliked by precisely the sort of demographic that (one would assume) would edit Wikipedia. Given the zeal with which the DM is removed, it is quite easy for someone not intimately involved in the debate to conclude that the issue is not so much that the DM is unreliable, but that editors who denounce it do so for POV reasons. Particularly when the text being removed is something inherently subjective (e.g. a movie review) or where it is used as an example with explicit attribution (e.g. in a section on press coverage of an event).

:It might therefore be useful to augment [[WP:RSPDM]] and [[WP:DAILYMAIL]] with a new essay, putting the reasons for our attitude to the DM and giving appropriate examples so that editors less familiar with the history can catch up and understand why it is being removed. '''''[[User:Kahastok|Kahastok]]''''' ''[[User Talk:Kahastok|talk]]'' 15:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

::No, that's nonsense. The DM has similar politics to the Times and the Telegraph, but - and this is the key point - those behave rather more like papers of record that aren't given to fabrication.
::The primary objection that Wikipedia-type people have to the DM is that they are ''repeated, habitual liars who make stuff up, and are extensively documented as doing so''. Do you really not understand that that's the problem? - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 22:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

:::I suppose it's probably too much to expect you to actually read what I wrote before writing an abusive response. '''''[[User:Kahastok|Kahastok]]''''' ''[[User Talk:Kahastok|talk]]'' 10:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

* Seems just silly, RSP is lazy and obviously a blanket statement will be sometimes flawed by giving false conclusions. Instead of examining specifics of an item in context per RS, or dealing with Mail had some bits accepted as RS, this just further pursues the false dichotomy of everything published by X is bad in every way or everything published by X is perfect in every way. Silly. The real question should be at what point are we to just ignore the [[WP:RSP]] supplement entry in favor of using the senior guidance [[WP:RS]] and/or get actual specific judgement of [[WP:RSN]] instead ? Cheers [[User:Markbassett|Markbassett]] ([[User talk:Markbassett|talk]]) 19:33, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

===Additional RfC Question: Under what conditions can we trust ''The Daily Mail''? ===
(Background discussion moved from section above. See below for the actual additional RfC question)

Let's talk about the basic error in thinking that led us here. Again and again I see people claiming that they "just know" that:
* The Daily Mail wouldn't lie about a direct quote,
* wouldn't fabricate an interview,
* wouldn't lie about whether the person who's name is on the top of an editorial is the author who actually wrote those words,
* wouldn't lie if that "author" has a sufficiently famous name,
* wouldn't lie if doing so would result in a lawsuit or fine,
* wouldn't lie about material being original and not plagiarized with a few errors thrown in to make better clickbait,
* etc., etc.
Those who "just know" that there are times when the Daily Mail isn't lying expect the rest of us to find, not just multiple examples of The Daily Mail lying. but examples of them lying in every conceivable situation. Last week I had no idea that The Daily Mail might lie about the contents of their own historical pages but I knew from experience that they lie in ''all'' situations. Now I have an example of them lying in this new specific situation. I am getting sick and tired of playing [[Whac-A-Mole]]. At what point do we simply conclude that those who "just know" that The Daily Mail doesn't lie in some situations "know" no such thing and that The Daily Mail will lie about ANYTHING? --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 15:55, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
:You will of course believe that this is precisely a problem I keep hitting in DM removals. "Surely it's reliable for his words!" No, why would you think that, it's the DM - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 17:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Based upon the above, I propose the following:

''' There are no situations where <s>the post-1960</s> ''Daily Mail'' is reliable for anything. See below for claims about itself.'''

* If TDM publishes an interview, that does not establish that the interview happened or even that the person interviewed or the person doing the interviewing actually exists.
* If TDM publishes material under a byline, that does not establish that the person named wrote it, even if the person s famous or a paid TDM contributor. TDM can and will fabricate ''any'' material and publish it under ''any '' byline.
* If TDM publishes material, that does not establish that TDM has the right to publish it or that it was not plagiarized from another publication. All material published by TDM should be treated as a possible copyright violation.
* If TDM plagiarizes material from another publication, that does not establish that TDM did not edit it, introducing false information.
* Regarding using TDM as a source about itself, we can write "On [Date] The Daily Mail wrote X", but we cannot use any internet page controlled by TDM as a source for that claim. TDM cannot be trusted to not silently edit pages it publishes without changing the date or indicating that the page was edited. We should instead cite the Internet Archive Wayback Machine snapshot for that page. For printed pages, we need to cite a source that TDM cannot modify, such as an independent online archive or a library's microfilm collection.
* (added on 19:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)) In particular, the dailymail.co.uk website must never be used as a citation for anything, including claims about the contents of the dailymail.co.uk website or the print version of The Daily Mail. We are not to assume that what we read on any dailymail.co.uk page is the same as what was there yesterday, nor are we to assume that the content will be the same tomorrow, nor are we to assume that there will be any indication that a page was edited. We also are not to assume that users in different locations or using different browsers will see the same content.
* ''Even in situations where we have yet to catch TDM publishing false information, TDM is not to be trusted''.

<s>Note: I picked post-1960 because 1960 was when [[David English (editor)|David English]] started his career at TDM. If anyone has evidence of TDM fabricating material before then, we can change the cutoff date.</s> --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 16:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

=== Additional RfC Question Discussion ===

* '''Support''' as proposer. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 16:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
* '''Support''' As it is becoming clear that they cannot even really be trusted for their own opinions.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 16:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
*The "1960" date - or any other date, or possible or impossible excuse - will absolutely be taken as a green light for open slather on filling Wikipedia with DM cites - I base this claim on the spectacular examples of DM fans trying to find loopholes in the words "generally prohibited", including [[User_talk:David_Gerard#Millennium_(novel_series)|one earlier today]] who claimed that "generally prohibited" didn't mean ''completely'' prohibited, therefore his use was probably good.
:So I would ''not'' support listing a date without strong support for the DM ''ever'' having been good at any previous time - that is, clear positive evidence, rather than a lack of negative evidence.
:Examples of all the things they do would probably be good too.
:I would also explicitly note that the dailymail.co.uk website (by name) literally cannot be trusted as a source for the contents of the Daily Mail, amazing as that sounds - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 17:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
::Point well taken. I just removed the "post-1960" wording. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 19:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
:::I also added a paragraph covering the possibility of TDM serving up different content to different users. There are documented cases of e-commerce sites giving you a high price if you are using an iPhone and a low price if you are using Windows XP, higher for Beverly Hills and lower for Barstow, etc. It would be technically possible for TDM to serve up different content regarding, say, Brexit to UK, US, and EU readers, and really hard for us to detect them doing so. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 20:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
::::See below for what DM advocates are like in practice. I could do with backup here from those who can actually read policy - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 23:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support''' without the post-1960 wording - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 19:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support''' without the post-1960 wording, per above. Let's not waste any more time on this garbage source. [[User:Buidhe|b]][[User talk:Buidhe|uidh]][[Special:Contributions/Buidhe|e]] 20:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
**BTW, if people really want to get rid of DM references - talk on [[WP:RSN]] doesn't have any effect against dedicated DM warriors (and there really are dedicated DM warriors). The refs need to be got rid of, one edit at a time, and their removal defended (using literally our actual policies). [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=0&ns0=1&sort=create_timestamp_desc&search=insource%3A%22dailymail.co.uk%22&advancedSearch-current=%7B%7D This search] is a good start - just start at the top and work down, judging usage and removing or replacing per the RFCs. If a few people even did ten a day, that would help improve Wikipedia greatly - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 20:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - please respect the seniority in guidance of RS and RSN, and a comment section within a RFC is not a valid RFC. What is in RSP is just some editors opinionating and phrasing, not necessarily a summary or strong consensus of views. If it was wrong in this case is just another example of such is imperfect and limited. I have always found the RSP idea simply too dogmatic and plainly a lazy and silly premise that there can be a perfect dichotomy of all-perfect or all-wrong that applies to all content of a publisher for all time. Cheers [[User:Markbassett|Markbassett]] ([[User talk:Markbassett|talk]]) 19:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support''' It's important that we highlight the level of fabrication we're dealing with here, to help good-faith editors understand why the usual exceptions for attributed quotes aren't applicable to DM. –[[User:Dlthewave|dlthewave]] [[User_talk:Dlthewave|☎]] 02:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support''' without 1960 wording. There are zero places where the Daily Mail can be trusted. They're as bad as the National Enquirer. [[User:Oknazevad|oknazevad]] ([[User talk:Oknazevad|talk]]) 17:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

===Is this unique to the DM?===
Do other news sources do this? If so, we probably need to address it at the policy (WP:RS or WP:V) level. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 13:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
:Ish, I seem to recall that mock newspapers are common enough, but something tells me they are rather more obvious about not being genuine. But yes I can see this may need to be more general.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 14:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
::We would have to find a source that [A] Is willing to lie about/fake anything at any time, and [B] has been around for over 100 years. ''Infowars'' will lie about anything but nobody is going to believe a claim that something was published by Infowars in 1917. ''The New York Times'' might say "we published X in 1917" but they haven't shown themselves to be willing to lie about anything and everything. As far as I can tell, there is only one source that fits both [A] and [B]. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 16:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
:::Mmm, the NYT flaws are something RSP supposedly should note, (e.g. they have a thing on for Trump,) and RSP supposedly was/is to capture RSN discussions, not go off and try to evaluate 100 years of publishing where there is no article usage in question. Cheers [[User:Markbassett|Markbassett]] ([[User talk:Markbassett|talk]]) 19:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
:Typically you'll see a scan or image and then the actual original text as text - you won't see [https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3064866/Read-history-happened-Extraordinary-Daily-Mail-pages-day-Adolf-Hitler-died-70-years-ago-week.html the actual thing the DM did], which was to say in the headline:
:{{tq|Read history as it happened: Extraordinary Daily Mail pages from the day Adolf Hitler died 70 years ago this week}}
:and then - as a tiny text box in the bottom right corner of the fourth cover image:
:{{tq|SPECIALLY adapted and edited from the original Daily Mail editions of May 2, 1945 and April 30, 1945}}
:without even the original images. And with the text of the articles changed from the 1945 text.
:If you wanted to claim this is something that other newspapers do, requiring a general solution, I think you'd need to first provide evidence of other papers doing this - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 17:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
::'''No this is totally not unique'''. If you are from the USA, hear this, people ''know'' in the UK and Ireland that the tabloids are sensationalist. Sensationalism '''''is not''''' a dirty word in the newspaper media over here. All national sized newspapers are openly biased in one way or another. The least sensational is the London Times (''not'' the Irish Times, the Irish-only national papers are almost as bad as the British ones). This '''''does not''''' mean they are like the National Enquirer or the Weekly World News. That is not what a tabloid is over here. The newspapers ''are all'' walking the ''sensationalist'' line over here. Like your TV news. Ours is the other way around. Our ''TV'' news is almost impeccable. Newspaper news used to [[Page 3|feature a teenage girl with her boobs out]] every day. Get it. Understand. It's not a secret. Our '''''TV''''' news over here is like your National Geographic. They are impeccable, documentary style, highly esteemed. Our ''newspapers'' are like, boobs out, '''SPLASH SHOCK EVERY SINGLE DAY HEADLINES''', every single day. You can rely on them for daily ''gambling'' news. Newspapers here are the actual authority on that. One of the less popular daily tabloids, the [[Daily Sport]], is ''nothing but'' gambling and boobs. There have been sitcoms about British tabloids since maybe forty years ago. ''They are not ashamed of what they are''. It is simply what they are. ZOMG LET ME ASK YOU AGAIN CAN I HEAR THIS RIGHT???? Yes. Just like that. It has muted over the years, but it is still obvious. They run conflicting stories, they sensationalise, *they are often an important informative part of culture*... not simply nonsense like the Weekly World News, ''always based'' in fact... but that is as far as they can be ''surely'' trusted. If they say a bomb went off, you can be sure one went off... If they say the sky has fallen down, yes, get your umbrella out. Do they receive letters from Elvis on Pluto... '''''no that is not what people are saying about them'''''. Can you trust them to word and check facts as an impeccable source of information? ''No!!'' They are sensationalist. They ''actually try'' to walk the line between being honourable and being in court. They are not ashamed of that. They exhibit personality, bias, seriously... people do not respect them at all... people ''love'' them... You've watched or seen Japanese gameshows, and thought, maybe a lot of the Japanese are actually crazy, right? ''But RTG''... how is newspaper culture supposed to compare to crazy Japanese gameshows??? Well... we can't do Jerry Springer and Oprah like you can... can we. It's like having a different accent. We stress different words. We have different attitudes about different individual things. Overall, it's pretty much the same insofar as it can be. It's like getting to know a different city. It might be north-south. It might be east-west, or it might be none of the above. ~ [[User:RTG|R]].[[User_Talk:RTG|T]].[[Special:Contributions/RTG|G]] 17:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
:::Re "Our TV news over here is like your National Geographic. They are impeccable, documentary style, highly esteemed", see [https://skepticalinquirer.org/2019/09/the-remedies-of-national-geographic/] and [https://skepticalinquirer.org/2019/09/national-geographic-book-is-a-natural-disaster/]. I'm just saying. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 03:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
::::Okay, well you can't win them all, but the non-regional newspaper press defaults to popular sensationalism, not impeccable documentarianism. We rely on these sensationalist journals because they are popular and free on the internet, but they are off the cuff, and that is not what Wikipedia is trying to be. Good grief, did I delete the part where I pointed out that we have "newsagents" instead of "drugstores"? Newspapers are very useful to culture over here to inform people of incidents and events in the world around them, but they exist to sensationalise. ~ [[User:RTG|R]].[[User_Talk:RTG|T]].[[Special:Contributions/RTG|G]] 14:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
:::[[User:RTG]] Agree, at least for recent history. Newspapers in the U.K. were more restrained and respectful before the 1970s. In the United States, for many years mentions have noted that television news switched to being entertainment and sensationalizing, and newspapers reliability and neutrality were in decline in the 1990s as another ‘death of truth’. Newspapers seem to largely be BIASED, going past individual specialties (e.g. Wall Street Journal covers business) into catering to their local market or playing to a subscriber audience. (e.g. NYT runs anti-Trump, Washington Examiner runs pro-Trump). In some ways that makes it easier for WP to find the POVs, but in general it is a WP issue as editors proclaim EVERYthing from NYT is not just RS but also TRUTH and WEIGHT because NYT said so — or proclaim EVERYthing from Mail is FALSE so not RS and large WEIGHT POVs get obliterated. Seems like 80% or so of what U.K. population sees is deemed non-existent right now. Unless it’s BBC or London Times, it just isn’t acknowledged to exist. Cheers [[User:Markbassett|Markbassett]] ([[User talk:Markbassett|talk]]) 20:15, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
::::I'm not sure what there is to be done about that. It seems maybe even dangerous, not to have any biases in media at all, and that is because the people themselves cannot be strictly trusted. The people themselves are no more worried about their information services building an encyclopaedia than the Daily Mail is. I struggle with it. What is the popular meme? Even if you tell the people the best thing to do they won't do it. Jimbo Wales has been trying to start a people-driven news service for years. The current iteration is https://wt.social/ ~ [[User:RTG|R]].[[User_Talk:RTG|T]].[[Special:Contributions/RTG|G]] 11:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
*It is not unique to the DM, but the reason we have these sorts of discussion (as I said way back in the original RFC) is that they have a specific combination of prominence and unreliability that is comparatively rare. We can't individually depreciate or ban every single unreliable source; the purpose of these centralized RFCs is to address a situation where a source that is patiently unreliable in any context where we would want to use it is, nonetheless, being extensively used by some editors who try to insist it is reliable. I don't think we can address that in a sweeping sense at a policy level because whatever category we create or define, a source's defenders will insist it doesn't fall into it. When there's a significant disagreement over the facts as they relate to a specific source, and it's leading to constant issues over whether / where it can be used on Wikipedia, a centralized discussion like this is really the only option. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 15:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

===dailymail.co.uk reversion: eyes wanted===
{{archive top}}
Problem at [[For Your Eyes Only (short story collection)]] - see reversion with dismissive edit summaries, ignoring obvious policy issues, and personal attacks on [[Talk:For Your Eyes Only (short story collection)]]. More eyes needed.

I'll flag more of these in this section as they come up - I assure you, this is an absolutely typical example of the genre: ignore all policy and guidelines, dive straight into the personal attacks - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 22:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
:Stop being a disruptive little edit warrior and stop with the outright lies. If you’d bothered to read the bloody message on the talk page, you’ll see that I said I would replace the source. Stop being such a dramah monger. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 23:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
::Please desist in your personal attacks - these are a violation of the policy [[WP:NPA]]. I believe my claims are fully supported by the material in the history and on the talk page - you reverted against policy and strong consensus, and made personal attacks. You also responded to citation of policy with citation of essays. Have you considered following Wikipedia hard policy, such as [[WP:BURDEN]]? - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 23:22, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
:::No personal attacks, and stop being so disruptive. I have said I will find a replacement in the morning (I first said it about 5 or 6 posts ago, but you've ignored it and kept disruptively pressing your point). Take your little crusade elsewhere until I've had the chance to look properly. It's 12:40am and I'm off to bed, but (for the nth time), I will look again in the morning. In the meantime, reflect that there are ways and means of doing things, and you are not doing things terribly well. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 23:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
:::: www.dailymail.co.uk is not an acceptable source. You say you have a better source? Then use that source. Do not re-insert any citation to The Daily Mail. Also, please don't make obviously false claims like "No personal attacks" when 23 minutes earlier you posted a personal attack ("Stop being a disruptive little edit warrior... Stop being such a dramah monger.") --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 01:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::FFS... You really don't bother reading what people say, do you? "{{tq|You say you have a better source?}}" I've not said that at all. On several occasions I have said that I will look for one,after a night's sleep. If you are looking for the best way to piss people off with your little crusade, you've found it: an inflexible approach of edit warring to instantly remove information that has been in place for several years, without allowing a few hours for that information to,be replaced? Get a fucking sense of perspective. As to the supposed PAs: I have given a fair description of your approach to this situation. Now back the fuck off for a few hours to allow for a search for a new source. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 04:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::Or you know, you get a sense of perspective and re-read [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]]/[[WP:CIVIL]]. Leave the unreliably sourced information out until you have reliable source to back it up. Like everywhere else on Wikipedia. The world will not end if those passages are missing from the article for a few hours. [[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|c]] · [[WP:PHYS|p]] · [[WP:WBOOKS|b]]} 05:09, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::Seconded. SchroCat, I don't even need to leave this thread to see you ignoring policy and being combative and disruptive. Guy Macon clearly read what you wrote, he fucking quoted your personal attacks! If "dramah monger" really does fall under [[WP:SPADE]], then it would be perfectly reasonable for the rest of us to suggest that you're the one ''starting'' the drama as if out of [[WP:HIGHMAINT|some sense of blind entitlement]], and [[WP:TEND|being a hypocrite in expecting others to give you a few hours to bring in a replacement source instead of just letting the page not have that information during that time]]. [[User:Ian.thomson|Ian.thomson]] ([[User talk:Ian.thomson|talk]]) 05:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
* He obviously didn't read it, given what I've said, but if you want to back up a disruptive process by using personal attacks to call me a hypocrite with a "sense of blind entitlement". then I guess the blindness is thick on the ground here and the PAs are fine to throw around. As I said on the talk page, the information has been in the article for several years, and to a '''source that is not banned''' (and yes, Headbomb, the world will also not end if those passages ''remain'' in the article for a few hours while an alternative is sought - particularly as some was removed and some left with a cn tag - no logic there at all. And I'll let you strike your sentence saying the information was "unreliably sourced": it wasn't). I had acknowledged that I was going to look for an alternative source, and yet that still gives someone the right to edit war, rather than a few hours grace to find an alternative? Common sense has been replaced with the crusading zeal way too much. You lot have an apexcellent way of pissing people off by not bothering with common sense and choosing the most inflexible and disruptive path that inconveniences readers. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 05:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
:BTW, I've struck the lie in the title: I am not an advocate for the Mail and never have been. I voted in favour of the ban of the source and I'm glad to see it being removed, but it's the manner and method of that removal that is disruptive. Find a different way to deal with it, rather than edit warring and then calling me a "DM advocate". (That also falls under NPA, but I don't expect anyone will bother with leaving stupidity messages to warn Gerard about civility with name calling). - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 05:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
::Looking at the [[WP:DAILYMAIL|2017 RFC]] and [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_255#2nd_RfC:_The_Daily_Mail|2019 RFC]], I don't see you on either. Did you change usernames? - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 19:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=For_Your_Eyes_Only_(short_story_collection)&diff=955634489&oldid=954323755 This edit] removed a reference to the [[Mail on Sunday]]. Has the ''Daily Mail'' ban been extended to the ''Mail on Sunday''? While they have the same owner they are editorially distinct as far as I am aware. From what I recall of the discussion all the evidence of falsified stories/quotes related exclusively to ''The Daily Mail'' title and its online presence. [[User:Betty Logan|Betty Logan]] ([[User talk:Betty Logan|talk]]) 06:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
::Neither [[WP:DAILYMAIL]] or [[WP:DAILYMAIL2]] covered the Mail on Sunday and there has been no RfC since then that would mean the source is unsuitable. Nice to know the disapprobation of the above (not to say the edit warring and grief) has been over the illicit removal of information cited to a source that is not deprecated. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 07:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC) p.s. I've tweaked the title again to reflect the reality. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 07:09, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
:::[[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]],
:::* Did you make this edit?[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=For_Your_Eyes_Only_%28short_story_collection%29&type=revision&diff=955638089&oldid=955635728]
:::* Did that edit add the source ''www.dailymail.co.uk''?
:::* Did you also add "work=Daily Mail" in that same edit?
:::* Is www.dailymail.co.uk the URL for ''The Daily Mail''?
:::* Did I revert you with this edit?[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=For_Your_Eyes_Only_(short_story_collection)&diff=next&oldid=955638089]
:::* Was my edit summary in any way unclear?
:::* Did you then edit war to re-insert the source ''www.dailymail.co.uk''?[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=For_Your_Eyes_Only_%28short_story_collection%29&type=revision&diff=955673497&oldid=955659484] '''again'''?
:::These are simple questions. You should be able to provide yes or no answers to each of them, but please do feel free to explain, in detail, why your edits actually added (and were reverted for adding) [[The Daily Mail]]] but you are now claiming[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources%2FNoticeboard&type=revision&diff=955692589&oldid=955689966][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources%2FNoticeboard&type=revision&diff=955692758&oldid=955692589]that they only added [[The Mail on Sunday]]? --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 08:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

*Was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=For_Your_Eyes_Only_(short_story_collection)&diff=955634489&oldid=954323755 this] or [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=For_Your_Eyes_Only_(short_story_collection)&diff=next&oldid=955634581 this] removing a banned source? Yes or no? Did this whole annoying mess start with the boundaries of [[WP:DAILYMAIL]] and [[WP:DAILYMAIL2]] being pushed to delete information removed from a legitimate source? Why, when you removed the www.dailymail.co.uk source (rightly), do you feel it suitable to edit war to delete information cited to a legitimate source? These are simple questions. You should be able to provide answers to each of them.
:And again, it comes down not just to the removal of information (some of which was removed illegitimately, some legitimately), but in the crass and inflexible way it was done. As the information has been there for over a decade, was it urgent that it was removed immediately, even after I had said I would look for an alternative after a night's sleep? Again, this is a simple question. You should be able to provide an answer for it. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 09:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
:A less easy to answer question is how many illicit removals have been made of information sourced to the Mail on Sunday? I do hope that a concerted effort is made to replace the information that should not have been removed. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 09:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
::{{ec}} Evasion noted. I will take your refusal to give a straight answer as an admission that in this edit[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=For_Your_Eyes_Only_%28short_story_collection%29&type=revision&diff=955673497&oldid=955659484] you did indeed insert a citation to The Daily Mail. Again, please stop claiming that you only added a citation to The Mail on Sunday.

::Re ''"Why, when you removed the www.dailymail.co.uk source (rightly), do you feel it suitable to edit war to delete information cited to a legitimate source?"'' First '''ONE REVERT IS NOT EDIT WARRING.''' Please retract your false accusation and apologize. Second, I am not required to carefully examine your edits and remove only those portions that violate Wikipedia policy. It is '''your''' responsibility to make edits that follow policy. If someone reverts an edit of yours that contains a policy violation along with other material, It is ''your'' job to create a new edit that only contains non-violating material. Instead you purposely re-inserted the citation to www.dailymail.co.uk -- a citation that you yourself admit is not allowed. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 11:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
:::"One revert is not edit warring": yes it is, despite the shouty caps and bolding, if there has been a back-and-forth a couple of times and you join in, then you were as guilty of edit warring and me and Gerard. So no, no retraction, and certainly no apology. As you seem to be trying to avoid any responsibility for removing information cited to a legitimate source, there is little I can (or wish) to say or do. But you keep telling yourself you are perfect and I am the bad guy, if that's the way you want to go. You were in the wrong for some of these actions. Your evasion on the question of how much legitimate information has been removed is noted. No surprises. I'm off; I'll leave you to have [[The Last Word]] - I'm sure you'll enjoy that. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 11:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

::::And again you misrepresent Wikipedia policy. [[WP:EW]] says "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page '''repeatedly''' override each other's contributions... ''What edit warring is:'' Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold, but while a potentially controversial change may be made to find out whether it is opposed, another editor may revert it. This may be the beginning of a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. '''An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts.'''" (emphasis added). Making false accusations against other editors is a form of personal attack. I think it is becoming clear that your behavior is something that needs to be dealt with at [[WP:ANI]]. Given the previous blocks in your block log for edit warring and personal attacks, an indefinite block is likely. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 12:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::I misrepresent nothing. I was actually blocked for undertaking one revert in an edit war between two others, so feel free to take that case up on my behalf. And if you honestly think that going to ANI is a beneficial step, crack on and do just that. Or is it an empty threat and a way to raise my block log? Don't ping me to this page again, I really have no desire to discuss anyone so willfully obtuse who refuses to acknowledge that they have erred even in the slightest (I have admitted it, by the way: it's just you who are trying to evade any sense of doing anything wrong.) - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 12:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

*'''Follow-up comment''' I think there are two issues that emerge from this discussion:
# It appears that ''Mail on Sunday'' is not proscribed by either RFC, and as such citations to it should not be removed without further discussion.
# There is then the manner in which the sources to ''The Daily Mail'' are being culled. While a consensus exists to remove it as source I cannot honestly say [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=For_Your_Eyes_Only_(short_story_collection)&type=revision&diff=955635728&oldid=955634581 this edit] exemplifies good practice. The problem with ''The Daily Mail'' is that it is untrustworthy, but much of what they report is still accurate. This was acknowledged in the RFC, and one of the arguments advanced by editors in favour of a ban was that an alternative source could be located for credible claims in most cases. Unfortunately this solution is being thwarted by an aggressive culling campaign. This edit removed legitimate encyclopedic information, which is probably to the detriment of the article. In the case of non-controversial claims that are not about living people would it not be better practice to simply remove the source and replace it with a {{tl|citation needed}} tag? While SchroCat technically shouldn't have restored the source I get the sense from him that what he was really doing was restoring the information, and he eventually located alternative sources. Is this not the most desirable outcome?
: [[User:Betty Logan|Betty Logan]] ([[User talk:Betty Logan|talk]]) 19:40, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
::{{u|Betty Logan}}, the Mail is deprecated. That means it's untrustworthy. If something is ''only'' in the mail, we can't use it; if it is in another source as well, use that instead. Don't use the Daily Mail as a source. Or any tabloid, for that matter. The '''print edition''' of the MoS ''may'' be considered reliable case by case. But is still a tabloid so a better source is always preferred.
:: I have two particular problems with the Mail as a source for Wikipedia. The first is how it's used, which is often for trivia, especially salacious trivia (that's their speciality, google "[https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/avn35k/all-grown-up-sexing-up-the-internet-with-the-daily-mail all grown up]"). The second, and related, is the notorious "sidebar of shame". I have a serious problem with linking to any site carrying that kind of bullshit from any Wikipedia article. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' ([[user talk:JzG|help!]]) 10:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
::: So a "quality broadsheet", e.g. ''[[The Times]]'', ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'', etc., which quotes the ''Daily Mail'' as '''it's sole source''' would be acceptable? Thanks. [[User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]] ([[User talk:Martinevans123|talk]]) 10:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
::::{{u|Martinevans123}}, yes. They can be expected to have fact-checked it. But calling the Telegraph a "quality broadsheet" is a bit of a stretch these days. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' ([[user talk:JzG|help!]]) 11:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::How would you describe it? Next on the list to be a banned? [[User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]] ([[User talk:Martinevans123|talk]]) 12:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

:::{{u|JzG|Guy}}, no-one is claiming that the Mail should be retained as a source. Two RfCs (in which I voted to ban its use both times) have confirmed that. What we are talking about is two different things here: 1. Much of this grief started because Gerard edit warred to remove a citation from the hard copy Mail on Sunday. That should not have been removed, and he has still to account for that. 2. The ''process'' when information from the Damily Mail or dailymail.co.uk is flawed. In this case the information has been in the article for over a decade, and yet it was suddenly necessary to delete it immediately without providing an adequate window to find a replacement? No. That's just dumb. It doesn't help our readers and it annoys the crap out of people. I said on the article talk page right at the start that I would find a replacement, but this was ignored, and the edit warring continued. How does that help anyone? As it was, the information was finally left in the article overnight (UK time) until I was able to find a replacement in the morning. I cannot see any benefit in the inflexible, unthinking '''immeditate''' removal-without-the-option approach. The information is still in the article, and all now connected to a reliable source (two sources at one point). The best outcome has been achieved despite the fervour for the inflexible and immediate approach. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 10:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
::::I had always assumed that anyone removing a DM source was supposed to search for an alternative source, or add a <nowiki>{{cn}}</nowiki>, or both. Not just remove both DM and the info itself wholesale in one edit. [[User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]] ([[User talk:Martinevans123|talk]]) 11:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::I do not recall that ever being said, and will make more work as at some point the unsourced material might have to be removed (per [[wP:v]].[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 11:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::As opposed to "make more work" by having to search for the info and a fresh source all over again? Isn't one expected to search for a better source for information sourced to any unreliable source? Isn't that normal procedure? Thanks. [[User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]] ([[User talk:Martinevans123|talk]]) 11:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::Tagging with <nowiki>{{Deprecated source}}</nowiki> would also have had the desired effect of highlighting the problem. If such a tag had been left on there for a day or so, that would also have avoided all the kerfuffle; as it is there has been a ''lot'' more work invoved because someone edit warred to remove a source that is entirely legitimate`. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 11:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::True, but it is a users choice if they wish to remove badly sourced information or tag it. There is no policy that even implies you should add back badly sourced information. We gain nothing with tags all over the pace saying "bad source" "dodgy information" "BorisJophnsonsaidit", we do however (I would argue) lose. Wikipedia has a reputation for unreliability. If our articles are littered with crap even we think is unreliable that image is hardly going to improve.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 11:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::I certainly wasn't suggesting we "add back badly sourced information". Quite the reverse. [[User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]] ([[User talk:Martinevans123|talk]]) 11:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::{{u|Martinevans123}}, no, the onus is on the person including content to find reliable sources. It's an instance of BRD. There have been attempts to claim this by people who fundamentally oppose the entire idea of deprecation, but it's not policy. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' ([[user talk:JzG|help!]]) 11:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::Some of this information was added when the DM was still considered to be [[WP:RS]]? [[User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]] ([[User talk:Martinevans123|talk]]) 11:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::So? If it is now a dodgy source its a dodgy source.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 11:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::So Guy said {{tq|"the onus is on the person including content to find reliable sources".}} I'm just saying that when it was originally added the person may well have been justified in using the DM as a reliable source. A person just removing the source now isn't adding anything. [[User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]] ([[User talk:Martinevans123|talk]]) 12:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::No they are removing something we now know cannot be trusted for information. What Guy said applies just as much to wanting to add information back (or indeed retaining information). This is why the DM was deprecated, because of its massive over use. We now have to clean up that mess.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 12:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::But there is absolutely no need to do it in such an inflexible and disruptive way. When Gerard removed a legitimate source and edit warred on it, there was no mess to clean up. When two editors decided to delete information supported by the Press Association and a Scottish newspaper, we're crossing a line between responsible housekeeping and disruptive editing. The orginal title of this section was "‎DM advocate". I'd rather be called a cunt that a DM advocate, but such is the mindset of a small group of zealots that anyone who asks for an 8-hour moritorium on removal is the subject of abuse and lies. Your call on whether you think this is an ideal pathway for the inhabitants of the RS board to behave, but I suggest the approach needs a rethink. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 12:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::We seem to be talking at cross purposes. It looks to me to be a rather odd case of [[WP:BRD]]. I'm just suggesting that removing material and a DM source wholesale, without any attempt to find an alternative source, might do more harm than good. [[User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]] ([[User talk:Martinevans123|talk]]) 12:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::::True, but [[wp:brd]] is clear that once material, has been removed it is down to those who wish to include it to make a case at talk, not just add it back with a change of source (you are right, by the way, the new sources should have been enough as far as I can see). Thus (whilst) the DM part of this debate is about RS, the rest is not.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 12:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Ah. So all those instances where I've followed David Gerard round and re-added stuff with a good source (and which he's consistently thanked me for), I should have instead taken to the Talk page? [[User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]] ([[User talk:Martinevans123|talk]]) 12:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC) And it's not like I've really "followed him round" at all. I've seen his standard edit summary about DM pop up in my watchlist and when I've gone to look at the deletion I've thought "oh that looks like a very reasonable claim, there must be at least one other RS source that supports that...."
:::::::::::::That's taking a misreading of BRD too far for any common sense approach. If the source is being challenged, then replacing the source is sufficient, even if that is just replacing exactly the same information, including qquotes. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 12:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::We also have [[wP:agf]], I have no idea abvout this case but I have had trouble finding sources others have found. You are assuming no effort was made.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 12:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::A more useful edit summary might say "I've looked for a better source and I can't find one, so am removing"? [[User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]] ([[User talk:Martinevans123|talk]]) 13:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Three things: firstly, I was talking in general about providing a different source when material is challenged. (Don't forget that [[WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION|the verification policy]] says that @{{tq|Material that fails verification may be tagged with <nowiki>{{failed verification}}</nowiki> or removed}}". There is, written into policy, a way that information does not have to be unthkingly removed as a matter of course. It can be tagged for a short period to allow for a replacement to be made. Secondly, If it is removed, there really is no reason to have to discuss replacing it with an alternative source on the talk page. Replacing the information with a new source is entirely appropriate. Thirdly, it seems that a few people have said they can't find the information (although raising AGF is a bit of a straw man here). I found it in two sources and Sarah SV found two sources using variants of the quote made to different journalists; I also found another variant on the official Bond site. Just because the person desparately removing as many DM sources as quickly as possoble didn't find an alternative (and yes, that does pre-suppose they bothered looking), it doesn't mean the infomation isn't there to those who know how to look for things properly. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 13:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
::::{{u|SchroCat}}, Oh, so David's actions resulted in better sourcing. So we're good then. Shall I close this? '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' ([[user talk:JzG|help!]]) 11:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::Yes, may as well gloss over the removing of a legitimate source and the sub-standard way people are demanding the immediate removal without thought to the loss of legitimate information. The lack of flexibility is always a given when a crusade is in progress. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 11:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Can we please only discuss the DM, anything else just confuses the issue.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 12:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
:As long as we are clear that the Mail on Sunday (paper version, not online) should not have been removed. At. All. Neither should the other sources. Part of the problem is that I have seen no comment from Gerard to acknowledge that they were wrong to remove it in the first place and doubly wrong to edit war to remove it a second time. I hope this disruptive approach is not something that is going to be repeated. In terms of the DM info, allowing a short moritorium on finding a new source seems to be a common sense way of approaching this, rather than such an inflexible approach that is currently in favour. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 12:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
::This RFC is about the daily mail, only the DM and just the DM. If you have other RS issues start a new thread. If you have issue about user conduct this is not then place.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]])
:::Actually this sub-thread is (currently) titled "dailymail.co.uk reversion: eyes wanted". Since its opening post it has been nothing to do with the RfC (as such it should never have been a sub-thread of the RfC in the first place; the topic of discussion has not essentially changed since the first post, given we are still discussing matters relating to the opening post). We can change it from a sub-thread to a full thread if you prefer? - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 13:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
::::As this is not (and does not appear to be) an RS issue, but rather an issue over user conduct this is not the right venue anyway.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 13:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::Very true. Once has to question way it was opened in the first place, and why a personal attack was used as the original title. Never mind - but I really don't have high hopes that this has made any difference, and will not be surprised when it inevitably happens again. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 13:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}

===Another unreliable source? (www.dailymail.co.uk and www.mi6-hq.com) ===
{{archive top}}
In this edit,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=For_Your_Eyes_Only_%28short_story_collection%29&type=revision&diff=955677210&oldid=955676854] {{userlinks|SchroCat}} replaced a citation to [ www.dailymail.co.uk ] with a citation to [ www.mi6-hq.com ]

[https://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/articles/james-bond-primer-for-new-readers] says "We are a not-for-profit fan website, maintained by men and women passionate about the subject."

[https://www.mi6-hq.com/contribute] says "Want to join a community of Bond experts that has been growing since 1998? MI6 is made more diverse, engaging and current thanks to it's regular contributions by guest authors. We are constantly on the look out for authors, photographers, artists, videographer, podcaster or reviewers, all with a passion for James Bond in print or on the screen. If you have an original idea for a feature, or some tidbit to share, please get in touch with our team."

So, generally reliable or self-published fan site?

The quote "it relates to the fact that if you don't have that Quantum of Solace in a relationship" comes from [ www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-510171/Live-Let-Dye-Daniel-Craig-turns-clock-darkened-hair-007-photocall.html ] (25 January 2008). mi6-hq.com published it at [https://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/articles/bond_22_prod_diary08.php3?t=qos] on 30 January 2008. This highlights one of the problems with replacing citations to The Daily Mail; if you search for other sources that say what DM said, you find a bunch of low-quality sources that pretty much parrot what was on the DM page a few days earlier. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 12:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

:Pretty obviously not an RS, no - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 22:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

::I am getting the usual insults and refusal to follow Wikipedia policies at [[Talk:For Your Eyes Only (short story collection)#Replacing one unreliable source with another? (www.dailymail.co.uk and www.mi6-hq.com)]]. Normally I would report this at ANI, but I am still recovering from my recent [[Cardiac Arrest]] and I don't think the stress would be good for me. Would someone else here be willing to file it? --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 23:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
:::It gets worse and worse. He now claims that in the last few days you went to a library, found not just one but two sources that by an amazing coincidence just happen to contain the exact same quote from The Daily Mail that he edit warred to keep in, and yet for some inexplicable reason he cannot remember who Daniel Craig said it to or when he said it. Meanwhile, the person he says authored the source (Noah Sherna) doesn't seem to exist, but in yet another amazing coincidence, Sherna Noah writes for ''The Daily Mail''.[https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2978484/I-love-wolf-whistlers-says-Celia-Imrie-Actress-says-people-complain-lighten-up.html] --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 01:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
::::Don't lie. I have claimed nothing of the sort. I have also made no comment on who Craig said it to, so I am unsure where these falsehoods come from. I have advised exactly how you can verify the source, so try reading what I have said properly and use the link provided. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 01:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
::::{{u|Guy Macon}}, Sherna Noah works for the Press Association. ''The Guardian'' also has a version of the same quote; I've left it on the talk page. It appears to be the same point made during an interview with a different reporter. [[User:SlimVirgin|SarahSV]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]] 03:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
:::{{u|Guy Macon}}, someone needs to read [[WP:FANSITE]]. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' ([[user talk:JzG|help!]]) 10:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
::::{{u|JzG|Guy}}, no they don't. Macon needs to ensure he posts all the facts and 1. doesn't miss out key points (like two other reliable sources were added shortly afterwards), and 2. he doesn't lie, like he has above (I did not claim I went to the library and I did not say anything about who Craig was talking to; feel free to look at the article talk page to find out where I have said either of those things. They are entirely false). BTW, FANSITE shortcuts to [[Wikipedia:External links]], which isn't the guideline you are after - you mean [[WP:UGC]], which advises against, but it certainly doesn't provide a blanket ban against all such sites. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 10:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::{{u|SchroCat}}, mi6-hq.com isn't a fansite, then? Someone should tell the person who maintains it. Wikipedia isn't a fansite either. These articles would mostly be improved by being about half as long. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' ([[user talk:JzG|help!]]) 11:25, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::{{u|JzG|Guy}}, that's not what I said. I was pointing out the link you provided, to FANSITES, actually discusses the addition of fansites in external links, not within articles. The pertinent link on this occasion [[WP:UGC]], which advises against, but it certainly doesn't provide a blanket ban against all such sites. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 11:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::When you tell a person to verify a sources by going to a library, meanwhile refusing to say where you checked the source, a reasonable person would conclude that you checked it in a library. (later you decided to reveal that you checked in using an online source). When you repeatedly refuse to answer the simple question of where and when Daniel Craig said that, a reasonable person would conclude that you most likely ''can't'' answer the question. When you quote [[WP:UGC]], claiming that it allows use of fansites (the actual wording is "Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is also generally unacceptable") a reasonable person would assume that you are either incapable or unwilling to follow Wikipedia's rules (something we have already seen with Wikipedia's rules againstr personal attacks). When you repeatedly claim that if you make an edit that violates Wikipedia's sourcing policies, the person reverting you is somehow required to carefully search your edit for any portions that don't violate Wikipedia's policies, and you [[WP:IDHT|just flat out ignore it]] when you are told again and again that there exists no such requirement, a reasonable person would assume that you are either incapable or unwilling to even discuss whether you are following Wikipedia's rules.
:::::::This all started with you edit warring to retain [ www.dailymail.co.uk ] as a source and with [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] asking you to follow our rules.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:For_Your_Eyes_Only_(short_story_collection)&diff=prev&oldid=955641548] and correctly identifying [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources%2FNoticeboard&type=revision&diff=955638938&oldid=955638125] that your behavior is typical of someone who fights to keep ''The Daily mail'' as a source. Your subsequent behavior here has demonstrated that he was right. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 15:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::"When you tell a person to verify a sources by going to a library": I didn't. I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFor_Your_Eyes_Only_%28short_story_collection%29&type=revision&diff=955826273&oldid=955821028 told you to go to THE library] - the one we have on WP. I even fucking linked it for you. If you're not able to click on the link despite it being handed to you a second time, I do begin to wonder just why you are being so obtuse. Other inaccuracies here include "you quote WP:UGC, claiming that it allows use of fansites": you'll have to read what I said a little more closely. I said "[[WP:UGC]], which advises against, but it certainly doesn't provide a blanket ban against all such sites", and actually there is some deliberate leeway in the wording of the guideline (for example, if such a site was being written by one individual who was a published expert in the area, then it would be a point for discussion). "incapable or unwilling to follow Wikipedia's rules" another tedious PA you like to throw out, and hopelessly wrong too, ditto the link to IDHT - all tiresomly inaccurate.
::::::::More nonsense follows; "This all started with you edit warring to retain [ www.dailymail.co.uk ] as a source". Again, that's a straight lie. This started when Gerard [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=For_Your_Eyes_Only_(short_story_collection)&diff=955634489&oldid=954323755 removed a reference from the paper version of the Mail on Sunday]. A legitimate source. I'll keep repeating that a legitimate source was removed until it finally sinks in and you stop telling porkies. "your behavior is typical of someone who fights to keep ''The Daily mail'' as a source" Another straight out falsehood. I don't know how many times I have had to say that I support the ban on the Mail (that I voted for twice) and the idea it should be removed: it's the crass and inflexible way it is being done that it disruptive. Now, if you're done with trolling and telling lies, I'll leave you to it. There is nothing contructive to be had in listening to more falsehoods from you - you appear to be in competition with the Mail to see how many inaccuracies you can cram into each line. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 15:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
[self-reverted] --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 16:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::{{u|Guy Macon}}, this is thoroughly out of order. {{u|SchroCat}}, it would be better not even to respond. [[User:SlimVirgin|SarahSV]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]] 16:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
*I have already asked you once not to ping me to this page. Stop. You are behaving like the worst sort of disruptive troll. Stop. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 16:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
* mi6-hq.com? Is that Mike Corley? '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' ([[user talk:JzG|help!]]) 10:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
:: Mike Corely appears to be focused on conspiracy theories involving MI5 persecution. I don't think he has much interest in James Bond, but of course mi6-hq.com is a fansite where anonymous users can post content, so you never know. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 15:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Can we please not discus 15 different sources in one thread?[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 15:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}

=== Daily Mail: The halving===

In Q3 2018, there were [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_255#Bot_for_removing_banned_publications?|27,336 uses of the Daily Mail as a reference]] on Wikipedia. At this moment, there are [https://archive.is/17rFs 13,630].

The cleanup of the backlog of bad sources continues. Please use a search something like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=0&ns0=1&sort=create_timestamp_desc&search=insource%3A%22dailymail.co.uk%22&advancedSearch-current=%7B%7D this one], and help improve Wikipedia. If a few people can each do even ten a day, that'll make Wikipedia a noticeably better place - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 21:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

=== Daily Mail: It's below 10,000 ===

The deprecated source backlog has less than 10,000 entries remaining! Your assistance is most welcomed - start at the top of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=0&ns0=1&sort=create_timestamp_desc&search=insource%3A%22dailymail.co.uk%22&advancedSearch-current=%7B%7D this list] (or wherever you like really), and see if ''you'' can knock off five - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 19:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

== WhatCulture ==

[https://whatculture.com/ WhatCulture], the website where contributors "[https://whatculture.com/write-for-us do not need to have any relevant experience or hold any particular qualifications]", probably deserves an edit filter. Last month, I took the issue to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&oldid=952423596 MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist] because its use on Wikipedia [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=0&ns0=1&search=%22WhatCulture%22&advancedSearch-current=%7B%7D is being a problem]. It is generally specifically used for lists, celebrities, films, [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 8#What Culture, Complex, and Crave Online|video games]], and especially wrestling, and one can obviously tell the format of the coverage just by looking at its homepage. Frankly my blacklist suggestion was declined due to the lack of actual spam (the ''raison d'être'' of the blacklist), and during that time I came to better understand the use of edit filters. I then realized that I could either take the issue here on RSN or on [[WP:EFN]], in which case the former is obviously correct. Normally, I do not request for putting warnings on links that should be avoided, but when those links become widely used, they become more or less an epidemic that needs to be curbed. I am not sure what I would be using that website for, if anything, so it would help if anyone can tell me why the source is at least useful. '''[[User:FreeMediaKid!|Free]][[User talk:FreeMediaKid!|Media]][[Special:Contributions/FreeMediaKid!|Kid]]!''' 21:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

*'''Not reliable''' and would love to see it blacklisted. I'd put in the pile of "humor-based publications" like Mad and Cracked that are meant to be fun to read but have zero journalistic merit and should not be used for any real claims. --[[User:Masem|Masem]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 21:55, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
* '''Not reliable''' Top 10 clickbait garbage absolutely a terrible source. [[Watchmojo]] should also be added the list for the same reason, it is currently used in {{duses|watchmojo.com|30 articles}} [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 22:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Not reliable''' The pro wrestling project included WhatCulture as a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Sources#Unreliable_sources unreliable source]. --[[User:HHH Pedrigree|HHH Pedrigree]] ([[User talk:HHH Pedrigree|talk]]) 22:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Not reliable''' - the pro wrestling wikiproject has had this on its list of unreliable sources for some time, it is unreliable for any claim.[[User:LM2000|LM2000]] ([[User talk:LM2000|talk]]) 00:28, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Not reliable''' Some of their lists are fun but not appropriate as a source. The only exception I could see would be if they interviewed any notable wrestlers/media personality, in which case it may be usable as a primary source regarding the interviewee.--[[Special:Contributions/69.157.254.64|69.157.254.64]] ([[User talk:69.157.254.64|talk]]) 02:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Not reliable''' I've removed references citing them previously so it's kind of nice to see it being discussed here. The reason being that a lot of it is second-hand or pure speculation, not to mention they recently put out a fake news article saying that Karl Anderson had signed with AEW. The fact one of their presenters is considered a valid source on [[2019 WWE Superstar Shake-up|2019 Superstar Shake-up]] is baffling to me. [[User:Solitude6nv5|Solitude6nv5]] ([[User talk:Solitude6nv5|talk]]) 17:06, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' The way I see it, it's a bit like imdb, anyone can register and provide content. It does have some editorial work, but I've never liked the website, too heavy on adverts, with advert chains to fake news websites. [[User:Govvy|Govvy]] ([[User talk:Govvy|talk]]) 11:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

{{re|HHH Pedrigree|LM2000|Solitude6nv5|Govvy}} - could you state whether you would want this source blacklisted? '''[[User:Starship.paint|starship]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|.paint]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|talk]])''' 02:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
*Well, the project blacklisted the source because [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Sources#Misquoting-F4W's-Bryan-Alvarez-for-rumours copied a made up rumor from Reddit]. Also, as thFreeMediaKid said, "do not need to have any relevant experience or hold any particular qualifications" it's not a good begining. Looks like a farm content. --[[User:HHH Pedrigree|HHH Pedrigree]] ([[User talk:HHH Pedrigree|talk]]) 09:09, 30 May 2020 (UTC)--[[User:HHH Pedrigree|HHH Pedrigree]] ([[User talk:HHH Pedrigree|talk]]) 09:09, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

== RfC: ''[[Apple Daily]]'' ==
{{RSN RfC status|1589929920}}
{{rfc|media|prop|rfcid=49200B1}}
Given that references to ''[[Apple Daily]]'' are used in a lot of [[Hong Kong]]-related articles, editors are requested to comment on its reliability.

Please choose from the following options:
*''Option 1'': Generally reliable
*''Option 2'': Reliable, but may require further investigation
*''Option 3'': Unreliable for certain topics (such as those which may be considered controversial)
*''Option 4'': Generally unreliable for factual reporting
*''Option 5'': Publishes incorrect or fake information and should be deprecated.

Thanks. 23:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

===Survey (''Apple Daily'')===
*'''Option 4''' <del>or '''Option 5'''</del>: It's a tabloid that regularly relies on poor sources, such as using [https://twitter.com/SolomonYue/status/1201162734626209792?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1201162734626209792 a tweet] from <ins>[[Solomon Yue]]</ins> <del>a protest conspiracy theorist</del> to cover which Hong Kong officials are on the U.S. list of [[Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act|sanctioned individuals]] in [https://hk.news.appledaily.com/local/20191202/3FJEQFKAX7GMTSCCJP4PPLSVII/ this article] (now being added ''en masse'' to articles). A recent example of it producing false <ins>(i.e. ''factually incorrect'' but not necessarily with the intent to misinform)</ins> news (bolding mine):{{tqb|For example, a protest supporter last month '''posted a misleading image''' depicting Lam using her mobile device during the enthronement of the Emperor Naruhito, a sign of disrespect. Within hours, the post was shared thousands of times, including by prominent activist Agnes Chow and local news outlet '''Apple Daily'''. It turned out '''the image was actually taken before the event started''', according to a report from Annie Lab, a fact-checking project at HKU’s Journalism and Media Studies Center.|source=[https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/11/12/asia-pacific/politics-diplomacy-asia-pacific/fake-news-violence-hong-kong-protests/#.XruyDWhKhO8 A 2019 article] by ''[[The Japan Times]]''}}{{pb}}It's been described by academic sources as producing [[fake news|sham news]], among a host of other journalistic issues:
**A ''[[Wall Street Journal]]'' [https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB944517810654941374 article] (1999): describes it as giving {{tq|readers a heavy diet of sex and violence}} and having been {{tq|attacked for bringing tabloid journalism into Hong Kong homes}}
**A ''[[Far Eastern Economic Review]]'' article (''Taiwan — Lai's Next Move: The publisher with the Midas Touch hits new highs. But mainland China remains a dream'' (2001)): describes it as a {{tq|racy tabloid}}
**An ''[[Hong Kong Economic Journal|EJ Insight]]'' [https://www.ejinsight.com/eji/article/id/2314546/20191128-jimmy-lai-s-newspaper-up-in-credibility-survey-finds article] (2019): describes it as having {{tq|never claimed to be objective or unbiased}}, particularly in reference to the [[2019–20 Hong Kong protests]]
**[https://books.google.com.au/books?id=ZuoqDwAAQBAJ A journalism book] published by the [[The Chinese University of Hong Kong Press]] (2015): criticizes it for breaches of privacy and paparazzi-like conduct.
**[https://books.google.com/books?id=GbvBDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA231&lpg=PA231 An academic reference book] by [[Berkshire Publishing Group]] (2014): {{tq|its sensational style and use of checkbook journalism as well as paparazzi led to controversy among journalists and the public. The boundary between entertainment news and hard news in ''Apple Daily'' was blurred}}
**[https://books.google.com/books?id=SSicBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA62&lpg=PA62 An academic book on HK media] by [[Routledge]] (2015, quoting 2005 criticism): {{tq|''Apple Daily'' has been described as 'well known for its brazen, sensational news coverage ... Legitimate political and social topics have been supplanted ... by sex, sensational crimes, the rise and fall of celebrities, scandalous paparazzi investigations, rumors, and even sham news.}}
:To its credit, it's an example of press freedom in Hong Kong with extensive coverage of the protests, and is a rare publisher in HK that is willing to take on the Chinese government. Nevertheless, it's a tabloid that engages in the usual poor journalism practices across all types of content. — [[User:MarkH21|MarkH21]][[User talk:MarkH21|talk]] 23:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC); modified 02:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC); expanded 08:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC); struck Option 5 on basis on undemonstrated intention in false reporting 05:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC); parenthetical on "false" to save everyone's time 16:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC); add years of sources 18:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
*<s>'''Option 2 or 3''', I think we should treat them with the same care we treat the [[New York Post]] and [[New York Daily News]], they are usable in some circumstances but we always prefer higher quality sources.</s> A distinction should be made between Apple Daily and the purely tabloid Next Magazine which should be deprecated. We must also be careful to make it clear that this is only about Apple Daily HK not Apple Daily Taiwan which has a completely different staff and editors (the Taiwanese one being much better, although they just had cuts [https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3891358] so who knows what the future holds). [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 15:46, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
:*'''Option 1 or 2''', changing iVote per [https://www.ejinsight.com/eji/article/id/2314546/20191128-jimmy-lai-s-newspaper-up-in-credibility-survey-finds] (the EJI Insight article provided above). They appear to currently be the third most reliable paper in HK and on a ten point scale score barely lower than SCMP (5.71 vs 5.89). The tabloid stuff looks to be largely in their past or confined to the separate Next Magazine publication. [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 17:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
* '''Option 3''' If it just a question of whether it is reliable, I would say no. I don't see a clear-cut case of intentional false reporting, so I don't think Option 5 is appropriate. In general, I would avoid it and seek better sources. However, ironically, I think the "controversial topics" of option 3 are where it may be valuable as a source. There simply aren't many news outlets covering Hong Kong political dissent, and I don't see major concerns about its coverage of this topic in particular. Editors should use it cautiously on a case-by-case basis. [[User:Daask|Daask]] ([[User talk:Daask|talk]]) 20:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
* <s>'''Option 2''' or</s> '''Option 3'''. Apple Daily isn't a fake news site, however some of the info may be opinionated against the government and should be treated with caution. It might, for example, downplay the violence by protesters and exaggerate use of violence by police. However, if it is reporting the GDP of France, it should be reliable. Political articles almost certainly cannot be quoted directly; they should be paraphrased if possible. [[User:Eumat114|Eumat114 formerly TLOM]] ([[User talk:Eumat114|Message]]) 14:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
::striking out option 2 per arguments below. Not as bad to require a 4, but definitely not desirable in BLPs. [[User:Eumat114|Eumat114 formerly TLOM]] ([[User talk:Eumat114|Message]]) 03:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' They sometimes produce churnalism based on social media posts or images – but that's no different from other publications. They used to have a reputation of focusing too much on celebrity gossip, but that is no longer the case since a few years ago, as is reflected in survey results showing Apple Daily's reputation rising from the bottom to the top of the list. They take a different political position than every other print newspaper in Hong Kong, but that's not a reason to declare a source unreliable any more than to declare the ''Guardian'' unreliable just because they support Labour in a sea of pro-Tory newspapers. ''Apple Daily'' (HK) is perfectly reliable for news on property developments and government policy decisions, or reviews of local restaurants. [[User talk:Feminist|feminist]] | wear a mask, protect everyone 10:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
* '''Option 3/4''' See my comment in [[#Discussion (Apple Daily)]]. [[User:Matthew hk|Matthew hk]] ([[User talk:Matthew hk|talk]]) 19:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
* '''Option 2''': I agree with Daask. I would call Apple Daily a situational source, whether its usage is appropriate or not depend on the context, but I don't think this option is provided. ''Apple Daily'' is useful if we want to cover some of the more obscure details that English sources didn't cover, especially in the political/social aspect (certainly controversial topics), complementing other RS. If a controversial statement can be sourced to a RS, however, use those instead of Apple Daily. [[User:OceanHok|OceanHok]] ([[User talk:OceanHok|talk]]) 17:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

*'''Option 2''', as mentioned above by other users, it is ranked above average among HK newspapers, television and online news sites by both citizens and independent research.--[[User:Roy17|Roy17]] ([[User talk:Roy17|talk]]) 19:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''', per all, no point to make me Apple daily is not a RS. ----[[User:Streetdeck|'''Wright''']] [[User talk:Streetdeck|'''Streetdeck''']] 01:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' or '''Option 2''': In a recent CUHK research, Apple Daily enjoy high reputation in terms of credibility. If a page has only (or primarily) included Apple Daily as source, stating the need of having more diversified sources at the top of the page will mediate any potential problem. [[User:Universehk|Universehk]] ([[User talk:Universehk|talk]]) 23:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' or '''Option 2''': In the [http://www.com.cuhk.edu.hk/ccpos/b5/research/Credibility_Survey%20Results_2019_CHI.pdf most recent survey conducted by CUHK], AD is second highest mark on Media Credibility--[[User:PYatTP|PYatTP]] ([[User talk:PYatTP|talk]]) 02:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' is ranked as one of the more reliable Hong Kong outlets and without a convincing rationale questioning its reliability I side with it being generally reliable with the caveat of seperating out fact from opinion, imv [[User:Atlantic306|Atlantic306]] ([[User talk:Atlantic306|talk]]) 22:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

===Discussion (''Apple Daily'')===
*{{Ping|MarkH21}} please either source or retract, the statement that Solomon Yue is a conspiracy theorist violates [[WP:BLP]] no matter what space its made in unless backed up by a WP:RS. I noticed its unattributed on their page, it has been removed. [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 02:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
*:{{ping|Horse Eye Jack}} Sorry, I took the statement from the WP article lead at face value too quickly. Digging in further though, sources do prescribe him as tweeting conspiracy theories: {{tqb|It’s a theory that seems to be somewhat related to the Wuhan lab conspiracy. One tweet by Republican Party official Solomon Yue, who has more than 100,000 followers, said: “#coronavirus is stolen from Canada by espionage & sent to Wuhan to be weaponized to kill foreign enemies.”|source=[https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/1/31/21115589/coronavirus-wuhan-china-myths-hoaxes-facebook-social-media-tiktok-twitter-wechat Article] from [[Vox]]}}{{tqb| The problem of containment gets worse when power users such as politicians give this false information a boost. In US, Trump helped amplify tweets from the support of QAnon, the conspiracy group active in spreading Corona virus rumors. Republican party official Solomon Yue tweeted to more than 100,000 followers that the virus was stolen from Canada for use of a Bio weapon|source=[http://risingkashmir.com/news/covid-19-islamic-vantage-point-358996.html Article] from [[Rising Kashmir]]}} I’ve struck the label about him as a conspiracy theorist above, but the main point still stands about the article being based on his tweet. — [[User:MarkH21|MarkH21]][[User talk:MarkH21|talk]] 02:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
*::The points a good one, I agree that Apple isnt generally reliable but we have a very high standard for calling someone a conspiracy theorist. Tweeting or re-tweeting conspiracy theories doesn’t count, we need a WP:RS to say in black and white “X is a conspiracy theorist” or “X is the originator of the Y conspiracy theory." [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 02:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
*:::I agree, and thanks for removing the statement from his article. — [[User:MarkH21|MarkH21]][[User talk:MarkH21|talk]] 02:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
*::::{{Ping|MarkH21}} Also just noticed that you’re mischaracterizing the The Japan Times article, neither the quote or the article supports the assertion that they’re "producing false news,” at most you can say “shared a misleading image.” Please correct yourself. I also note that since Solomon Yue is not a conspiracy theorist but is in fact the highest ranking member of the RNC born in China what they say and do is definitely newsworthy and reporting on it doesn't make them unreliable. [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 16:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
*:::: Also ''Multimedia Stardom in Hong Kong: Image, Performance and Identity'' doesnt make that statement, its a direct quote from Lo 2005 (and thus a little dated for our purposes, we are discussing Apple News’s reliability today not in the late 1990s). Representing a quote as coming from the source which used the quote is dangerous academically. [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 16:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
*:::: Actually now that I look at it a few more are too dated for our purposes: that WSJ piece is 1999 and the FEER piece is 2001. [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 16:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
*:::: The Berskshire book has been weirdly fashioned to remove both the beginning and end of the statement which changes the meaning entirely, the full statement is “Yet, its sensational style and use of checkbook journalism as well as paparazzi led to controversy among journalists and the public. The boundary between entertainment news and hard news in Apple Daily was blurred, '''but Lai insisted that journalism should feel the market’s pulse and reader’s feelings. Criticism of the government and the powers that be, including Lai’s good friends, was the rule and without exceptions.'''” [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 16:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
*:::: The title of that EJI piece (which I believe is our most recent) is “'''Jimmy Lai's newspaper up in credibility''', survey finds” btw, looks like you cherrypicked pretty hard to get these. [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 16:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
*:{{od|:::}}The original ''Apple Daily'' article said that Lam was using her phone during the ceremony, as opposed to before the ceremony: {{tq|但她被當地電視台拍到在觀禮期間玩手機，對場合有欠尊重}}. Roughly: {{tq|but she was filmed by a local TV station playing on her mobile phone during the ceremony, showing no respect for the occasion}}.
*:Of course reporting that Solomon Yue says XYZ isn’t unreliable. However, publishing an article saying that six people are on the US sanctions list on the basis of his tweet that says {{tq|Gang of Six: [six names]}} is very different.
*:This is about the general reliability of ''Apple Daily''. Editors can cite ''Apple Daily'' articles from 1999 or 2020 on Wikipedia. This is a whole body of literature being assessed.
*:I don’t see how the part of the sentence about what the ''Apple Daily'' founder insists is relevant to assessing the reliability of the Apple Daily, or how it’s essential to the prior assertion in the quote.
*:The EJI article isn’t asserting that Apple Daily is the third most credible news outlet; it says that the ''Apple Daily'' was [http://www.com.cuhk.edu.hk/ccpos/en/research/Credibility_Survey%20Results_2019_ENG.pdf third out of eleven paid local newspapers] in a '''public opinion survey''', while asserting in EJI's voice that the ''Apple Daily'' {{tq|never claimed to be objective or unbiased}}. The survey barely means anything, and I hope that Wikipedia never has to rely on public opinion polls to determine reliability (even the deprecated ''[[Breitbart]]'' is distrusted by only 9% of US Republicans and 36% of US Democrats [https://www.journalism.org/2020/01/24/democrats-report-much-higher-levels-of-trust-in-a-number-of-news-sources-than-republicans/ in a public opinion study] by the [[Pew Research Center]]). — [[User:MarkH21|MarkH21]][[User talk:MarkH21|talk]] 09:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC); minor typo fix/clarification 03:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
*::Your current argument is that Apple News made an error, you still have a long way to go to support “producing false news“ as that appears to be 100% your opinion rather than the opinion of the WP:RS.
*::I don’t see how reporting on his tweet is journalistic misconduct as you’re claiming, plenty of people report on tweets these days and the tweet was by a notable person who is an expert in the field.
*::We actually base general reliability on recent rather than historical reporting, if that were the case the we would have WaPo banned as a white supremacist conspiracy outlet. Thats why its wikipedia policy that the most recent WP:RS is the queen bee in any dispute.
*::A public opinion survey in their home market has a bit more standing than your OR about false news. The way you pull that quote from the piece is highly misleading, in context it doesnt mean what you’re trying to force it to mean. Also again, even if it meant what you think it means bias and objectivity aren’t an issue for us WP:RS wise, lots of biased yet reliable sources. [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 14:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
*:::False news isn't the same thing as [[fake news]]; fake news must be deliberately false. At least this is the most common definition and is the one used at the WP article, and seems to be the one you're using; I'm using "false news" to literally mean news that is factually incorrect. ''Apple Daily'' frequently reports information that is false, i.e. erroneous, but not demonstrably intentionally so. They have a habit of frequently making erroneous reports (here's [https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1127824/apple-daily-apologises-excos-franklin-lam another blatant front page error from 2013]).
*:::The article isn't just reporting on the tweet, it just says that [[Regina Ip]], for instance, is on the sanctions list. It credits the reporting of these people being on the list to Solomon Yue, without disclosing that it was based on the tweet {{tq|Gang of Six: Commissar Carrie Lam, [...] Regina Ip are on a leaked 🇺🇸 sanction list.}}
*:::You're going pretty far back with that WaPo comparison. I don't think we're far enough into the 21st century that the recency consideration should exclude 1995-2005.
*:::It's not OR; RSes have reported several times about high-profile mistakes in ''Apple Daily'' reporting. I'm not trying to force anything, the quote means exactly what it means. But public opinion surveys don't have any standing on what makes a source reliable. This survey also appears to be the sole reason for your !vote that ''Apple Daily'' is {{tq|Generally reliable}}. — [[User:MarkH21|MarkH21]][[User talk:MarkH21|talk]] 15:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
*:::: This is getting off topic so I’l just address the main point and then you can edit your original comment. [[False news]] is not different from [[fake news]] or [[sham news]], they’re different names for the same thing. What you are doing is calling errors/mistakes false news and that needs to stop now. [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 15:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
*:::::Again, I've clarified several times that what I mean by "false news" is "factually incorrect news without a demonstrated intent to misinform", so there's no further need to explain what I meant. There are several differing definitions of the terms discussed at [[fake news]], as covered in its "Definitions" and "Types" sections. I've explained the definition that I am using and clarified the exact statement that I am making. — [[User:MarkH21|MarkH21]][[User talk:MarkH21|talk]] 16:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
*:::::: I’ve searched high and low for a definition of false news like what you’re describing here (the [[fake news]] page makes it abundantly clear that they are generally used interchangeably), I cant find one. Can you link your preferred definition? We generally don’t let editors define words however they like when wikilinking those words would indicate something completely different (as it does here if we wikilink [[false news]] in your statement). By your definition of false news every single WP:RS has “produced false news” which is an odd statement that I think would be objected to by almost everyone. [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 16:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
*::::::: [https://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6380/1146 An MIT study published in ''Science''] defines "false news" in the exact same way that I have: {{tqb|We have therefore explicitly avoided the term fake news throughout this paper and instead use the more objectively veriﬁable terms “true” or “false” news. Although the terms fake news and misinformation also imply a willful distortion of the truth, we do not make any claims about the intent of the purveyors of the information in our analyses. We instead focus our attention on veracity and stories that have been veriﬁed as true or false.}}The rest of the paper then uses "false news" in exactly that way. Is that enough? Plenty of other reliable sources use "false news" to literally mean news that is incorrect, rather than the narrower requirement of being deliberately incorrect. There's a case to redirect [[false news]] to [[misinformation]] instead of [[fake news]], but I don't intend on wasting any more time on this off-topic matter. — [[User:MarkH21|MarkH21]][[User talk:MarkH21|talk]] 16:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
*:::::::: Using that definition publishing false news does not effect reliability as it relates to wikipedia so I’m confused by your argument. We require that it be deliberate. [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 17:43, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
*:::::::::The point was that they have had several high-profile incidents of erroneous reporting and sloppy journalism, and have been criticized for doing so. It’s more frequent and severe (relative to the body of independent coverage about their journalism, and relative to the age of the newspaper) than one would typically find for “Generally reliable” sources in [[WP:RSNP]]. — [[User:MarkH21|MarkH21]][[User talk:MarkH21|talk]] 17:51, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
: As someone who is is not familiar with the reliability of Apple Daily or Hong Kong news in general, I have to agree with Horse Eye Jack here that sources that are over a decade old are not appropriate to determine reliability. For instance [[Buzzfeed]] built an award winning news operation after initially being a publisher of listicles, if you were to judge Buzzfeed by article discussing the publication in the early years, you'd get inaccurate impression. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 18:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
::If it were "fake news" (deliberate false reporting), which I don't think Apple Daily has done, then it would go to Option 5. Reliability is not just about whether the newspaper reports news falsely '''and deliberately'''. Reliability is about whether the newspaper reports news falsely at times '''(even if not deliberate)'''. This is related to the reputation for fact-checking, which according to arguments above have appeared multiple times. [[User:Eumat114|Eumat114 formerly TLOM]] ([[User talk:Eumat114|Message]]) 03:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
:::Reliability is more about owning errors, when reliable sources make errors (and they routinely do, NYT makes multiple errors a day) they correct or retract their error. Apple News (HK) does appear to do that. [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 15:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
:Seems more a Tier III thing personally, as it is, in my opinion, not completely reliable on controversial topics. As expressed above, they do correct their error.--[[User:1233|1233]] ( [[User Talk:1233|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/1233|C]]） 03:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

*Too long don't read. ''Apple Daily'' has many error as well as [[tabloid journalism]]. The magnitude of error is way too large. For example reporting [[Wang Ming-chen]] as the first Chinese physicist when copy editing the original ''[[The Beijing News]]''. However, the The Beijing News article clearly stated that she is the first Chinese female physicist and by common sense many Chinese physicist are born earlier and obtain PhD way earlier than Wang.

:Another example, they made a huge investment on video news. However, for [[Hysan]], they can't even read the source material probably and reporting the company has 10 properties in Causeway Bay in the video news. But in fact, the company annual report clearly stated 9 in Causeway Bay and 1 in Wan Chai/Mid-level. Their investment on photoshop / video compare to basic proofreading fact checking is disproportionate.

:For other metric, a depart of [[CUHK]] (香港中文大學傳播與民意調查中心) conducted a survey on creditability, many citizen gave the newspaper quite a low score. (this is an <s>option</s> (edit: damn me for another typo. I mean [[opinion]]) article on [[Ming Pao]] regarding the survey, not the primary source [https://news.mingpao.com/ins/%E6%96%87%E6%91%98/article/20191128/s00022/1574863275810/%E9%A6%99%E6%B8%AF%E5%82%B3%E5%AA%92%E5%85%AC%E4%BF%A1%E5%8A%9B-%E4%BD%8E%E8%99%95%E6%9C%AA%E5%BF%85%E6%9C%80%E4%BD%8E%EF%BC%88%E6%96%87-%E8%98%87%E9%91%B0%E6%A9%9F%EF%BC%89] )

:For the good side Apple Daily has on-site reporter on live event, accusing them not reporting that they actually saw is a [[WP:OR]]. Instead, for HK local news, if more than one source to reporting event A and if Apple Daily's narrative is roughly the same as other newspaper, i don't see any point to not to keep 2 newspapers as citation. I personally not recomanded to use Apple Daily as single citation without cross checking BTW. [[User:Matthew hk|Matthew hk]] ([[User talk:Matthew hk|talk]]) 19:44, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
::I don’t see that Apple Daily got a low score, I see that Apple Daily got the third highest score. Google translate yields "Among the paid newspapers, almost all the newspapers' scores have dropped, and they have fallen considerably. With the exception of the Apple Daily, its scores and rankings in 2016 have risen, and this year it has risen to the third place, which is almost the same as the score of the second Ming Pao, and the South China Morning Post continues to top the list.” [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 19:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

:::The <s>option</s> (edit: typo: opinion) article is stating overall the newspapers got a low score. By a metric of 1 to 10. Yeah 5.18 in Y2016 and rank 8th among paid newspaper is self-explanatory. It was ranked 3rd with a score of 5.71 in Y2019 , after the outbreak of [[2019–20 Hong Kong protests]]. Apple Daily is ranked 11th in 2006, 2010, 2013 surveys BTW. [[User:Matthew hk|Matthew hk]] ([[User talk:Matthew hk|talk]]) 19:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

:::: The scores are relative not absolute, they can only be used to judge the newspapers against each other. You can’t just say “5.71 is not 10 so it must be bad!” when the source doesn't say that. [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 20:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

:::::The score itself does not have a conclusion by itself. But the opinion author, 蘇鑰機, which also came from CUHK, choose "香港傳媒公信力：低處未必最低" as the headline, which roughly translated as overall the creditability of the whole industry is falling and not yet bottom . Ranked 11th for 2006, 2010, 2013, 8th in 2016 and 3rd in 2019. That's some reference point for other people to judge Apple Daily's credibility. [[User:Matthew hk|Matthew hk]] ([[User talk:Matthew hk|talk]]) 18:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

:::::: Dude you don’t get to file a bogus ANI report [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Coordinated_edit_on_adding_hoax_to_Dahua_Technology] on me (which you almost got boomerang blocked for) and then carry on discussions with me as if nothing has happened. Pound sand, I’m done with you and your disruptive editing style. Don’t let me catch you on my talk page either, you’re banned from there. [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 00:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::Seriously, {{u|Horse Eye Jack}}, I recommend against holding this kind of attitude against users who fail to assume good faith. An allegation of editing on Dahua Technology, however egregiously failing to AGF, is not going to solve disputes. This discussion id ''different''. Putting that aside, I consider Apple Daily '''kind of reliable''' for reporting straight facts like [https://hk.appledaily.com/local/20200526/2QUEQ4MKPZPQWV2FMU6ZZCXZQ4/ this report on COVID-19] but reports like calling the Communist Party [https://hk.appledaily.com/china/20191204/67K6DNQIQIQGTNNNGR4T2V3I2U/ bandits] or reports of the protests (particularly the use of police force)? I'm not going to cite them. It is nowhere near reliable for contentious topics, as mentioned above. [[User:Eumat114|Eumat114 formerly TLOM]] ([[User talk:Eumat114|Message]]) 04:22, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

*Many users here tend to discredit Appledaily because of its political standpoint. The truth is, the press in HK is so distorted and heavily influenced by Chinese govt that often very few other established newspapers would cover the sensitive topics that Appledaily covers, so people not familiar with press in HK may find that Appledaily is sometimes contradicted by other sources, but local citizens and researchers' rankings reflect the actual credibility Appledaily deserves.--[[User:Roy17|Roy17]] ([[User talk:Roy17|talk]]) 19:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
*:{{ping|Roy17}} What do you mean by {{tq|independent research}} and {{tq|researcher’s rankings}} if it’s different from the local citizens’ rankings (i.e. the CUHK public opinion survey)? — [[User:MarkH21|MarkH21]][[User talk:MarkH21|talk]] 03:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
*{{ping|PYatTP}} 3rd (not 2nd) in the specific category of local paid newspapers (11 entries) of the public opinion survey. Also emphasis on it being just a public opinion survey. — [[User:MarkH21|MarkH21]][[User talk:MarkH21|talk]] 02:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

== Is B'Tselem a RS? ==

There have been several posts here in the past about [[B'Tselem]] that I've found, and from what I can tell about the consensus is that it can be used but at the very least it needs to have inline attribution. B'Tselem is an advocacy organization, not merely an NGO, as such it has a POV and we should not attribute something to it in Wikipedia's voice. I found discussions here [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_61#Reliability_of_Israeli_human_rights_organization_B'Tselem]] , [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_78#CAMERA_/_Alex_Safian]] and [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_170#POICA_&_Israel]]. In the IP conflict area, any pro-Israel NGO is often dismissed automatically, yet ARIJ and B'Tselem is allowed because it's pro-Palestinian, even though they play loose with the facts (as was shown with B'Tselem a few weeks ago with Coronavirus and the UN). Regardless, I think there should finally be a decision that this NGO doesn't speak for Wikipedia and is not a RS that can be used for a neutral ref-tag without an "according to B'Tselem..." [[User:Sir Joseph|Sir Joseph]] [[User_talk:Sir Joseph|(talk)]] 03:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
:It simply is not true that B'tselem is a "pro-Palestinian NGO" nor is it true that pro-Israel NGOs are dismissed out of hand. B'tselem is a human rights group, and one with a sterling reputation internationally. NGOs that do not have a a good reputation may be (example CAMERA as you note), but B'tselem does have such a reputation. Other reliable sources (eg NYTimes[https://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/17/palestinians-film-west-bank-protests-with-israeli-supplied-cameras/][https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/17/world/middleeast/israel-gaza-roof-knocking.html][https://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/04/world/israeli-officer-is-charged-in-4-killings-in-west-bank.html][https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/14/world/middleeast/gaza-protests-palestinians-us-embassy.html] BBC[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8580150.stm][https://www.bbc.com/news/av/magazine-34222451/skunk-water-in-use-in-the-west-bank][https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28439404] the Guardian[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/mar/09/israel][https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/sep/11/israelandthepalestinians?gusrc=rss&feed=worldnews][https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/feb/11/israel]) regularly cite B'tselem. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 03:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
::Up above you claimed Virtual Jewish Library isn't a RS, even though it's cited by the NYTimes many times. And what is wrong with CAMERA? They report on media inaccuracies. The fact that they are pro-Israel means that you don't like it. There's also NGO Monitor, which is pro-Israel, that gets tossed out often, and Ad-Kan. Please let's not pretend that there's an even playing field here. (You say there are pro-Israel NGO's that are allowed, can you name some?)[[User:Sir Joseph|Sir Joseph]] [[User_talk:Sir Joseph|(talk)]] 03:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
:::A source isnt reliable or unreliable by virtue of its stance on Israel or Palestine or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is reliable or unreliable by virtue of its reputation for fact checking among other sources. JVL does not have a good reputation. B'tselem does. Therein lies the difference. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 03:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
:::Oh, a pro-Israel NGO that is used? Hmmm, the ADL? [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?target=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.terrorism-info.org.il%2F&title=Special%3ALinkSearch ITIC]? Some of the worse ones that are still used include [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?target=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.hudson.org&title=Special%3ALinkSearch the Hudson Institute]. Being pro-Israel or any other position isnt what determines if a source is usable. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 04:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
*As to the matter, they are a political advocacy group. They aren't just for human rights. They are against settlements which is a political issue. They also routinely ignore human rights when it's perpetrated from the Palestinians, or worse, see [[Ezra Nawi]] for just one example. [[User:Sir Joseph|Sir Joseph]] [[User_talk:Sir Joseph|(talk)]] 03:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
:::Reliability and bias are two separate things. B'Tselem has a reputation for accuracy. Maybe the Virtual Jewish Library does as well, but that's another conversation. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 03:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
::::That's the thing, it doesn't have a reputation for reliability, it has been found repeatedly to make things up. This was in March when even the UN praised Israel and the PA's cooperation, [https://www.israelhayom.com/2020/03/29/israel-accuses-ngo-btselem-of-exploiting-coronavirus-epidemic/]. If they are biased, their sourcing should not be in Wiki's voice. [[User:Sir Joseph|Sir Joseph]] [[User_talk:Sir Joseph|(talk)]] 03:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::The Israeli military is not the source of truth in this world, sorry. That they accuse B'tselem of something does not make their well-earned reputation for fact-checking and accuracy not true. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 03:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::Right, so B'Tselem makes up fake news, and Israel corrects it and it's published in multiple RS, but according to you, only the B'tselem source is usable. Does that make sense? [[User:Sir Joseph|Sir Joseph]] [[User_talk:Sir Joseph|(talk)]] 04:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::Im sorry, I stopped reading at "fake news". '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 04:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
*for more information on B'Tselem from a RS (as Nableezy would say) another NGO who documents funding please look here, to say that it is just a human rights org is not true. [https://www.ngo-monitor.org/ngos/b_tselem/] (please read the Political Activities section) and then from another RS, [https://www.algemeiner.com/2016/10/23/btselem-spreads-anti-israel-lies-at-the-un-security-council/ B’Tselem Spreads Anti-Israel Lies at the UN Security Council] and this was a political event, not about human rights issues. Here's an opinion piece about how B'Tselem lost its way and isn't a HRO anymore and is a political organization, [http://www.thetower.org/4600-btselem-must-take-responsibility-for-the-consequences-of-its-actions/ B’Tselem Must Take Responsibility for the Consequences of Its Actions]. [[User:Sir Joseph|Sir Joseph]] [[User_talk:Sir Joseph|(talk)]] 04:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
::Youre bringing the chief of staff of NGO Monitor writing and saying that trumps the NYT or the BBC or the Guardian who all regularly cite B'tselem. Thats not how reliability is determined.And, oh by the way, note what said chief of staff of NGO Monitor wrote: '' the European Union, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland continue to fund B’Tselem''. Thats because of their oh so sterling reputation. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 04:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
:::Just a side note here, when you say regularly cite them I am just not seeing it. Most of the sources you list are over a decade old. [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 04:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
::::NYT: [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/19/world/middleeast/israel-settlements-palestinians.html][https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/10/world/middleeast/netanyahu-palestinians-arabs-west-bank.html] [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/20/world/middleeast/israel-palestinian-war-crimes-hague.html]BBC: [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-51299145][https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-49657915][[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-51288218]Reuters: [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-palestinians-eu/eus-borrell-warns-of-violence-if-israel-annexes-jordan-valley-idUSKBN205288][https://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-netanyahu/israels-netanyahu-announces-post-election-plan-to-annex-west-banks-jordan-valley-idUSKCN1VV21L][https://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-palestinians-annexation-turkey/turkey-says-oic-to-convene-after-netanyahu-annexation-plans-idUSKBN1VZ095]Those recent enough for you? '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 04:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::Yup! Thank you, though it is kind of funny, the last two Reuters articles copy paste the paragraph cited to B'Tselem. [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 04:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
* Just as with good news sources, the distinction between facts and opinion can usually be identified in Btselem's output. In the case of opinion, "according to" is appropriate. In the case of facts, its reputation for accuracy is very strong. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]][[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]] 05:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
:On what you base you claim that they are trustworthy?They are even don't pretend to be some neutral observer.They have clear agenda so everything they present should be taken with their agenda in mind --[[user:Shrike|Shrike]] ([[User talk:Shrike|talk]]) 07:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Attribute''' even when they are used by media they tend to be attributed, so we should follow that as well. Especially the accuracy of their [https://www.camera.org/article/b-tselem-s-annual-casualty-figures-questioned/ casualty stats] have been called into question. [[User:Buidhe|b]][[User talk:Buidhe|uidh]][[Special:Contributions/Buidhe|e]] 08:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
*:Camera.org is not reliable itself. According to camera.org, the NYT is biased,[https://www.camera.org/article/camera-monograph-indicting-israel-new-york-times-coverage-of-the-palestinian-israeli-conflict/] the Washington Post is biased[https://www.camera.org/about/history/] and they even put editors in Wikipedia to promote pro-Israel POV. I dont think you should rely on such source.--[[User:SharabSalam|SharʿabSalam▼]] ([[User talk:SharabSalam|talk]]) 08:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
*::Btzelem is bisaed too what is difference? --[[user:Shrike|Shrike]] ([[User talk:Shrike|talk]]) 12:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
:::You cannot assert that the 'facts' themselves are biased. Camera's mission is to spin the facts, not document the realities. One has a forensic approach to a 'crime scene', the other gives a tabloid account in which the assailant was compelled to defend themselves against the 'victim'.[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 18:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
::::Is that your neutral unbiased opinion? Perhaps this is reason enough why Wikipedia is biased. Terribly shocking. Camera just reports on the media's inaccuracy. I hope people don't presume to say that the media is accurate all the time, but of course it's yet another pro-Israel RS that is labeled as not-RS by people here, just like NGO Monitor, and others.[[User:Sir Joseph|Sir Joseph]] [[User_talk:Sir Joseph|(talk)]] 03:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Generally reliable''' per Nableezy. It has been cited by multiple reliable sources like the BBC, Reuters, New York Times, etc.--[[User:SharabSalam|SharʿabSalam▼]] ([[User talk:SharabSalam|talk]]) 08:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

*'''Reliable''' B'tselem is an NGO with positions based on international human rights law and has gained international awards for this work. The executive director, [[Hagai El-Ad]] has twice been invited to address (in 2014 and 2018) the UN Security Council. It receives funding from the EU and other governments. Their reports and statistics are widely cited. Does this sound unreliable?.[[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 12:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Unusually Reliable''' and Zero's point on the distinction between its reportage on facts versus comments that may be construed as B'tselem opinions, should be followed with regard to whether to attribute or not when citing this source.
::'''Additional Comment'''. There is a lot of verbal confusion here, such as calling B'tselem an 'advocacy group', and unfamiliarity with what it does. An NGO whose remit is basically to document empirically (and this involves extensive field work interviewing people involved in incidents in order to sift out the facts from witness bias, as well as constructing vast databases, with statistical analyses) human rights abuses measures these in terms of two systems of law: Israeli and International. This is not 'advocacy' in the usual negative sense of the term, as biased lobbying for some cause. As one book puts it.
::<blockquote> [https://books.google.com/books?id=cmSSAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA110 'Information on Israeli human rights violations is highly politicized. B'tselem, the Israeli Information center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories is perhaps the best neutral source.'] Jack Donnelly, 'International human rights: unintended consequences of the war on terrorism,' in Margaret Crahan, John Goering, Thomas G. Weiss (eds.), ''The Wars on Terrorism and Iraq: Human Rights, Unilateralism and US Foreign Policy,'' [[Routledge]], 2004 {{isbn|978-1-135-99507-2}} pp.98-111, p.110 n.10</blockquote>
::We use mainstream newspapers whose reportage is basically breaking news written rapidly as every incident unfolds, without attribution all over these I/P articles. B'tselem instead exhaustively sends out interviewers to ascertain from all eyewitnesses (and from Israeli army reports and legal judgements) what actually appears to have happened, and is infinitely more objective. The fact that what it reports is often upsetting to espousers or spinners of the official government or military line doesn't make it an advocacy organization and indeed even the IDF has long admitted that it is dependable, as witness the following statement by the Israeli historian and senior IDF figure, [[Mordechai Bar-On]]
::<blockquote>In one case the IDF chief of staff publicly challenged the numbers B'tselem reported on Palestinian casualties, and subsequently apologized when he learned that his figures were wrong and B'tselem's report was correct. In later years the military authorities often asked B'tselem to confirm their own information.' [[Mordechai Bar-On]], [https://books.google.com/books?id=Fi2QH5_x1pYC&pg=PA401 ''In Pursuit of Peace: A History of the Israeli Peace Movement,''] [[United States Institute of Peace|US Institute of Peace Press]] {{isbn|978-1-878-37953-5}} 1996 p.401 n.119 </blockquote>
::In short, recourse to RSN re B'tselem should stop until there emerges, not from notorious activist NGOs touting an official viewpoint, but from serious sources analyzing its actual performance, any evidence it systematically indulges in spinning the facts it reports so abundantly. It is more reliable than most of our unquestioned mainstream newspapers.[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 14:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
:::Do you not get the irony and hypocrisy here? So B'Tselem is OK, but another NGO is a "activist NGO?" NGO Monitor showed when B'Tselem made stuff up, just in March it made up a story about the coronavirus, yet it was dismissed because it was NGO Monitor, and IDF was dismissed because it was IDF, so the bias is clear for all to see. [[User:Sir Joseph|Sir Joseph]] [[User_talk:Sir Joseph|(talk)]] 18:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
::::You seem to fail to understand that NGO Monitor is not reliable and they havent shown anything. What Btselem reported was that [https://www.btselem.org/press_release/20200326_israel_confiscates_clinic_tents_during_coronavirus_crisis Israel confiscated tents the Palestinians designated for a clinic]. That has also been reported by the [https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-agrees-to-halt-most-demolitions-of-palestinian-buildings-during-pandemic/ Association for Civil Rights in Israel] and as a result of those complaints the IDF has said they will stop demolitions in the West Bank. Not quite the silly spin you would like to put on this. You cant take crap sources complaining about ones that actually have a solid reputation and use that as evidence against said solid reputation. That has nothing to do with hypocrisy, and you would do well to stop making such personal attacks that have literally no basis in fact. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 19:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::Why isn't NGO Monitor not reliable? And what B'tselem report was not that the IDF will stop demolishing stuff, but that the IDF confiscated supplies and demolished tents, yet they did no such thing. You are posting a news article that has nothing to do with what I posted. Bottom line is B'Tselem has ceased to be a neutral and human rights org and is now an advocacy org. It is not a RS. [[User:Sir Joseph|Sir Joseph]] [[User_talk:Sir Joseph|(talk)]] 03:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::Youve made your position on that clear. Unfortunately nobody else seems to agree with it, nor do the many sources that cite B'tselem as the widely respected human rights organization that it is. Why isnt NGO Monitor reliable? Thats like asking why isnt Electronic Intifida reliable. But its because [https://online.ucpress.edu/jps/article/49/2/65/107373/Delegitimizing-Solidarity-Israel-Smears-Palestine serious sources] dont treat it as a serious source for reliable information, but rather as essentially a [https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-undisguised-agenda/ propganda] outfit known to lie and distort in order to advance its agenda. Youre comparing the equivalents of Electronic Intifida and If Americans Knew and demanding that they be treated like B'tselem. Thats just silly. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 04:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::SJ. Don't assert that I am being hypocritical.It is an [[WP:AGF]] violation. You are making a simple categorical error, which I guess I'll have to explain to you.
::::::: There is a category NGO.
::::::: Both B'tselem and NGO Monitor are subsumed within that category.
::::::: Therefore anything that is said of one, applies to the other. If B'tselem is OK as a source, so it any other NGO commenting on, or active, in that area.
::::::: Is it really necessary to explain to you that subsets of a category are not, by virtue of belonging to the same category, interchangeable? Or that because Jews, Christians and Muslims are subsets of the broad category [[Abrahamic religions]], what is said of any one of the three applies automatically to the other two? Jeezus! (sorry, [[tetragrammaton]], for the life of the prophet!).[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 10:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Attribute''', like media does. They are an advocacy group, though a respected advocacy group.--[[User:Hippeus|Hippeus]] ([[User talk:Hippeus|talk]]) 10:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Attribute''' per Buidhe. Also per the previous discussions cited above, this is clearly not a neutral think tank, but an advocacy organization. Data from this group should be clearly attributed whenever used.[[User:YUEdits|YUEdits]] ([[User talk:YUEdits|talk]]) 01:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC){{od}}
Let me summarize.
*It was asked if B'tselem was a reliable source. The answer is unequivocably yes.
*Many editors think attribution is required because it is an NGO. It was [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_61#Reliability_of_Israeli_human_rights_organization_B'Tselem pointed out in the original discussion 9 years ago] that since B'tselem is a major source for facts in the I/P area, reflex attribution everytime would mar innumerable pages with a formulaic repetitiveness.
:<blockquote>'I think that formulation may be too critical of B'tselem. The question here is really whether and when in-text attribution is necessary. IMHO, much or most of the time it is not. We should focus on what is actually controversial, everything can be potentially controversial, especially here. Much of the actual criticism of B'tselem could be characterized as nitpicking or cavilling,...Right now, the article in question has too many "According to B'Tselem"'s, detracting from readability and doing little positive'[[User:John Z|John Z]]</blockquote>
*For this reason, (given also that the Israeli army itself, whose actions B'tselem often criticizes, is known to accept that it is accurate- I recall one general remarking that it kept the army on its toes) [[User:Zero0000]] offered a sensible suggestion:
*Source facts to it, and only use attribution when B'tselem offers an opinion, a position he affirmed in 2011.
:<blockquote>Btselem is undoubtedly Israel's most widely respected human rights organization. Of course anything potentially controversial sourced to them should clearly indicate them as the source (which goes for all NGOs). [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]</blockquote>
*So. Recent bad habits of reverting out B'tselem as not RS are against consensus. This is resolved as it was in 2011.
*But editors have yet to clarify the point about attribution issue raised also in 2011: (a)invariably or (b)occasionally, according to the nature of what is being cited. If (b) you get formula splatter, which mars pages.[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 18:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
* '''Attribute'''. I personally take their reports seriously, but this is a TA where it's difficult to establish a "baseline" of reliability (eg. some source with which to compare others), so any source that might be seen as "taking a side" should be attributed. This applies to most every local governmental and non-governmental organization, some foreign governments and a host of media entities. [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 16:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
* The full name for B'Tselem is "The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied territories". This is therefore clearly an [[advocacy organization]], and one that advocates a rather unpopular point of view in Israel. It has therefore all the incentive to be biased in its reporting. That is one reason I think that information from this source is suspect. In addition, when I look at the list of [https://www.btselem.org/about_btselem/board_members Board Members] I am unimpressed by the general academic level (chaired by a high-tech executive, includes a script-writer), and very much impressed by how many political activists are on the board... Not to mention the fact that there is no indication that the board exercises any editorial control. Last but not least, their website has a blog section. In short, this organization is likely to be very POV in its reporting, has no indication of editorial supervision of its publications, and in general does not impress with its academic level. As a result, '''the blog section is of course completely unreliable''', and '''the rest of its publications are likely so biased and lacking editorial control, that they can not be used as reliable sources either'''. [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser|talk]]) 23:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
:: Nableezy has said above: "It simply is not true that B'tselem is a "pro-Palestinian NGO" nor is it true that pro-Israel NGOs are dismissed out of hand. B'tselem is a human rights group, and one with a sterling reputation internationally." His opinion has been quoted by others here as a reason to consider B'Tselem a reliable source. However, reading his statement makes it clear that his opinion is only based on [[argument by assertion]], and therefore lacks any basis in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. [[WP:SCHOLARSHIP]] for example warns of the dangers of scholarly publications "that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view" and that is all the more true when this is not even a scholarly publication. [[WP:BIASEDSOURCES]] acknowledges that "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective" but also asks us to "consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering", and B'Tselem is lacking at least in the first of these requirements. [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser|talk]]) 23:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
:::Uh, it isn't my opinion. [https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-head-of-israeli-human-rights-ngo-b-tselem-addresses-un-security-council-1.6572743 Haaretz]: ''Israeli human rights NGO'', [https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/12/world/middleeast/btselem-fire-israel-human-rights-group.html NYT] ''an Israeli human rights group that monitors the treatment of Palestinians'', [https://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/06/world/middleeast/06gaza.html NYT] ''the Israeli human rights group''. Please dont pretend like I am asserting something that has literally thousands of sources backing it up. But claiming that an argument by assertion (which was not made) is invalid and then proceeding to actually argue by assertion and not offer '''any''' evidence for your comment is a little funny. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 14:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
:::And, as for those other reliable sources citing B'tselem, please see [[WP:UBO]]. Whether or not the POV is ''unpopular in Israel'' is literally the least important thing I've read in weeks. What matters is how other reliable sources treat B'tselem, and they treat it as reliable. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 14:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

:::{{cite book|author=Robert C. DiPrizio|title=Conflict in the Holy Land: From Ancient Times to the Arab-Israeli Conflicts|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=RNjKDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA51|date=29 February 2020|publisher=ABC-CLIO|isbn=978-1-4408-6748-4|pages=51–}}
:::Brief review - "B'tselem is internationally recognized for its work on behalf of human rights..."
:::{{cite book|author=Donal Carbaugh|title=The Handbook of Communication in Cross-cultural Perspective|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=3C4lDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA318|date=19 August 2016|publisher=Taylor & Francis|isbn=978-1-317-48560-5|pages=318–}}
:::{{cite book|author=Marc H. Ellis|title=The Heartbeat of the Prophetic|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Yh83DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA383|date=19 September 2017|publisher=Wipf and Stock Publishers|isbn=978-1-5326-1906-9|pages=383–}}

:::So easy to find RS approving of B'tselem. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 17:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
:::: These source only mention that B'Tselem exists and that it is a group of political activists in the field of human rights. That is not the question here. The question here is if they are a reliable source, and that I do not see written in these sources. [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser|talk]]) 22:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
:::::When reliable sources cite a source, and do so repeatedly, that shows its reliability. Again, see [[WP:UBO]]. It has been repeatedly demonstrated that B'tselem is regularly cited by reliable sources. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 01:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

== RfC: [[PanAm Post]] ==
{{RSN RfC status|1590555240}}
{{rfc|econ|media|rfcid=675C7BF}}

Hello! Another source that has raised questions: [[PanAm Post]]. I noticed that PanAm Post was describing a member of their staff as having a Harvard University "degree". They say that Emmanuel Rincón, a self-published author {{small|([[WP:QUESTIONABLE]]/[[WP:RSSELF]])}} who writes for the site, has "[https://panampost.com/author/emmanuel-rincon/ a degree in Modern Masterpieces of World Literature from Harvard University]". That "degree" is a free [[edX]] course provided by Harvard ([https://www.edx.org/course/modern-masterpieces-of-world-literature see here, where 40,000 people are already enrolled!]). This raises concerns about their reliability and if the site exaggerates the credentials of their staff (or their reporting).

So I am asking the community to decide the following evaluations about PanAm Post:

*'''Option 1:''' Generally [[WP:RS|reliable]] for factual reporting
*'''Option 2:''' Unclear or additional considerations apply
*'''Option 3:''' Generally [[WP:QUESTIONABLE|unreliable]] for factual reporting
*'''Option 4:''' Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be [[WP:DEPS|deprecated]]

Not sure if these type of RSN RfCs are still permitted since changes were proposed when I was last active, but a few opinions on this source would be appreciated!----[[User:ZiaLater|ZiaLater]] ([[User talk:ZiaLater|talk]]) 04:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
*An embellished author profile is concerning, but these profiles are often embellished though normally not as above. Are there any other red flags? Looking at their website, much of the content appears to be opinions.--[[User:Hippeus|Hippeus]] ([[User talk:Hippeus|talk]]) 10:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

* '''Option 2:''' PanAm Post has been listed in [[WP:VENRS]], an essay dedicated to list and analyze reliable sources for Venezuela related topics, where it has been described as: {{tq|Miami-based newspaper, described as "libertarian". Generally reliable, but news articles should be differentiated from opinion pieces and original invetigations, which should be attributed.}}

:It appears that PanAm Post is generally considered as reliable to report news.

:[https://es.panampost.com/orlando-avendano/2019/06/14/enviados-de-guaido-se-apropian-de-fondos-para-ayuda-humanitaria-en-colombia/ PanAm Post] was the outlet that published an investigation denouncing the embezzlement of payments for the housing of Venezuelan military defectors by representatives of opposition leader [[Juan Guaidó]] in Colombia, which led to the audit and investigation of the situation afterwards. However, there have also been concerns about its neutrality and reliability after {{ill|Orlando Avendaño|es}} assumed the position of chief editor, along with {{ill|Vanessa Vallejo|es}}. Care should be taken with opiniated articles.

:I don't know if there are different authors or important differences between the English and Spanish versions, but this should also be taen into account.

:I stand with the original description, that if used, PanAm Post articles should be attributed. --[[User:Jamez42|Jamez42]] ([[User talk:Jamez42|talk]]) 13:01, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

:PS: Since the source has been described as "libertarian", the Cato Institute RfC, which has received similar allegations, might be relevant to the discussion, and it might help to invite editors more knowledgeable about this. --[[User:Jamez42|Jamez42]] ([[User talk:Jamez42|talk]]) 19:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

*'''Option 2''' I guess, it is to me unclear how reliable this website is. As said by Jamez42, it has been cited by other reliable sources before so it is notable [https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-39140060 BBC][https://apnews.com/e65ab83089bf47d586c3827fcab014d5 AP][https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/juan-guaido-promised-to-save-venezuela-a-year-later-the-flame-he-lit-is-petering-out-his-us-backers-are-weighing-their-options/2019/12/17/48a18186-1495-11ea-80d6-d0ca7007273f_story.html WaPo][https://www.wsj.com/articles/cuba-holds-the-keys-to-venezuela-1539546540 WSJ][https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-politics/venezuelas-guaido-calls-for-probe-into-funds-for-military-defectors-idUSKCN1TG0NK Reuters] but no information on how reliable is their reporting per se.--[[User:ReyHahn|ReyHahn]] ([[User talk:ReyHahn|talk]]) 15:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
*:In Forbes [https://www.forbes.com/sites/alejandrochafuen/2020/03/27/the-2020-ranking-of-free-market-think-tanks-measured-by-social-media-impact/#197ee27a17b5 The 2020 Ranking Of Free-Market Think Tanks Measured By Social Media Impact], it was described as popular and with "solid reporting" on topics related to free market.--[[User:ReyHahn|ReyHahn]] ([[User talk:ReyHahn|talk]]) 05:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
*:Associated Press called PanamPost "a conservative online publication run by mostly Venezuelan exiles from Miami" in a [https://apnews.com/6b39dbf32283fd9c21028e62c5ee8506 piece] that confirms PanamPost original investigation.--[[User:ReyHahn|ReyHahn]] ([[User talk:ReyHahn|talk]]) 12:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Option 3''', much of their reporting has a strong right wing bias which often manifests itself as omitted information, poor sourcing, entertaining questionable scientific views, and sloppy reporting. Ownership is also secret which makes it impossible for us to determine whether this source is independent of the subjects it reports on. The irony here is that the topic for which they’d be the most useful, Venezuela, is also the topic they are entirely unreliable on reporting. Their opinion pieces are batshit crazy, but its not like anyone was going to try to use an opinion piece anyway. [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 15:34, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
*:{{re|Horse Eye Jack}} do you have some sources to back their "right wing bias"?--[[User:ReyHahn|ReyHahn]] ([[User talk:ReyHahn|talk]]) 17:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
:::Have you ever read them? Their editorial and opinion section is openly right wing, often comically so, (for example [https://panampost.com/emmanuel-rincon/2020/03/30/latin-american-political-left/] header: "Few dare to acknowledge the reality that the world has been dominated by different shades of the left, over the last century. And to move forward, '''we''' must recognize that we have been defeated. It is time to rethink the world and Latin America"), something that cant be said of right of center publications like the WSJ. If you’ve read them for a while you might have noticed that the opinion section tends to bleed over into the journalism more than is appropriate from a reliable source. [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 17:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
:::Also for what its worth the author of that extremist opinion piece is the guy "with a degree in Modern Masterpieces of World Literature from Harvard University” [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 17:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
::::I guess this is where opiniated articles should be distinguished from their reliability. --[[User:Jamez42|Jamez42]] ([[User talk:Jamez42|talk]]) 19:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
::::: No this isn't, if they had a separate editorial board and journalistic staff that would be one thing but they don't. That guy writes both opinion pieces and news articles (with barely a change in tone I might add). Thats just not something a reliable source does, sorry. [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 19:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Option 3''' per Horse Eye Jack. A publication which blurs opinion and news to the degree that this publication does, which entertains those ludicrously insane viewpoints and blends them in with its supposedly factual reporting, and whose ownership is secret, cannot be a reliable source. [[User:Devonian Wombat|Devonian Wombat]] ([[User talk:Devonian Wombat|talk]]) 04:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
*:{{ping|Devonian Wombat}} can you share an example of a non-opinion article being heavily opinionated ?--[[User:ReyHahn|ReyHahn]] ([[User talk:ReyHahn|talk]]) 16:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
*::Sure, here is an article: [https://panampost.com/emmanuel-rincon/2020/05/06/bill-gates-strange-relationship-with-china-and-the-coronavirus/ Bill Gates’ Strange Relationship with China and the Coronavirus] which is not marked as opinion, instead simply as “coronavirus”, which accuses Bill Gates of essentially being a spy for the Chinese government, accuses the WHO of covering up for China, and to top it off, goes on a massive anti-vaccine rant for several paragraphs that declares the HPV vaccine caused thousands of deaths, and says that efforts to create a vaccine for coronavirus is part of Bill Gates’ effort to enrich himself. There is also this article: [https://panampost.com/emmanuel-rincon/2019/12/16/the-death-of-venezuelas-interim-government/ The Death of Venezuela’s Interim Government] which is not marked as an opinion piece, instead as news, where the author spends the entire article ranting that the reason Juan Guido is not very popular is solely because he has tried to make some compromises with former supporters of Chavez and Maduro, and ends with a pretty clear call for violence. [[User:Devonian Wombat|Devonian Wombat]] ([[User talk:Devonian Wombat|talk]]) 23:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
*:::{{ping|Devonian Wombat}} Many thank for the examples. Could you please elaborate with what you mean that its ownership is secret? --[[User:Jamez42|Jamez42]] ([[User talk:Jamez42|talk]]) 01:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
*::::{{ping|Jamez42}} The PanAm Post is owned by PanAm Post LLC, but there is no information on who owns PanAm Post LLC, meaning that the site could have a conflict of interest with things it reports on, and we would not know. [[User:Devonian Wombat|Devonian Wombat]] ([[User talk:Devonian Wombat|talk]]) 01:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
*:::::{{ping|Devonian Wombat}} Understood. Many thanks! --[[User:Jamez42|Jamez42]] ([[User talk:Jamez42|talk]]) 23:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

*'''Option 3-4:''' For some more background on PanAm Post, it was founded by Luis Henrique Ball Zuloaga, a prominent anti-Chávez businessman. Ball is the son of Luis Henrique Ball Martinez, an executive of his father R. R. Ball's Biogen medical distribution company (an [[American Cyanamid]] distributor) in Venezuela that [https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-CRECB-1966-pt3/pdf/GPO-CRECB-1966-pt3-1-2.pdf was accused of participating] in the [[price fixing]] of pharmaceuticals during the [[tetracycline litigation]] controversy. [https://issuu.com/olympusamerica/docs/sin_fronteras-april_2012 Ball continues the management of his family's company], though it is now known as Grupo Ciencia. He is also [https://contextodiario.com/venezuela/los-casos-de-corrupcion-que-no-investiga-panam-post/ the cousin of] [[María Corina Machado]], a prominent opposition politician in Venezuela.

:Ball is [https://web.archive.org/web/20150907103737/https://www.atlasnetwork.org/about/people/board on the board] of [[Atlas Network]]. Atlas Network states the following about Ball: {{tq|Mr. Ball was until recently a regular columnist of Venezuela’s leading daily newspaper, El Universal ... Mr. Ball was amongst Venezuela’s most vocal public critics of the new Venezuelan Constitution proposed (and now in force) by Hugo Chávez in 1999. At the time, Venezuela’s leading daily newspaper “El Universal” described Mr. Ball as the “mastermind” of the campaign against the approval of the new constitution in the referendum of December 15, 1999. During the fall of 2001, Mr. Ball was named Chairman of the Organizing Committee of the first national work stoppage organized by the Federation of Chambers of Commerce jointly with the Federation of Trades Unions to protest against the autocratic tendencies of Hugo Chavez. In 2004 Mr. Ball was formally accused of “Civil Rebellion” and “Treason” by the National Prosecutor in Venezuela.}} In an article titled [https://www.clublibertaddigital.com/ilustracion-liberal/13-14/el-fracaso-de-la-izquierda-luis-henrique-ball.html "The failure of the left"] by Ball, we see his thoughts on Venezuela, writing "Since 1958 Venezuela has had nothing but leftist governments." He described the PanAm Post as his [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pet_project pet project], saying "[https://www.radiotelevisionmarti.com/a/luis-henrique-ball-el-socialismo-es-pobreza-cuba-marti/254746.html PanAm Post has been more a vocation ... rather than a business activity]". According to Ball in an error-ridden PanAm Post article, [https://panampost.com/luis-henrique-ball/2019/04/06/a-state-department-spokesperson-berates-the-panam-post/ the Trump administration has even described the PanAm Post as "a Russian Troll" after he criticized the US for not maintaining a "credible threat of force on the Maduro regime"]. Ball has also [https://panampost.com/luis-henrique-ball/2016/06/22/new-york-times-venezuela-i-accept-about-time/ discounted ''The New York Times'' and described it as the "Soviet Times" in an article that again said that Venezuela has only had left-wing governments].

:The PanAm Post also promotes [[climate change denial]] articles against the [[scientific consensus on climate change]] as well, writing things such as "[https://panampost.com/david-unsworth/2019/09/20/greta-thunberg-queen-of-the-climate-change-alarmists/ I, for one, am thrilled to have access to a cheap and practical source of energy: fossil fuels are not going to destroy the planet or make it uninhabitable for human and animal life]" and the "Proud to Be a [https://panampost.com/frank-worley-lopez/2014/01/13/proud-man-made-climate-change-denier/ 'Man-Made Climate Change' Denier"] article that describes global warming as "[a] massive lie designed to manipulate global policy into a wealth redistribution system. ... It is better to be a denier and free than a believer drinking the cyanide laced flavor-aide (it wasn’t cool-aid) in a socialist paradise".

:Then you have the PanAm Post being picked up by [[Snopes]] for [https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/china-cellphones-coronavirus/ regurgitating unproven information] from ''[[The Epoch Times]]'', which has been [[WP:DEPREC|deprecated]] on [[WP:RSP]]. Emmanuel Rincon, the questionable editor mentioned above, even [https://panampost.com/emmanuel-rincon/2020/05/06/coronavirus-chinas-strategy-to-drive-a-new-world-order/ cites ''The Epoch Times'' when discussing COVID-19 in China].

:In summary, we have an extremist founder who created PanAm Post as a "vocation" that attacks what Wikipedia regards as reliable sources, with PanAm Post being used as a platform for climate change denial and anti-China rhetoric resued from ''The Epoch Times'' (among other [[WP:FRINGE|fringe topics]]), while their staff uses possibly cooked-up credentials. This seems like a similar case to [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_287#RfC:_Grayzone|The Grayzone]], with [[WP:RSP]] stating {{tq|Some editors describe The Grayzone as Max Blumenthal's blog, and question the website's editorial oversight.}} This seems like a blog for Ball and friends, not a reliable source.----[[User:ZiaLater|ZiaLater]] ([[User talk:ZiaLater|talk]]) 03:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
::I don't think this should be heavily judged on Venezuelan politics. Venezuelan politics are a mess. Many journalists have spoken against the Venezuelan government and accusations by Maduro administration do not usually add to much. Also PanamPost has also been very investigative on Maduro's rival [[Juan Guaidó]], even finding reported corruption scandals, see [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-politics/venezuelas-guaido-calls-for-probe-into-funds-for-military-defectors-idUSKCN1TG0NK Reuters]. On the ''Russian Troll'' affair, the ''Soviet Times'', ''Greta Thurnberg'' and ''China'' articles, those are labeled "politics and opinion", we need to discuss news articles and not opinion. Additionally, even if Ball founded it, could you clarify what is his position in the publication? it is certainly not the only reporter, while in The Grayzone a moderate percent of articles are pure Blumenthal (its main editor). For the rest you posted, I have nothing to say, it should be weighted in, I guess climate denial and anti-China go along with their libertarian bias.--[[User:ReyHahn|ReyHahn]] ([[User talk:ReyHahn|talk]]) 06:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
:::The anti-authoritarianism can be credited to their libertarian roots but there is nothing libertarian about climate denial nor is that a position that most libertarians hold. Climate denial is more a [[fusionism|fusionist]] position and when found within libertarianism is pretty much only found within [[right-libertarianism]]. [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 16:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
:::Well, {{u|Devonian Wombat}} also has a good point that their opinion and news articles blend together (sometimes within the same news and opinion categories). Overall, their website is a mess and promotes some dubious material.----[[User:ZiaLater|ZiaLater]] ([[User talk:ZiaLater|talk]]) 17:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Option 4''' per ZiaLater's and DW's investigations. Website clearly publishes false and misleading info deliberately—not as an oversight—and cannot be trusted to tell the truth. [[User:Buidhe|b]][[User talk:Buidhe|uidh]][[Special:Contributions/Buidhe|e]] 00:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
*:Again, it seems to soon to call option 4. As showed by my comment above Panam Post is considered reliable in some fields and some of their original investigations have been showed to be relevant and confirmed by sources like AP. For what I've seen it is at worst option 2 for SOMETIMES mixing opinions and facts without a clear label, which just demands precaution.--[[User:ReyHahn|ReyHahn]] ([[User talk:ReyHahn|talk]]) 14:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
*:Up until now, nobody has provided a non-opinion article reporting false news. The publication could be easily labeled option 2, demanding precaution and saying that it can be partisan to (right) libertarian views.--[[User:ReyHahn|ReyHahn]] ([[User talk:ReyHahn|talk]]) 14:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
:::{{Ping|ReyHahn}} chill out. Respect [[WP:BLUDGEON]] as well as other people's opinions. It certainly *can* be option 4 and I would say that the stories already shared meet the standard for publishing false and misleading views but personally I don’t think they’re important enough to deprecate. I think thats something we should reserve for sources people are trying hard to use despite their unreliability, this source appears to neither notable or reliable. I certainly *could* have iVoted for option 4 though. [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 15:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
::::Understood, I decided to modify the wording on the opening of the comment.--[[User:ReyHahn|ReyHahn]] ([[User talk:ReyHahn|talk]]) 15:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
::::Also per my sources above, it appears to be certainly notable in South American news. Reliability is what we are trying to measure here.--[[User:ReyHahn|ReyHahn]] ([[User talk:ReyHahn|talk]]) 15:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

== Patric Cagle and Broken People YouTube sources, and groundlings.com ==

{{Article|Resting bitch face}}

{{Article|The Groundlings}}

Can we get opinions on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Resting_bitch_face&diff=958119777&oldid=958118216 this] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Groundlings&oldid=prev&diff=958120063 this]? [[User:Flyer22 Frozen|Flyer22 Frozen]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Frozen|talk]]) 01:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
* Under [[WP:ELPOINTS]], external links are generally not supposed to be used in the article body (outside of citations), and the groundlings.com links in these edits are not compliant with the guideline. The YouTube video from The Groundlings and Patric Cagle lacks independent sourcing, and should be excluded from the [[Resting bitch face]] article as [[WP:UNDUE|undue weight]]; its use in the article on [[The Groundlings]] might be okay as a [[WP:PRIMARY|primary source]], but should ideally be supported by an independent reliable source. On the other hand, the Broken People video was mentioned in the cited ''[https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/fashion/im-not-mad-thats-just-my-resting-b-face.html New York Times]'' {{rspe|The New York Times}} article ({{xt|1=If you’re up on your Internet memes, perhaps you’ve heard of its linguistic predecessor: “bitchy resting face,” which emerged from a parody [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3v98CPXNiSk Public Service Announcement]}}), which makes it an acceptable primary source in the [[Resting bitch face]] article. — '''''[[User:Newslinger|Newslinger]]''' [[User talk:Newslinger#top|talk]]'' 21:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

::[[User:Newslinger|Newslinger]], thanks for commenting. I was tempted to remove the external linking, but I decided not to revert again (partially or fully) without first bringing the matter here for other opinions. I feel similarly as you do on all of this.

::Pinging [[User:StylishFedora|StylishFedora]] so that StylishFedora sees this if StylishFedora hasn't already. [[User:Flyer22 Frozen|Flyer22 Frozen]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Frozen|talk]]) 00:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

::[[User:Newslinger|Newslinger]] and [[User:Flyer22 Frozen|Flyer22 Frozen]] -- The video "Resting Bitch Face" was clearly uploaded to YouTube on October 11, 2011, years before the creation of the Broken People video. That can't be in dispute. The woman in the video is the same Patric Cagle shown on the Groundlings website bio page. The man in the video is clearly the same Nate Clark as the one on his personal website and the Groundlings bio page. Would an image of the Groundlings theater program from the September 12, 2011 production (showing writing, acting, and directing credits) suffice as supporting evidence? (Confused.) — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:StylishFedora|StylishFedora]] ([[User talk:StylishFedora#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/StylishFedora|contribs]]) 17:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
::: Hi StylishFedora, was that performance covered in any [[WP:SECONDARY|secondary sources]]? Performances that are not mentioned in [[WP:RS|reliable]] secondary sources are usually excluded as [[WP:UNDUE|undue weight]] in articles unrelated to the performers, since they are not considered prominent enough to warrant a mention in the articles. — '''''[[User:Newslinger|Newslinger]]''' [[User talk:Newslinger#top|talk]]'' 22:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
:::: Hello, [[User:Newslinger|Newslinger]], and thanks for the reply and guidance. I've been unable to find a secondary source that references that performance directly, but there '''is''' an article in [[LA Weekly]]<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.laweekly.com/camp-sunday/ |title=Camp Sunday |author=Lovell Estell III |date=December 22, 2011 |access-date=May 26, 2020}}</ref> that references another performance (also documented on YouTube<ref name=YouTubeSignsFromGodVideo>{{cite news|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgQuSi5ROOU|title=Signs from God|publisher=Patric Cagle|date=January 21, 2012|access-date=May 26, 2020|url-status=live}}</ref>) including the ''same'' two actors in the ''same'' show. If I tie them together ''and'' include a photo of the printed program from the show, would that suffice? —-- [[User:StylishFedora|StylishFedora]] ([[User talk:StylishFedora|talk]]) 16:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
::::: Thanks for doing the research, but unfortunately, that's not quite enough to make the connection. The secondary source needs to explicitly mention [[resting bitch face]] in relation to one of the following: the [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3v98CPXNiSk "Bitchy Resting Face"] performance (preferred), [[The Groundlings]], or the comedians in the performance (Nate Clark and Patric Cagle). Combining two different sources that don't explicitly make this connection is a case of [[WP:SYN|synthesis]], which falls short of Wikipedia's requirements. — '''''[[User:Newslinger|Newslinger]]''' [[User talk:Newslinger#top|talk]]'' 20:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::: [[User:Newslinger|Newslinger]] Hm. The secondary source I'm trying to find certainly wouldn't reference the Bitchy Resting Face video, since the entire point of the original edit was to prove that the Broken People sketch was ''not'' the "original" Internet reference to the phrase as its editor claims, but rather the version written by Patric Cagle and posted to YouTube years before that one ever appeared. It's hard to understand how a video titled "Resting Bitch Face" -- clearly posted years earlier than the one referenced in the article which claims to be "the original" -- could not be a ''de facto'' refutation of the (internet) origin of the phrase, regardless of supporting secondary sources. (Doesn't the mere existence of the Resting Bitch Face video prove that point?) Is there a chance that the similarity of the titles (Bitchy Resting Face v. Resting Bitch Face) has caused some confusion here? -- [[User:StylishFedora|StylishFedora]] ([[User talk:StylishFedora|talk]]) 21:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

:::::: [[User:Newslinger|Newslinger]] & [[User:Flyer22 Frozen|Flyer22 Frozen]] - There's also an issue with the final sentence in the second paragraph of the Origin section of the [[Resting Bitch Face]] article, which is worded to imply that the term "Resting Bitch Face" is ''not'', in fact, the original phrase and / or that the Broken People video is the origin of the term, both of which are plainly proven false by the mere existence of October 11, 2011 YouTube video. [[User:StylishFedora|StylishFedora]] ([[User talk:StylishFedora|talk]]) 14:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::: Currently, the [[Resting bitch face]] article doesn't claim that the phrase originated in the Broken People sketch. It just claims that the sketch was uploaded in 2013. The first sentence of the "Origin" section also includes an assertion that {{xt|"the phrase dates back 'at least ten years'"}} before 2013. I'm not seeing any issues with the content in the article. The 2011 performance from [[The Groundlings]] doesn't meet the [[WP:DUE|due weight]] requirement to be included into the article unless an reliable and independent secondary source is available that describes it in relation to "resting bitch face". — '''''[[User:Newslinger|Newslinger]]''' [[User talk:Newslinger#top|talk]]'' 03:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::: [[User:Newslinger|Newslinger]] I disagree. Because the sentence that begins, "It has since gone on..." is in the same paragraph (and immediately follows) the "Bitchy Resting Face" reference, and because that sentence ends, "to become more commonly known," the implication is that the "It" of that sentence refers to the Broken People video as the origin of the phrase, which is refuted even by the NYT article, if not by the existence of the Patric Cagle video. The phrase was ''always'' "resting bitch face" so it did not "become more commonly known" as that. [[User:StylishFedora|StylishFedora]] ([[User talk:StylishFedora|talk]]) 19:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::: I've [[Special:Diff/959664973|changed]] {{!xt|"It"}} to {{tq|"The facial expression"}} for precision. Although we're not able to use the 2011 video, this clears up the ambiguity. — '''''[[User:Newslinger|Newslinger]]''' [[User talk:Newslinger#top|talk]]'' 23:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::: With respect, I disagree that changing the pronoun is enough. The very fact that the reference to the Broken People video is placed in the Origin section (instead of in the "Spread in wider culture" section) implies to the reader that the Broken People video '''is''' the origin. I think a fair argument can be made that the NY Times article which states the phrase was at least ten years old is more than enough evidence to specifically ''not'' include a reference to the Broken People video in the Origin section. Regardless, I removed the "become more commonly known" bit and now I think it's much clearer. Thanks for your help on this. [[User:StylishFedora|StylishFedora]] ([[User talk:StylishFedora|talk]]) 15:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
{{od}}
I see your point. I've renamed the {{!xt|"Origin"}} section to {{xt|"History"}}, since the content does not clearly expain what the origin of the term is. I hope you find this satisfactory. — '''''[[User:Newslinger|Newslinger]]''' [[User talk:Newslinger#top|talk]]'' 19:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

{{tref}}

== Is NBC a reliable sources for the Wikipedia The Epoch Times (ET) article? ==
{{atop|1=The consensus is that yes, NBC is a generally reliable source for the Epoch Times article, meanwhile some editors feel that the CRC is unreliable. '''[[User:Starship.paint|starship]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|.paint]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|talk]])''' 02:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)}}
{{pagelinks|The Epoch Times}}
* [https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/trump-qanon-impending-judgment-day-behind-facebook-fueled-rise-epoch-n1044121 NBC report A]
* [https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/23/facebook-bans-ads-from-the-epoch-times-after-huge-pro-trump-buy.html report B]

I am a newcomer in English Wikipedia and only discussed on the ET talk page twice. Nevertheless, I believe my question in the subject line is valid, as the ET article referenced these two NBC reports at least 10 times. Yesterday when I made the 2nd comment on ET talk page, Admin Doug Weller advised: "if you are so sure about this, take it to WP:RSN". Following this advice, I am here now.

In the two NBC reports, NBC claimed that the fund ET placed in pro-Trump ads in the last year was more than any other organization outside Trump’s re-election campaign and more than what most of the Democratic presidential candidates spent on their campaigns in the same time. This claim is quite misleading.

According to CRC's report [https://capitalresearch.org/article/nbc-news-fails-crc-fact-check-the-epoch-times-is-no-pro-trump-dark-money-operation/ NBC News Fails CRC Fact Check]: The Epoch Times Is No Pro-Trump Dark Money Operation, “It is true that the Epoch Times reporting is generally favorable to Trump, and that they used their coverage of the administration in many of their ads to drive subscriptions. However, this is commonplace for news outlets looking to draw subscribers, and no less than The New York Times has done the same.”

[[WP:REPUTABLE]] stated “Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. “ NBC seems to be not a third-party in terms of assessing or reporting about ET, on consideration of the following two factors:

1. Being obsessed with the conspiracy theory that Trump works for Russia, in recent years NBC was caught for reporting fake news many times in this regard. Here are 2 examples: [https://thefederalist.com/2020/05/11/chuck-todd-faceplants-with-deceptive-video-of-william-barr/ A], and [https://www.dailywire.com/news/maddow-blames-her-audience-her-fake-news-media-aaron-bandler B].

For over 3 years, ET has been reporting Spygate where the pro-Hillary US Intelligence Community (IC) set up traps to spy and to destroy their enemy Trump and his supporters. Many events unfolded in 2019 and 2020, such as DOJ’s [https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrE182mr75ecWYAzVrrFAx.;_ylu=X3oDMTByMjB0aG5zBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzYw--/RV=2/RE=1589583910/RO=10/RU=https%3a%2f%2fwww.npr.org%2f2020%2f03%2f31%2f824510255%2fjustice-department-ig-finds-widespread-problems-with-fbis-fisa-applications/RK=2/RS=4hvEjn0TbRJJif8o_hGzD62B5b8- IG report on FBI`s FISA abuse], [https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/05/08/new_red_flags_emerge_from_fbis_handling_of_flynn_case_123520.html the declassified FBI document showing the plot to trap General Flynn], indicate The Epoch Times’ reports on Spygate theory in the past 3 years seem to be accurate. Recently many other media echoed ET’s Spygate report. [https://news.yahoo.com/obamagate-not-conspiracy-theory-214627867.html Here is one recent Yahoo news]

Reporting facts is a media’s duty, which should not be classified as being pro-Trump. NBC and ET have been reporting two competing theories and therefore being competitors to each other. It seems that by associating ET’s Facebook ad for increasing subscription with Trump’s re-election campaign, these NBC reports made use of the anti-Trump sentiment to NBC advantage for beating down NBC’s competitor ET.

2. Both media’s relationship with the Chinese Communist Party is opposite
[https://www.nbcuniversal.com/business/universal-beijing-resort NBC Universe has a joint venture in Beijing with CCP], while ET early journalists in China were persecuted by CCP and last year [https://www.theepochtimes.com/masked-intruders-set-fire-to-hong-kong-epoch-times-printing-press_3150829.html CCP riots in Hong Kong tried to burn down ET’s printing house]
NBC’s economic ties with CCP made its reports on ET appear not following COI.

On consideration of above factors, I believe NBC can hardly be counted as a third party on the subject of ET and to cite NBC for introducing ET could be against [[WP:COI]] and [[WP:REPUTABLE]], so I am raising the question for your review. [[user:诗琳童|Scarlett]] 04:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

*NBC is a reliable source, while the Epoch Times is a propaganda mouthpiece for far-right interests, from Donald Trump to Covid disinformation campaigns to Falun Gong advocating. [[User:Zaathras|Zaathras]] ([[User talk:Zaathras|talk]]) 03:30, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

*NBC News is a high-quality reliable source. It has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. [[User:Snooganssnoogans|Snooganssnoogans]] ([[User talk:Snooganssnoogans|talk]]) 15:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

* NBC News is a source of the highest quality, and I've never heard any general criticism over its fact checking or journalistic integrity. I would count it as the highest level of reliability among news sources. --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron]][[User talk:Jayron32|''32'']] 15:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

* As other editors highlight above, NBC News is generally considered a high-quality source. The CNC ([[Capital Research Center]]), on the other hand, which has produced movies like ''[[No Safe Spaces]]'' under its movie production extension "Dangerous Documentaries", is a right-wing political organization. Its defense of Falun Gong propaganda arms is not a huge surprise. [[User:Bloodofox|:bloodofox:]] ([[User talk:Bloodofox|talk]]) 16:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

* NBC is a highly reliable source, Capital Research Center (CRC) is a highly unreliable source. Any time you have to use a highly unreliable against a highly reliable source you should probably just walk away. [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 16:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

* NBC is indeed a reliable news source, while the Epoch Times is not. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 18:19, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
*NBC is one of very few sources that we can pretty much make a blanket determination of its reliability. Capital Research, however, is laughably unreliable and far right garbage. The opinion of CR would be like considering the opinion of Redditors at r/conspiracy on The New York Times to be valuable or legitimate. [[User:Praxidicae|Praxidicae]] ([[User talk:Praxidicae|talk]]) 18:30, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
*NBC and ET aren't publishing {{tq|two competing theories}}. NBC is reporting the truth, while ET is off the rails on their pro-Trump conspiracy theories. – [[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]] ([[User talk:Muboshgu#top|talk]]) 18:34, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
*The [[WP:COI]] guidelines being cited are not guidelines for sources to include or exclude; they are guidelines for which editors should or should not be editing given articles. The topic starter here may wish to read it, for instances where it may be of relevance. --[[User:NatGertler|Nat Gertler]] ([[User talk:NatGertler|talk]]) 16:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
*NBC News is a high-quality, reputable source. EP or CRC are the opposite. "Spygate" is fringe conspiracy crap. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]][[User talk:Neutrality|talk]] 13:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
{{abottom}}

== The Post Millennial for article [[Supervised injection site]] ==

I am not seeing much prior discussions on this source. I am considering using [https://thepostmillennial.com/safe-consumption-sites-not-as-effective-as-predicted this source] for the article [[Supervised injection site]]. They do have [https://thepostmillennial.com/page/ethical-journalism-policy-and-mission-statement editorial policy] posted. [[User:Graywalls|Graywalls]] ([[User talk:Graywalls|talk]]) 04:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
:I would say that most likely they follow into the "should be be attributed" category, as they have a pretty strong right-leaning bias, and despite what they may say about their "rigorous multi-level review process" they still have published misleading or outright false stories that fit their preferred narrative without proper vetting. They may correct them after the fact [https://factcheck.afp.com/rainbow-poppies-not-mandatory-remembrance-day-manitoba-school when called out on it by prominent fact checkers], but, combined with the heavily loaded language in which much of their reporting is written, it does not instill much faith in their reliability, at least not to the point where potentially contentious material could be stated in Wikipedia's voice without attribution. [[User:AmbivalentUnequivocality|AmbivalentUnequivocality]] ([[User talk:AmbivalentUnequivocality|talk]]) 06:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
:There's no evidence that ''The Post Millennial'' has the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy required for reliable sources here, particularly given that supervised injection sites are an issue ''at least'' bordering [[WP:MEDRS]]. If this study is actually as "bombshell" as claimed, there should be some mainstream and medical sources reporting on the issue. If not... well, maybe it isn't. [[User:NorthBySouthBaranof|NorthBySouthBaranof]] ([[User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof|talk]]) 06:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
::I agree with NorthBySouthBaranof that there should be better sources who have picked up such a supposedly groundbreaking study. –[[User:Roscelese|Roscelese]] ([[User talk:Roscelese|talk]] ⋅ [[Special:Contributions/Roscelese|contribs]]) 15:13, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm concerned that this and the related [[Needle exchange programme]] seem to be riven with poor sources on both sides - blogspot pages, sloppy journalism, primary sources from advocacy groups, claims presented as undisputed fact, etc. They could definitely use attention from folks with [[WP:MEDRS]] expertise. [[User:NorthBySouthBaranof|NorthBySouthBaranof]] ([[User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof|talk]]) 06:53, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

The Post Millennial is a generally unreliable source with a reputation for advocacy and spreading misinformation. Its not appropriate to use on any article except perhaps its own even when attributed. This is a bottom of the barrel source, especially when it comes to socially contentious topics like the one here. [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 17:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
:*{{re|Horse Eye Jack}}, do you have anything backing up the claim about its reputation for "advocacy and spreading misinformation"? That's a pretty contentious claim. [[User:Graywalls|Graywalls]] ([[User talk:Graywalls|talk]]) 20:50, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
:*General comment: The Post Millennial is a relatively new outlet, it has a right-leaning bias, and it produces both news and opinion journalism. There's definitely some variability with respect to the editorial rigour in their articles. With those caveats in mind, they are an increasingly influential and professionalizing outlet, and I would not agree that they "have a reputation for...spreading information." All outlets occasionally err and issue corrections (yes, even left-leaning ones!) and there's nothing remarkable about that. So treat with a bit of caution (e.g. if they use loaded adjectives, bear in mind that it may be coloured by an ideological bias, but the facts may still be true), and consider in-line attribution as needed.
:*In this context: go ahead and use it. The article is just a lengthy summary of a report, which obviously exists, and which can be cross-referenced if there are any doubts. While a right-leaning political bias may affect the framing of the article, the facts appear correct.[[User:TheBlueCanoe|'''TheBlueCanoe''']] 19:45, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

*'''Doesn't look reliable'''. As other editors have noted above, the site appears to be little more than a small, right-wing tabloid. For example, [https://thepostmillennial.com/category/culture/ the site's "culture" column] consists of little more than attacks on "SJWs" and feminists, about how America's churches "provide the most essential service of all", attacks on the ACLU, defenses of single-use plastic, etc. Articles in the "news" columns are similarly couched with right-wing talking points, and [https://thepostmillennial.com/category/coronavirus/ the "Coronovarius" column] consists almost entirely of flattering reports of "anti-shutdown protestors" and negative coverage of politicians enacting these policies (with, of course, glowing coverage of Trump).

:The site also appears to play quite loose with its coverage when it doesn't align with the narrative they present. For example, [https://thepostmillennial.com/waffle-house-shootout-over-face-masks-leads-to-attempted-murder-charge this header refers to a straightforward assault or "shooting" as a "shootout"], which misleads casual readers. There was no exchange of gunfire (OED: ''Shoot-out'': "A sustained exchange of shooting, a gun-fight.").

:In short, the site appears to be essentially a tiny [[Breitbart]], with a similar rejection of objectivity. I'm sure a closer look will reveal further issues. Whatever the case, I recommend finding a more objective source. [[User:Bloodofox|:bloodofox:]] ([[User talk:Bloodofox|talk]]) 20:23, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

*'''Unreliable''' (though it may be useful for Canadian political news, since some articles indicate that they have good access to party officials). Consider checking out [[The Post Millennial]] and [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_278#Hotair_and_thepostmillennial|past]] [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_289#The_Post_Millennial_for_Bo_Winegard|discussions]] on RSN regarding the source. A major issue is poor division between opinion and news ([https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/the-post-millennial-journalism-conservative-advocacy-1.5191593 CBC 2019]). Even for uncontroversial facts, I would prefer any more reliable source. This source has come up in BLP talk on a few occasions, and it has generally been deemed not up to snuff for that purpose (<[[Talk:Meredith_Russo#Regarding_the_Post_Millennial_article|1]]><[[Talk:Alec_Holowka/Archive_1#Russia_Today_and_The_Post_Millennial|2]]>). [[User:Jlevi|Jlevi]] ([[User talk:Jlevi|talk]]) 20:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

*'''comment''' I'm seeing on [https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-post-millennial/ here] it's mostly factual, with a bit of right bias, however I am not sure if mediabiasfactcheck.com is considered a respected authority on wikipedia for source bias. [[User:Graywalls|Graywalls]] ([[User talk:Graywalls|talk]]) 20:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
:: MBFC is sometimes useful to see if they've linked anything reliable, but [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_248#Should_we_use_mediabiasfactcheck.com_to_determine_what_sources_are_reliable?|past RSN]] conversations indicate with strong consensus that the site itself shouldn't be used directly. [[User:Jlevi|Jlevi]] ([[User talk:Jlevi|talk]]) 21:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Generally unreliable''' per Jlevi and Bloodfox, who have shown misleading information and poor distinction between factual reporting and opinion. Since they are mostly aggregators, news should be cited to the original outlet. Attributed opinions are unlikely to be due weight. The CBC article says "The Post Millennial's ethics policy appears to have been largely plagiarized from other media sources. Approximately 75 per cent of the language in the policy is identical to declarations of principles from The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Globe and Mail and Torstar publications." (!) That's blatant copyvio, so [[WP:ELNEVER]] may also come into consideration. [[User:Buidhe|b]][[User talk:Buidhe|uidh]][[Special:Contributions/Buidhe|e]] 23:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
*Probably '''avoid''' using it in the particular case mentioned above for the reasons NorthBySouthBaranof and Roscelese give: if the study in question is significant, better sources will cover it, and (especially as this is a MED-adjacent topic) biased sources are not ideal. As to the general case (of whether they should be used ''anywhere''), they're certainly a '''biased''' source in my experience seeing other TPM articles I'd seen in the process of Wikipedia articles, and now seeing specific examples provided above, and plagiarizing their ethics policy(!) and being called out for inaccurate reporting elsewhere suggests they're also an '''unreliable''' source. (One might make the usual proviso that they could be reliable for statements about their own current staff, beliefs, etc, although as the ''Daily Mail'' RfC further up this page indicates, trusting an unreliable source to be reliable even about themselves can be risky.) [[User:-sche|-sche]] ([[User talk:-sche|talk]]) 16:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Generally unreliable'''; see [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2020/04/03/how-coronavirus-disinformation-gets-past-social-media-moderators/ here], [https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-peter-mackay-issues-libel-notice-over-the-post-millennial-article-on/ here], and [https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/the-post-millennial-journalism-conservative-advocacy-1.5191593 here]. It's comparable to Breitbart in that it makes no distinction between opinion and news, was founded to stridently advance a particular political agenda, and has a history of playing fast-and-loose with the fact as part of that goal. Perhaps most notably, while they have an ethics policy, they plagiarized much of it from the Washington Post (see the second link.) --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 15:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
:: Though I agree with questioning TPM's reliability in general, I would like to note that the second source you mention (regarding the libel notice) may not be entirely useful for this discussion. I'm not familiar enough with Canadian politics to make a strong statement, but that piece is framed in terms of ''allegations'' and a lot of he-said-she-said. I don't think the piece ever makes a statement in the publication's voice. That may change if we see a a result from the court/libel case. [[User:Jlevi|Jlevi]] ([[User talk:Jlevi|talk]]) 15:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

== Plainsite.org on [[Tesla, Inc.]] and [[Elon Musk]] ==

In relation to Tesla, plainsite.org is currently cited in a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_lawsuits_and_controversies_of_Tesla,_Inc.&diff=prev&oldid=957506035 couple] of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TSLAQ&type=revision&diff=952411038&oldid=952017847 places]. Yesterday I removed a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tesla%2C_Inc.&type=revision&diff=957129694&oldid=957075050 third plainsite.org citation] related to Tesla. I did so for two reasons. Firstly, a few days ago the person behind plainsite.org [https://web.archive.org/web/20200522145159/https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/49sdnba14/california-northern-district-court/greenspan-v-qazi-et-al/ filed a lawsuit] against Tesla. Secondly, in the filings of that lawsuit they [https://web.archive.org/web/20200522145159/https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/download.html?id=290085684&a=14&z=e7d42c76 divulge their personal, financial investments against Tesla]. (Investing against a company means [[short (finance)|short selling]] of that company's stock or as in this case, the purchase (from an entity unrelated to the company) of [[put options]] that will pay out handsomely if the company goes bankrupt.) Per their filing, the plainsite.org owner has made an investment that will as a maximum pay out $200,000 if Tesla goes bankrupt (or the stock becomes essentially worthless) by June 19 of this year. Among the investments listed in their filing is an investment against Tesla on March 8, 2019, so on that date they created a personal, financial interest against Tesla. On the Tesla article, I removed the reference to plainsite.org (and the content that it alone supported) because I consider it self-evident that we cannot cite material from a website operated by a person who has started a legal conflict with Tesla and who is actively investing against the company. In addition to Tesla, the lawsuit list as defendants also [[Elon Musk]], a company ''Smick Enterprises Inc.'' as well as an apparently non-notable, named individual. As such I think a general decision on the scope of plainsite.org citations is necessary. For this discussion I am paging {{u|QRep2020}}, an anti-Tesla-focused SPA who happens to have introduced all three references to plainsite.org. [[User:Lklundin|Lklundin]] ([[User talk:Lklundin|talk]]) 13:23, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
:How is this user QRep2020 not a COI account? Seems to have flown under the radar despite already being blocked. A true advocacy/COI SPA. [[User:DIYeditor|—DIYeditor]] ([[User talk:DIYeditor|talk]]) 13:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
:: I included Plainsite.org because I could not find any other website on the Internet that is keeping an living count of lawsuits where Tesla is a party. I frankly agree Plainsite is a bit too involved - though Aaron Greenspan has denied being a part of TSLAQ - but until there's another website that is providing that sort of detailed <s>important</s> information, I thought the point was important enough to surface. Feel free to prove me wrong as I didn't spend hours researching. [[User:QRep2020|QRep2020]] ([[User talk:QRep2020|talk]]) 17:18, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
::: As if short-sellers are known for their reliability and honesty. -- [[User:GreenC|'''Green''']][[User talk:GreenC|'''C''']] 19:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
::::Any evidence that this has been true on a large scale? Conversely, why would I trust someone promoting a stock? Don't they have the same COI as a short seller? [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 21:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::Nobody involved in short selling, holding or promoting a stock should be editing the relevant article directly in my opinion. Isn't that textbook COI? [[User:DIYeditor|—DIYeditor]] ([[User talk:DIYeditor|talk]]) 01:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::*How is any of this relevant to the current discussion? What reason do we have to believe someone from Plainsite is editing entries on Wikipedia? [[User:QRep2020|QRep2020]] ([[User talk:QRep2020|talk]]) 01:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::First, my comment was directed at the claim that short sellers in general are unreliable or dishonest. I didn't take that comment to be Wikipedia specific and my answer certainly wasn't meant to be. As for Wikipedia specifically, are you suggesting one of the editors here has a COI or just that Plainsite has the COI? What level of fiscal involvement becomes a COI issue? If I own 100 shares of Grumman should I be barred from editing the Grumman article? [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 01:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::Yes, my understanding is that you should not be editing [[Grumman]]. I'm a little surprised you need to ask this but maybe there is something I am woefully misunderstanding about [[WP:COI]]? [[User:DIYeditor|—DIYeditor]] ([[User talk:DIYeditor|talk]]) 02:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::How did you derive that from [[WP:COI]]?
:::::::::{{tq|''Any external relationship—personal, religious, political, academic, legal, or financial (including holding a cryptocurrency)—can trigger a COI. How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense. For example, an article about a band should not be written by the band's manager, and a biography should not be an autobiography or written by the subject's spouse. There can be a COI when writing on behalf of a competitor or opponent of the page subject, just as there is when writing on behalf of the page subject.''}}
::::::::On one hand I could take it to mean Democrats are not allowed to write about Republicans as they have an interest in making Republicans look bad. Republicans are not allowed to write about Republicans as they have an interest in making Republicans look good. So only independents can write about Republicans? That might fall into the common sense end of things. Back to Grumman, if I were a major shareholder then I would have a clear COI. As a minor shareholder of a major (and technically no longer existing) company how much impact could my edits have on the stock price? I mean if everything I write is from RS and has WEIGHT then how could it be the sort of cutting edge news that would move the markets? WP:COI gives examples of company owners but not typical shareholders. I would agree that Greenspan from Plainsite would have a COI with regards to Tesla based on disclosed investments but I don't believe Greenspan in an involved editor here. Absent insider knowledge how could I with some tiny fraction of Grumman shares impact the stock price by editing the Grumman article? [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 02:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::I'm going to assume you are <s>trolling</s> or something. Despite being linked to the correct spelling of Grumman you are still typing Grumann and as you say it doesn't even exist anymore. {{tq|or financial (including holding a cryptocurrency)}}. At this point I am extremely skeptical of your handling of any of this and I think we should look further into it to see if any funny business is going on. [[User:DIYeditor|—DIYeditor]] ([[User talk:DIYeditor|talk]]) 02:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::I've corrected the spelling error from Grumann to Grumman. Grumman is no longer a company. It merged with Northrup. Thus there are no shares of Grumman to speak of. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 03:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::{{tq|This includes being an owner, employee, contractor, investor or other stakeholder.}} Couldn't be more clear. Please explain how this could possibly elude you? [[User:DIYeditor|—DIYeditor]] ([[User talk:DIYeditor|talk]]) 02:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::I don't agree that owning some shares in a company makes you a "Paid Editor". That is the section you are quoting. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 03:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::::Despite how you may wish to interpret the section heading that introductory sentence states plainly that it is about a financial conflict of interest and what this includes. [[User:DIYeditor|—DIYeditor]] ([[User talk:DIYeditor|talk]]) 03:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::::So then how is owning a few shares of Grumman (spelled correctly this time) a bigger COI vs editing an article about a political candidate I want to see succeed or fail? Per [[WP:EXTERNALREL]], {{tq|"''How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense."''}}. If I own one share of Grumman how much incentive do I have to try to sneak some market moving information into the article? Again, "governed by common sense". [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 03:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::::::This is a discussion for either [[WP:COI/N]] or [[Wikipedia Talk:COI]]. [[User:DIYeditor|—DIYeditor]] ([[User talk:DIYeditor|talk]]) 03:27, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
:I think it's a reliable repository for the relevant lawsuits. That is, if a RS mentions X vs Y lawsuit and that lawsuit is available on Plainsite then I would say we can reliability assume the copy is reliable (not a altered or doctored). Additionally if a RS links to information on Plainsite I would consider it reliable for inclusion here (assuming WEIGHT). Essentially we should treat Plainsite as we would the content of a personal blog.
:Lklundin, DIYeditor, it is not appropriate to start this off with a discrediting statement about QRep2020. Certainly there is no evidence they have a COI with Tesla. As for disliking Tesla, well that is clear but how many editors here dislike the left or right yet are actively editing those topics. If there is evidence they are editing problematically then take it to ANI. It should not be a topic here. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 21:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
::I reject the claim that {{u|QRep2020}} is being inappropriately discredited here. The editor should be informed when edits that they (alone) have made are being discussed here. The SPA tag exists exactly to inform others about such an editor. That QRep2020 appears to edit disruptively and make advocacy out of COI is explained [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATesla%2C_Inc.&type=revision&diff=958945872&oldid=958767376 here]. [[User:Lklundin|Lklundin]] ([[User talk:Lklundin|talk]]) 12:26, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
:Adding to my about comments about Plainsite, it has been used as a reference by news outlets. [[https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-tesla-model-3-safety-nhtsa-2019-8]][[https://techcrunch.com/2019/08/07/u-s-regulators-take-aim-at-tesla-over-model-3-safety-claims/?renderMode=ie11]][[https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/23/tesla-solarcity-claims-detailed-in-newly-unsealed-court-docs.html]][[https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-repeatedly-insults-lawyer-during-bizarre-deposition-2019-10]][[https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/28/musk-deposition-stockholders-v-tesla-solarcity.html]][[https://www.autospies.com/news/Elon-Musk-Warns-That-Residual-Values-For-ICE-Vehicles-Will-Plummet-In-The-Next-Few-Years-101474/]][[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-01-22/the-tesla-tslaq-skeptics-who-bet-against-elon-musk]][[https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2019/09/24/teslas-solar-city-acquisition-was-a-bailout-in.html]][[https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/19/tesla-and-elon-musk-lawsuits-overview.html]][[https://www.forbes.com/sites/alanohnsman/2019/08/23/tesla-and-walmart-signal-detente-after-retailer-sues-over-solar-panel-fires/#7ea7a10e618c]][[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2019/11/10/trouble-tesla-fires-lawsuits-could-thwart-elon-musks-big-bet/]][[https://www.thedrive.com/tech/29089/tesla-enters-whistleblower-hell]][[https://www.cars.com/articles/the-week-in-tesla-news-self-driving-price-hike-model-3-crash-tests-getaway-tesla-and-more-407528/]][[https://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/mobility/2019/08/12/self-driving-cars-no-rules-from-washington/1891200001/]][[https://www.thedrive.com/tech/27696/elon-musk-settles-with-sec-agrees-to-limit-disclosures-again]][[https://www.newsweek.com/video-tesla-explodes-tow-truck-1453745]][[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-01/solar-real-estate-is-hiding-in-plain-site-on-europe-s-rooftops]][[https://www.politico.com/newsletters/morning-transportation/2019/08/08/the-wait-continues-for-amtrak-nominees-466514]][[https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/12/doctor-once-hired-by-clinic-that-sees-tesla-workers-just-lost-his-license/]] In most of these cases Plainsite is acknowledged as a transparency site that filed for fredom of information requests or simply collected and published the relevant legal documents. In almost no cases save for a comparison of the number of active legal cases pending against various car companies, is Plainsite credited with some level of data transformation. Again, I think we can assume the information is truthful but should assume the information has zero WEIGHT. It would only be included in cases like CNBC citing Plainsite as the source for depositions etc. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 01:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
::I wonder if we can sidestep the issue at hand for now. I came across a "Google Dataset Search" entry for Tesla lawsuits that references Plainsite as the source. Although the information was assembled by Plainsite it looks like the entry does not list Plainsite as one of the databases. Maybe this would work instead of a link to Plainsite since Plainsite is under scrutiny. Are there any policies on Wikipedia about data sets and sources? https://datasetsearch.research.google.com/search?query=%22tesla%20lawsuits%22&docid=5q3qE%2FgkHRIQhrg7AAAAAA%3D%3D [[User:QRep2020|QRep2020]] ([[User talk:QRep2020|talk]]) 14:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
:::I don't think that really changes things in my view. There are two questions that we have to ask before information from Plainsite could be used in any article. The first, is if the material is reliable. In basically all cases it's reliable as evidence that "Plainsite said X". Per WP:RS it can't be treated as reliable for general statements of fact. I think it can be reliable as a source for "copy of lawsuit, deposition materials etc related to legal case X". This is how it has been cited by a number of RSs. We should not use it as a source for Plainsite generated claims including statistics (example ''X had 50 lawsuits in 2019''). However if say NBC News says ''"X had 50 lawsuits in 2019 according to Plainsite''" that would be considered RS since a RS is vouching for the material. All of this only addresses the reliability of the material. The other question is WEIGHT/DUE. Even if we had a letter from the all mighty saying Plainsite was 100% true there is still the question of weight. In this case we really need 3rd party RSs to cite the information to show it has weight in context of the bigger topic. I don't see that the Google search does that. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 15:26, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
::::Thank you for explaining. The matter at hand really is then whether Plainsite is a reliable "repository" of lawsuits. If it is a reliable repository, then an editor can cite it in a Wikipedia article and count the amount of lawsuit references under the guidelines allowed for calculation by [[Wikipedia:No original research]] for inclusion of a statement of the references tally. Plainsite might be biased but biased sources are allowed under [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources]] and even with that it is not as if Plainsite is generating factual statements. If something as controversial and profiteering as Wikileaks is allowed to be a [[Iraq War documents leak|repository source on a Wikipedia article]] then Plainsite should be as well. [[User:QRep2020|QRep2020]] ([[User talk:QRep2020|talk]]) 16:39, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::We might be in agreement but I'm not certain. Per OR and RS we shouldn't have a sentence claiming Tesla is involved with X no. of lawsuits because Plainsite lists X or says so. However, if a RS says in his deposition Tesla CFO said X [cite per RS that links to Plainsite] then I don't see a reason not to have both the cite to the RS as well as linking directly to the deposition. If the Wikipedia article is going to attribute the claim it should go to the RS unless they attribute the specific claim to Plainsite. So if RS says "Tesla did X per Plainsite" then it would be OK for the article to say "legal something site Plainsite said Tesla did X"[citation to RS]. Note that the details of any such edit are subject to local consensus. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 16:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::I don't think we are unfortunately. How about linking to a new or updated Wikipedia list article that lists the approximately 700 lawsuits and employs an External Links section to link to the docket list on Plainsite vis-a-vis a source link in References section? I do not want to go so far as to suggest precluding any reference to Plainsite because regardless of perspective Plainsite did do work to assemble the list and I bet it is against some Wikipedia policy to "snatch and run" with the producibles of other sites' efforts. [[User:QRep2020|QRep2020]] ([[User talk:QRep2020|talk]]) 19:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::This is really an article level discussion but what you need is a RS that draws attention to the number of lawsuits. If Forbes has an article that notes the number of lawsuits or compares the number of cases vs other automakers then we have some weight for article inclusion. This isn't a question of where the list comes from, rather if the information is DUE for inclusion. If Tesla had more pending lawsuits than all other car companies combined it would be a shocking fact but it wouldn't be DUE unless a RS discussed it (even that doesn't guarantee inclusion). Think of this as Wikipedia informational due process. Sometimes it seems like good information is being excluded but that's just how things work around here. We are meant to be summarizing what reliable sources say about the subject. Consider that our intended audience is [[WP:10YT|a decade in the future]]. If the number of lawsuits is considered important it will come out. Perhaps not as soon as we would wish but it will come out. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 19:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

::While it should be clear that we cannot use plainsite.org as a reference for Tesla (and Elon Musk), it is different if a RS cites plainsite in connection with one of these entities. Wikipedia has created for itself the process here for (re)evaluating whether a source is reliable. The typical, reliable news media cannot be expected to retroactively assess whether a source they cite is still reliable in their view and will typically not on their own retract a story if a source they quote turn out to be something else than it was at first. So if for example CNBC e.g. a couple of months ago cited plainsite.org in relation to Tesla (or Elon Musk), would we then cite the CNBC source with or without attribution (knowing that their source had the above mentioned problems)? [[User:Lklundin|Lklundin]] ([[User talk:Lklundin|talk]]) 15:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
:::Yes, I would be OK citing CNBC in that case. We would have to ask, how would/could the material sourced to Plainsite be compromised by the site owner's fiscal interest? Please note that a similar fiscal interest has or currently exists with sites like Electrek and Cleantechnica other than they profit with increases in Tesla stock vs drops. Back to Plainsite, the primary thing the website offers is a publicly accessible repository of court and government documents that would otherwise be difficult/expensive to access. Do we have any evidence at all that such records are false or altered? None that has been presented. If CNBC says, "Musk said X in his SolarCity deposition according to legal records requested by Plainsite" where is the concern? I can see some concern if CNBC says Plainsite says "Tesla has 50 lawsuits pending vs 10 for GM". Still, given Plainsite's involvement with Tesla and TSLAQ I would have to assume CNBC would understand that Plainsite isn't an unbiased source yet chose to cite them anyway. So while a case could be made that a stat purely generated by Plainsite may be questionable we should still treat it as reliable if a reliable source does the same. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 16:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
::::I agree. If a RS cites plainsite.org on Tesla (or Elon Musk), then we should be able to use that with attribution. [[User:Lklundin|Lklundin]] ([[User talk:Lklundin|talk]]) 11:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

== Can YouTube video (having more than 100K views) be used as references for notability ==

I want to know that if a view having more than 100K views (example for a song). Can anyone use it as reference to that song in that singer's biography '''Discography''' section. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:TheChunky|TheChunky]] ([[User talk:TheChunky#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/TheChunky|contribs]]) 

:No, youtube numbers cited to youtube doesn't mean anything, [[WP:N]]-wise. If ''[[Rolling Stone]]'' writes an article about the song, then it may be notable, and if ''that'' article bothers to mention the number of views on YT, it's fair to mention it in a potential WP-article. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 09:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
:Notability and popularity are not the same thing.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 11:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
:No, as discussed. Also consider looking at [[Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_on_discussion_pages#Google_test|Arguments to avoid: Google Test]] for a similar discussion on google hits. [[User:Jlevi|Jlevi]] ([[User talk:Jlevi|talk]]) 15:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
:[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TioINDSHcps This howling dog video] has 401,012 views, is the dog notable? Seriously, no, YouTube numbers are not the kind of sources Wikipedia uses. However, a video with 100k or a few million views could mean sources are out there.--[[User:Eostrix|Eostrix]] ([[User talk:Eostrix|talk]]) 16:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
:and to add, 100,000 is not even top 500.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 16:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
:: it's actually ''worse'' than the Google Test. Take a look at [ https://duckduckgo.com/?q=buy+youtube+views ]. You can buy fake YouTube views for $1 to $2 for a thousand views. Or you can accomplish the same thing without cheating by buying YouTube ads that lead to your videos. GEICO, TurboTax, Grammarly, and Wayfair have all received millions of legitimate views because they ran ads on other, more popular YouTube videos. The cost for this is roughly $200 per thousand views, so this method is pretty much used only when a reasonable percentage of those views turn into paying customers.
::Other online venues where there exists a thriving market for fake views/subscribers/likes/followers/positive reviews/etc., are Twitter, Facebook, and Reddit. See [ https://duckduckgo.com/?q=buy+reddit+upvotes ] and [ https://duckduckgo.com/?q=buy+facebook+likes ] --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 16:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
: I am stating my opinion but not the current practice: If it is from an official account (with Youtube Verification in some form), I think it is acceptable. [[User:Universehk|Universehk]] ([[User talk:Universehk|talk]]) 23:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
* Generally no. YouTube is a video hosting platform, and does not make the publisher any more or less reliable than if it had uploaded the video on its own website. If the YouTube channel is verified in some way to a source that would otherwise be considered reliable, then the video would be reliable and count toward notability regardless of the number of views (subject to the other conditions in the [[WP:GNG|general notability guideline]]). If the YouTube channel is verified to a self-published source, then the video would still be considered unreliable and not count toward notability. Most YouTube videos fall in the latter category. — '''''[[User:Newslinger|Newslinger]]''' [[User talk:Newslinger#top|talk]]'' 11:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
*I think the principle of [[WP:GHITS]] should come in here. In layman's terms: No, they should not because as people said above, number of views is completely meaningless. '''[[User:The C of E|The C of E God Save the Queen!]]''' ([[User talk:The C of E|talk]]) 11:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
*Nope as per everyone above, Also if the video is deleted the article is stuffed ... whereas if it's a news article then it wouldn't matter if the link died as we have [[Wayback Machine]]. IMHO Youtube should be avoided at all costs when it comes ro sourcing. –[[User:Davey2010|'''Davey''''''2010''']][[User talk:Davey2010|'''Talk''']] 11:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
*What Gråbergs Gråa Sång said. If an article in a [[WP:RS]] finds the number of YouTube views of a video notable enough for a mention, that article can be cited in Wikipedia for a mention of the video's YouTube views. Otherwise, no, don't cite the YouTube video itself unless the use complies with [[WP:ABOUTSELF]]. [[User talk:Feminist|feminist]] | wear a mask, protect everyone 02:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

== ConservativeHome ==

[[ConservativeHome]] is a conservative (suprising no one) UK political website / blog founded by [[Tim Montgomerie]] and currently owned by [[Lord Ashcroft]]. It has been {{duses|conservativehome.com|cited over 300 times and externally linked nearly 500 times}} on Wikipedia. To me Conservative Home looks like a self-published partisan blog like [[Guido Fawkes (website)|Guido Fawkes]] or [[The Skwawkbox]], and therefore should generally not be used as a source. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 19:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

* Shared blog at best - definitely not an RS - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 20:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

:Most of these links appear to be to articles about contributors saying that they contribute to the blog. That doesn't seem to be an rs problem. I don't even think it's a weight problem because people reading the biography articles may want to know where they can go to find their contributions. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 21:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
:: I don't doubt that some of them are about contributors to the blog, and they are usable per [[WP:ABOUTSELF]]. But I don't see how they could constitute a majority of uses at least from a brief look at the list. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 21:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
*Only useful for aboutself and (minimally) attributed opinion. Other uses should be axed. [[User:Buidhe|b]][[User talk:Buidhe|uidh]][[Special:Contributions/Buidhe|e]] 23:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Opinion, attribute for anything else'''. In [[https://www.conservativehome.com/about] their about] they do bill themselves as a news site with an editorial team (with six staff members listed). It not run by Montgomerie anymore (he does contribute). This isn't Guido Fawkes or Skwawkbox, more akin to [[LabourList]]. This is a partisan oriented news/opinion site, and for news there are more reliable and neutral sources.--[[User:Hippeus|Hippeus]] ([[User talk:Hippeus|talk]]) 08:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
:: [[The Canary (website)|The Canary]] also has a considerable number of staff, despite this they were judged to be generally unreliable (Not that this directly relates to CH). I think that CH is usable (minimally) for attributed opinions, but for general citations, I agree that better non partisan sources could be found. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 13:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
::: That's a valid comparison. Partisan opinion sites designed to preach to the faithful are not appropriate for use on Wikipedia, and shouldn't even be linked unless some reliable third party makes a case for the sigfnificance of any particular content. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' ([[user talk:JzG|help!]]) 10:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
* This site is opinion, and should be used sparingly, with attribution, and not at all unless some reliable independent third party source has established the significance of any particular article. Opinions are like arseholes: everybody has one. We should ''never'' go mining the internet for random opinions to make a point in an article. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' ([[user talk:JzG|help!]]) 10:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
*Forum/many-headed blog for the Conservative Party/Tory whips' offices. Not suitable for news as such. [[User:GPinkerton|GPinkerton]] ([[User talk:GPinkerton|talk]]) 22:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
*Self source only, too partisan to be reliable for factual information, imv [[User:Atlantic306|Atlantic306]] ([[User talk:Atlantic306|talk]]) 22:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

== [[Daily Mirror]] ==

I forgot to ask this at [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 294#Local papers]], but is https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/keith-lemons-new-show-horrifies-22005570 reliable? I wouldn't use it myself, though that's probably not based on policy but because my late father used to work for the paper until about two months before [[Robert Maxwell]]'s death and they weren't attempting to make it a reliable source then (the phrase "two and a half percent news content" was apparently bandied about a lot at the time). [[WP:RSP]] says there is no consensus amongst Wikipedians as to whether or not it is reliable.--[[User:Launchballer|Laun]][[User talk:Launchballer|chba]][[Special:Contribs/Launchballer|ller]] 15:39, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
:When did we last discuss this?[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 15:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
:It's fine for non-controversial stuff like direct quotes of what it itself has said, with direct attribution, and reporting of banal facts like sports scores and weather reports and the like. It's also notable that banal stuff like sports scores and weather reports are ''basically always'' available in better sources anyways, so it would be rare outside of direct, attributed quotations that it would be ''better'' than just using another source. --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron]][[User talk:Jayron32|''32'']] 17:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
:Least-worst of the British tabloids, though still not great and any other source (that isn't actually worse) is to be preferred. I'd rate local papers higher. First time I read the Daily Mirror, in 2002, I had the distinct thought "this is the stupidest thing I'll read today", and I was still on Usenet at the time. I'm not sure how good it is on pop culture coverage - if it makes stuff up. That story doesn't look ''made-up'' as such, though I'm not going to consider quoting a few people on Twitter evidence of ''notable'' widespread public horror and would be reluctant to file it in the 2.5% of news content - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 21:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

: Obviously its not the most insightful source, the are usually better quality sources but I am not sure if it has been shown to be actually unreliable.[[User:Bodney| ~ BOD ~ ]][[User talk:Bodney#top|TALK]] 22:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
::yeah, I haven't heard of it being caught actually ''lying'' much. (It's lost a few defamation cases.) But just because it covers something doesn't make that thing notable, I'd say - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 22:43, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
* Meh. It's less crappy than the Mail, but if the Mirror is the only source for something then we probably shouldn't include it anyway. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' ([[user talk:JzG|help!]]) 10:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

:I don't see the point of going through each possible source. Editors should always chose the best sources available and only enter information that is widely reported in relation to the subject. Generally that means not using tabloids except in certain circumstances. Where this type of source usually comes up is why some editor wants to put something into an article that they have found on their news feed and ''The Mirror'' or some other tabloid is the only remotely reliable source that has reported it. The problem is that if one source they find is blacklisted, they will find another one. But the same can be said of the broadsheets. If a story about a well-known subject is mentioned only in ''The Times'' or the ''Guardian'', then it lacks weight for inclusion. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 15:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
::True, that is the ideal, and it is was the practice we would not even need RSN. The issue is it is used, and often as the only source.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 15:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
:::I have put the Mirror in as a source for sport scores, I figure it's not gonna lie about those and it's not a usage that implies article notability. Though I'd ''rather'' have the BBC, Guardian or Tele - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 16:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
: I'd say ''Daily Mirror'' should be posted as generally unreliable like the ''Daily Express''. While it could be considered the "least worst" of the British tabloids, it's still important to point out that it is a tabloid, and by nature puts story in front of fact. I do agree with [[User:Jayron32]], in that it should be okay for direct quotes, but beyond that I think it is just as hard as with other tabloids to distinguish reliable information and should be avoided when possible. [[User:Maxmmyron|Maxmmyron]] ([[User talk:Maxmmyron|talk]]) 03:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
*Not completely unreliable, its usable for uncontroversial content such as sport facts, film, tv and music reviews, imv [[User:Atlantic306|Atlantic306]] ([[User talk:Atlantic306|talk]]) 22:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm tempted to convert this into an RfC. How do I do this?--[[User:Launchballer|Laun]][[User talk:Launchballer|chba]][[Special:Contribs/Launchballer|ller]] 02:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

== What if secondary sources conflict with and apparently misinterpret a primary source? ==

{{article links|Death of George Floyd}}

If a movie or book is a reliable source for a plot description, isn't a video also a reliable source? If this source clearly conflicts with what a few secondary sources are saying, what should we do? I have [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Death_of_George_Floyd&diff=959513814&oldid=959513752 left] a "dubious" tag because of this. I apologize for the video I link containing some extraneous commentary at beginning and end but it is the best and only complete copy of the video I have found. I link to the exact timestamps that are relevant here.

Primary source:
#{{Youtube|id=KwITYR8Ijuo|t=5m36s}} (5m36s) African-American man walks up and starts commenting.
#{{Youtube|id=KwITYR8Ijuo|t=6m05s}} (6m05s) What sounds like the same man tells him to get up and get in the car, that he can't win. Is plainly not the Asian officer standing there whose voice can be heard in the video. There is no way you could interpret this to be one of the cops if you listen to all he says.

Secondary sources:
#[http://archive.ph/UdNGN Agence France Presse]: {{purple|the officers taunted him to "get up and get in the car."}}
#[https://www.cbsnews.com/news/minneapolis-police-george-floyd-died-officer-kneeling-neck-arrest/ CBS News]: {{purple|An officer keeps insisting he get in the car}}
#[https://www.wvlt.tv/content/news/4-Minneapolis-officers--570782261.html WVLT-TV] {{purple|An officer can be seen insisting Floyd get in the car}}
#[https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/amberjamieson/black-man-died-police-custody-minneapolis Buzzfeed News]: {{purple|A person can be heard talking to Floyd, telling him to get up and get in the car, although it is unclear if it is an officer speaking.}} (found and added since I posted this comment)

Agence France Press??? They transcribed an English video?

This may not seem important but this has real world implications. People may be understandably irate if they are told police were taunting the victim and telling him to get up while holding him down. This is not what happened. A bystander was telling him to give up. [[User:DIYeditor|—DIYeditor]] ([[User talk:DIYeditor|talk]]) 06:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC) Updated 06:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

{{u|Starship.paint}} has excellently found the conflicting secondary source and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Death_of_George_Floyd&diff=959526349&oldid=959525934 updated] the text to reflect this conflict. This resolves the exigent issue. I still wonder what is the answer to this broader question of secondary sources conflicting with primary. My feeling is that RS experts are going to say the secondary source takes precedence but it makes me uneasy because of this case. [[User:DIYeditor|—DIYeditor]] ([[User talk:DIYeditor|talk]]) 06:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

:{{re|DIYeditor}} - I wouldn't question Agence France Presse just because they're originally from France. They're one of the '[https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13216597.2018.1444663 Big Three]' news agencies. That newspapers around the world cite Agence France Presse is a testament to its credibility. '''[[User:Starship.paint|starship]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|.paint]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|talk]])''' 06:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
::I would use [[WP:INTEXT]] attribution and otherwise leave it alone until/unless a new secondary source mentions an issue. AFP and CBS are reliable enough sources that you should defer to them over direct editorial interpretation of a YouTube video.{{pb}}For the general question, it depends on the quality of the secondary and primary sources. — [[User:MarkH21|MarkH21]][[User talk:MarkH21|talk]] 06:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
*Starship.paint's solution is the correct one. When a secondary source seems to conflict with a primary source, you really only have a few options. One (the ideal one) is to find more secondary sources - ideally later-published, higher-quality ones that spell out the contradiction directly and correct it, but ones that fit any of those criteria can be good ("we found twenty sources and this is the only one describing it this way" is a valid argument.) Another option is to consider whether the existing secondary source is low-quality or unreliable on the subject (obviously this is not an option when dealing with AFP, but often if a source is glaringly wrong it's a good reason to examine them more closely.) The third option is to omit saying anything at all based on limited coverage, at least until more sources appear - this is especially a good choice for [[WP:EXCEPTIONAL]] claims, which you might not want to cite to a single source even if it's high-quality, or for [[WP:BLP]] situations where a higher standard is required. [[WP:RECENTISM]] is often also a reasonable thing to invoke for temporary omission in situations where it seems like secondary sources are getting it wrong and you expect corrections to appear shortly; part of the reason for that policy is to resolve situations like this. What we cannot do, ever, is to use a primary source to directly correct a primary source, either explicitly ("X said Y, but they were wrong[cites to X and primary source]") or implicitly (X said Y.[cite to X] But actually, Z![cite to primary source]), since that's [[WP:OR]] / [[WP:SYNTH]]. If you can't find a secondary source correcting the one you feel is incorrect, the thing to do is argue for omission; if you can't successfully do that (because eg. multiple high-quality sources are getting it wrong and there's no corrections anywhere), sometimes you just have to accept that we're an encyclopedia and therefore have no choice but to follow what reliable sourcing says even when it leads off a cliff. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 14:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
*: +1 to Aquillion says. [[User:-sche|-sche]] ([[User talk:-sche|talk]]) 20:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

== The Huffington post ==

Is this true "HuffPo is not considered a RS in general and must not be used in the context wherever there are doubts about its articles, as in this BLP. Removing what was not a position of AI" as a user has suggested at [[Piers Robinson]]?[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 09:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
*To give actual context, Piers is a UK academic currently best well known for being part of the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media, including [[Vanessa Beeley]] and others that have alleged the [[Douma chemical attack]] was staged (see [http://syriapropagandamedia.org/update-on-the-opcws-investigation-of-the-douma-incident]), and that that the [[White Helmets (Syrian Civil War)|White Helmets]] were "actively involved in managing a massacre of civilians" (see [http://syriapropagandamedia.org/james-le-mesurier-a-reconstruction-of-his-business-activities-and-covert-role]) and has been criticised for this in ''[[The Times]]'' [https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/apologists-for-assad-working-in-british-universities-2f72hw29m] [https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/professors-shut-down-debate-over-assad-s-chemical-attacks-n899fjdkm] and the ''[[HuffPost]]'' [https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/the-useful-idiots_uk_5e2b107ac5b67d8874b0dd9d] [https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/uk-academics-pro-assad-conspiracy-theories-about-syria_uk_5aa51ea7e4b01b9b0a3c4b10], and has also been criticised for being a 9/11 skeptic in the latter, see [https://www.huffpost.com/entry/professor-piers-robinson-sheffield-university_n_5c0666a3e4b07aec5752630a]. All of the posts criticising Piers in the Huffpost are by the same author, Chris York, senior editor at HuffPost UK. {{u|Kashmiri}} thinks that the HuffPost is blanket unreliable and has been repeatedly removing the sources, citing them to be BLP violations. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 12:18, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
:* well, we yellow-rate it and suggest attribution. Also, be super-careful it's an actual news article and not a contributor piece - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 09:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
::* To clarify, I never said that HuffPo "is blanket unreliable"; I warned that we should not include controversial or defamatory information about living persons based on a HuffPost article – especially when the article author is a self-confessed "specialist in conspiracy theory debunking"[https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/christopher-york/], which simply means his writings are likely to be influenced by his personal point of view. BLPs are a tricky area and whenever there are sourcing doubts re. controversial information, it should rather be left out. — [[User:Kashmiri|kashmīrī]] [[User talk:Kashmiri|TALK]] 14:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
:: {{u|Kashmiri}} I think that's fair, and I apologise if you think I misrepresented your position. I agree that I would rather use another source rather than the Huffington Post, but due to a lack of reliable secondary sources we are left with relatively few options. How do you feel about citing the WGSPM documents cited in the HuffPost articles directly, alongside the articles themselves? I am uncomforable with citing the WGSPM or Robinsons's writing directly, as these are [[WP:PRIMARY]] sources and feels uncomfortably close to [[WP:OR]]. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 15:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
*There is no reason to not use HuffPost. It's a perfectly legitimate news outlet and their journalists go to all the same briefings the paper newspapers' do. It's neither a tabloid nor party political. [[User:GPinkerton|GPinkerton]] ([[User talk:GPinkerton|talk]]) 22:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
*The OP's initial statement makes it seem like HuffPo is not reliable. Wikipedia has reached no conclusion that it is or isn't reliable, as there's never been a broad RFC on the general reliability. It is ''treated'' as reliable by other scrupulously reliable sources which cite and quote it frequently, which is usually a hallmark of general reliability, but Wikipedia has not had the discussion ''per se''. I would treat it as generally reliable for its factual and investigative reporting, and as with any source, including the really reliable ones, published opinion pieces and unvetted guest contributions are not news anyways. --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron]][[User talk:Jayron32|''32'']] 04:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

== Is Janusz Korwin-Mikke a far-right politician? ==

Are the following sources reliable for the claiming that [[Janusz Korwin-Mikke]] is a far-right politician?
*{{cite journal |last1=Liphshiz |first1=Cnaan |title=Far-right Polish lawmaker: Natural selection via pogroms made Jews powerful |journal=The Times of Israel |date=4 Mar 2020 |url=https://www.timesofisrael.com/far-right-polish-lawmaker-natural-selection-via-pogroms-made-jews-powerful/ |accessdate=29 May 2020}}
*{{cite book |author1=Iga Mergler: "Polish millennials and new media environments: forming identities, constructing enemies, finding allies" |editor1-last=Cristiano |editor1-first=Anthony |editor2-last=Atay |editor2-first=Ahmet |title=Millennials and media ecology: culture, pedagogy, and politics |date=2020 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-0-367-20025-1 |url=https://books.google.no/books?id=xs2gDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA35&lpg=PA35&dq=Janusz+Korwin-Mikke+far+right&source=bl&ots=RAwhC9RWFt&sig=ACfU3U1zPed9xbQXDBlUSIMiooWbFG5j8w&hl=no&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiFhPC30M_pAhWPyqYKHTo1Ct4Q6AEwFnoECGQQAQ#v=onepage&q=Janusz%20Korwin-Mikke%20far%20right&f=false |accessdate=25 May 2020}}
*{{cite news |last1=Rankin |first1=Jennifer |title=Polish MEP punished for saying women are less intelligent than men |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/14/polish-mep-janusz-korwin-mikke-punished-saying-women-less-intelligent-men |accessdate=25 May 2020 |work=The Guardian |date=14 Mar 2017}}

I am aware that the first source may not be strong enough on its own, but I wonder if it will be appropriate to include also that source, provided the other two are reliable. Regards! --[[User:TU-nor|T*U]] ([[User talk:TU-nor|talk]]) 11:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
:Seems good to me.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 11:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
::{{ping|TU-nor|Slatersteven}} - are you sure the book source states that this man is far-right? I'm not seeing the quote. What I'm seeing from the book is that another man, Pawel Kukiz, is from a far-right party. '''[[User:Starship.paint|starship]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|.paint]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|talk]])''' 15:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
:::The book may not the Times Of Israel does.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 15:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
:::Here are some more https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/08/nigel-farage-ukip-europe-janusz-korwin-mikke, https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2019/1009/When-the-right-wing-is-still-too-socialist-Poland-s-far-right-unites, https://www.jpost.com/international/polish-mp-says-pogroms-were-good-for-jews-assisted-natural-selection-619640, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/10/tension-gay-rights-moves-fore-polish-election-191010102922825.html. Is that enough?[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 15:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
::::And there is https://books.google.no/books?id=CislDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA61&lpg=PA61&dq=Janusz+Korwin-Mikke+far-right&source=bl&ots=T3K_OvbXhh&sig=ACfU3U3b7IaPMjuTzPZSBjuYREh9bZUhJg&hl=no&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj7vYyardnpAhWQ16YKHaczAv8Q6AEwKnoECGIQAQ#v=onepage&q=Janusz%20Korwin-Mikke%20far-right&f=false, https://www.algemeiner.com/2020/03/09/far-right-polish-lawmaker-says-pogroms-were-good-for-jews-made-them-powerful/ and any number of more examples. But which are the best? --[[User:TU-nor|T*U]] ([[User talk:TU-nor|talk]]) 15:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

*{{re|TU-nor|Slatersteven}} - I'll just repeat many of what you already raised above, use the Associated Press [https://apnews.com/7b21d8c690b94980a70c1b043a681c1a], the Guardian [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/14/polish-mep-janusz-korwin-mikke-punished-saying-women-less-intelligent-men], the Christian Science Monitor [https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2019/1009/When-the-right-wing-is-still-too-socialist-Poland-s-far-right-unites], Buzzfeed News [https://www.buzzfeed.com/albertonardelli/a-far-right-member-of-the-european-parliament-is-being-inves] and that Taylor and Francis book [https://books.google.com/books?id=CislDwAAQBAJ], that should be indisputable given these sources. I'm not as familiar with the quality of the sources from the Middle East. Also, here is a Reuters source [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-poland-politics/polish-far-right-party-moves-into-third-place-survey-idUSKBN0F510620140630] that his party, New Right Congress, is far-right. '''[[User:Starship.paint|starship]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|.paint]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|talk]])''' 01:54, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
*{{ping|Slatersteven|Starship.paint}} Thanx both! --[[User:TU-nor|T*U]] ([[User talk:TU-nor|talk]]) 12:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
*ToI and [[Jewish Telegraphic Agency]] (where the story is syndicated from) are both very reliable in my experience. [[User:Buidhe|b]][[User talk:Buidhe|uidh]][[Special:Contributions/Buidhe|e]] 23:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

== [[Scriptural texts]] ([[WP:RSPSCRIPTURE]]) ==
{{mdf|Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#WP:RSPSCRIPTURE|Moved to the noticeboard, as this discussion has introduced new arguments not found in previous discussions. — '''''[[User:Newslinger|Newslinger]]''' [[User talk:Newslinger#top|talk]]'' 12:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)}}

About "''Content that interprets or summarizes scriptural passages or narratives should generally be cited to appropriate scholarly sources''". Several related articles like [[David]] or [[The Exodus]] mostly don't follow this approach in the "narrative" section, which seems to work fairly well. The Exodus takes a mostly [[MOS:PLOT]] approach, While David has a lot of cites, mostly primary outside "tricky" stuff.

So I suggest we soften the "summarizes" somewhat, something like "though a [[MOS:PLOTSOURCE]] approach can work well regarding some scriptural stories." [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 11:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
I've linked this discussion at Wikiprojects Christianity, Judaism, and Classical Greece and Rome.--[[User:Ermenrich|Ermenrich]] ([[User talk:Ermenrich|talk]]) 23:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

* I too feel that [[MOS:PLOTSOURCE]] applies. Meaning that there is a big difference between "summarizing", which basically does not call for any source apart from the primary source, and "interpreting" or "analyzing", which should be based only on sources, to avoid [[WP:OR|original research]]. [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser|talk]]) 13:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
*:{{u|Debresser}}, the problem there of course is that there are a lot of translations of the Bible and they are not all consistent, nor are they internally consistent within a given translation. Since Wikipedia isn't a Bible study I think we should avoid the "plot" approach. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' ([[user talk:JzG|help!]]) 20:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
*::That is of course correct, but that can be dealt with when it becomes a problem. There's still times when the PLOTSOURCE-approach works well, inconsistencies can be small and need not necessarily enter the "recap" section. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 21:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
::: [[user:JzG]]'s argument that the Bible is a translation and any translation is per definition an interpretation, is taking things too far. [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser|talk]]) 23:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
::::{{u|Debresser}}, no it's not. Translations can be (and have been) motivated by specific agendas. Some people assert that only the KJV is reliable. The NIV was based on a very thorough and scholarly review of the original sources but KJV believers spend endless hours arguing that the many differences are evidence for the superiority of the KJV. It's exactly what you'd expect from translations of centuries-old sources that were themselves written down long after the events they describe. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' ([[user talk:JzG|help!]]) 17:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::That strikes me of more of a problem with the [[King James Only movement]] than with using the Bible as a source for its own narrative content.--[[User:Ermenrich|Ermenrich]] ([[User talk:Ermenrich|talk]]) 18:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::{{u|Ermenrich}}, so how do you handle a dispute between a KJV editor and an NIV editor? Or any other two editors with differing editions? Which one do we favour as correct? See my problem here?
::::::It's not as if there is any shortage of independent scholarly analysis of every single word of the Bible. We can easily defer to a secondary source that analyses all the various translations and describes the consensus view. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' ([[user talk:JzG|help!]]) 18:49, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::{{U|JzG}}, to me that question is akin to "how would you solve a despite between an editor pushing a fundamentalist view of the Bible and one who isn't." The KJB was written 400 years ago, no (reasonable) scholar believes it is infallible and we should obviously use more up to date translations. Anyway, this question is not particularly useful in the abstract: what specific detail of e.g. the Exodus narrative is affected by it?--[[User:Ermenrich|Ermenrich]] ([[User talk:Ermenrich|talk]]) 18:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::{{u|Ermenrich}} Riddle me this: how did [[Haman]] meet his end? Hanging? Impalement? Crucifixion? Something else? On what was he punished - was it a beam, a stake, a tree (literal or otherwise), a gallows, a gibbet, or a cross (however constructed) that he prepared for Mordechai's execution? The complexity of this question is dwarfed by the question, for instance, of what Jesus is supposed to have carried towards his own execution, or of what is meant by the word "σταυρωθήτω!" Is it "he on rode ahangen" or " Impale him!" or "Let him be impaled!" or "He should be crucified!" or "Let "him" be crucified" or "Crucify him!"? All these English translations are in common circulation and none should be used without scholarly citation.[[User:GPinkerton|GPinkerton]] ([[User talk:GPinkerton|talk]]) 19:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::There's no disagreement on how Jesus died. Using [[The Dream of the Rood]] as a "common translation" is a [[strawman argument]]. As for Haman, if there really is disagreement, then it should obviously be discussed somewhere in the article (which it is). But that's not a normal problem, and simply listing various premodern translations is hardly going to make your point. As I say, modern, scholarly translations should be used.--[[User:Ermenrich|Ermenrich]] ([[User talk:Ermenrich|talk]]) 20:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::{{u|Ermenrich}} You obviously haven't read either Cook's ''Crucifixion in the Mediterranean World'' or Samuelsson's ''Crucifixion in Antiquity''! I don't know why you mention the ''Dream of the Rood'', I have not brought it up; the only pre-modern translation of Matt. 27:22 I have used is the 10th century Wessex Gospels. The rest are all contemporary, in-print translations. Look harder, and you'll see ... [[User:GPinkerton|GPinkerton]] ([[User talk:GPinkerton|talk]]) 22:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::::{{u|Ermenrich}}, the fundamental point is sound. Various translations are inconsistent, and ''we are not allowed'' to decide which one is right. We should always use secondary sources. Can you imagine that there is a single verse in the Bible that has not been analysed by at least a hundred scholarly secondary sources? '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' ([[user talk:JzG|help!]]) 22:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::::{{U|JzG}}, by that standard we wouldn't be allowed to summarize any work that has been translated into English based on the work itself if there were more than one translation. But I guess that is actually what you think about plot summaries in general, so props for consistency I guess. My own contention is that issues in translation are generally so small that they aren't likely to cause problems. If they do, then the issue be discussed elsewhere and then it isn't really a problem again.--[[User:Ermenrich|Ermenrich]] ([[User talk:Ermenrich|talk]]) 23:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::::::{{u|Ermenrich}} Now ''that'' is a strawman argument! This isn't about "any work that has been translated into English". It's about scripture, which according in each case to a vociferous minority, is not fiction and needs to be treated differently. [[User:GPinkerton|GPinkerton]] ([[User talk:GPinkerton|talk]]) 23:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::::::I seem to recall that Wikipedia is a secular encyclopedia, cf. for instance [[WP:RNPOV]]. There's no reason for us to treat the Bible differently than any other source. If you can make an argument about Bible translations, it should be applicable to any translation used.--[[User:Ermenrich|Ermenrich]] ([[User talk:Ermenrich|talk]]) 23:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::{{u|Ermenrich}} {{tq|I seem to recall that Wikipedia is a secular encyclopedia}} is exactly the reason [[WP:RSPSCRIPTURE]] exists. The majority of scripture is considered fiction by the majority of people and can therefore never be a reliable source, even for its own content. There is ample reason to treat the Bible exactly the same as other scripture. [[User:GPinkerton|GPinkerton]] ([[User talk:GPinkerton|talk]]) 23:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::Not according to [[MOS:PLOT]]. Applying it differently to narrative religious texts is a blatant double standard.—[[User:Ermenrich|Ermenrich]] ([[User talk:Ermenrich|talk]]) 12:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

*I think that the Bible ought to be a sufficient source for its own plot. Where there is dispute over wording or differences between versions this can be noted with reference to secondary literature.—[[User:Ermenrich|Ermenrich]] ([[User talk:Ermenrich|talk]]) —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 22:55, 26 May 2020
::{{u|Ermenrich}} It should be obvious by this stage that the Bible's whole "plot" is fundamentally contentious, ambiguous, and very far from agreed-upon, to say nothing of the wording, the entirety of which is constantly in dispute, or even the text itself, which varies enormously in length, arrangement, and subdivisions depending on who you ask or who happens to be editing Wikipedia. [[User:GPinkerton|GPinkerton]] ([[User talk:GPinkerton|talk]]) 22:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
*I think that the status quo wording is preferable, not just due to the issues of translation but also because these issues are compounded by differences in interpretation by different religious groups (not to mention the blurry line between pure plot elements and rules/theological principles that are based on the "plot") , as well as the inherent age and obscurity of many of these texts (an example off the top of my head, it's far from trivial to establish what's going on in Genesis 4:23–24 just by looking at the Hebrew Bible itself). That having been said, I don't think that we need to take an axe to existing high-traffic articles that have a PLOTSOURCE approach; IMO having the status quo and enforcing it leniently will make for less of a headache than loosening the classification and opening the door for editors to start arguing that their interpretations of the text need to be included. signed, [[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] [[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']] 01:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
*:Either way, there's nothing wrong with improving The Exodus plot with secondary sources, PLOTSOURCE encourages that. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 07:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Remember that though RSPSCRIPTURE started as BIBLE (I think), it's not just about the Bible. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 07:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

*I agree that nothing should change about policy. All summarizing is necessarily interpretative, and there is no benefit to Wikipedia editors adding to the huge volume of existing exegesis. Wikipedia is not a Sunday school, a madrassa, or rabbinical conference. There is plenty of secondary and tertiary material to cite, and nothing will be gained from resorting to original research on the content of ancient texts. Absolutely nothing should be referenced to scripture alone! [[User:GPinkerton|GPinkerton]] ([[User talk:GPinkerton|talk]]) 12:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
*:Nobody is discussing changing a policy. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 12:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
::: To the contrary, see below, that I propose to change this ''guideline'' (not policy) a bit. You yourself proposed an small addition above. [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser|talk]]) 12:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
::::''Explanatory supplement'' to a guideline, even more not-policy ;-) [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 13:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
:: {{U|Rosguill}} I personally think that it is better to use more lenient wording, because in case of disputes or inconsistencies, secondary sources are anyways going to be necessary to resolve those disputes or inconsistencies. Keeping the more stringent approach in the guideline gives rise to the very real possibility of editors who wil insist on a stringent approach and start removing large pieces of material from the project. We can't count on editors to use a lenient approach, and I've seen policy/guidelines fanatics just too many times in my over 10 years here.
:: All that is needed is to remove the words "or summarizes" from the guideline. As I said, the difference between "summarizing" on the one hand and "interpreting" or "analyzing" on the other is huge, even when taking into account that any summary is to a certain degree an interpretation. There is definitely a tension between [[WP:RSPSCRIPTURE]] and [[MOS:PLOTSOURCE]], and this would be the easiest and best way to resolve it. [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser|talk]]) 12:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Why should editors not remove large amounts of material from the project if it doesn't meet policy? What's the value of keeping it? [[User:GPinkerton|GPinkerton]] ([[User talk:GPinkerton|talk]]) 14:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

:[[WP:PRESERVE]]? If you see [[The_Exodus#Biblical_narrative]] as problematic, it's preferable that you fix it instead of remove it, since it's quite probably well-covered in sources. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 16:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
: First of all, because saying the material "doesn't meet policy" is not correct, according to [[MOS:PLOTSOURCE]] (and [[WP:COMMONSENSE]]). Even if it were unsourced, there is no policy or guideline that says we can't have unsourced information. Only unsourced information that is challenged should be removed, and why would anyone challenge such information, which nobody is saying that is not true? In general, information has intrinsic value, and it hurts me to see you write words like "What's the value of keeping it?". [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser|talk]]) 17:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
::{{reply to|Debresser}} Information has absolutely no intrinsic value - what a bizarre thought! I challenge such information, and I remove it per [[WP:UNSOURCED]] and [[WP:EXTRAORDINARY]]. You say: " there is no policy or guideline that says we can't have unsourced information" but that's just not true. All information has to be verifiable. If it's unsourced, it's unverifiable and must be removed, per [[WP:V]].
:::Read [[WP:V]] again, unsourced=/=unverifiable: ''"All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed."'' Then PRESERVE mentions that removal can be a bad idea, compared to other solutions. The policies ''both'' apply, bizarre as it may seem. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 19:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
::{{reply to|Gråbergs Gråa Sång}} I see the existence of the entire article as problematic; the whole article is plot summary of [[Book of Exodus]]. I have proposed merging the two articles, since their subjects are identical . [[User:GPinkerton|GPinkerton]] ([[User talk:GPinkerton|talk]]) 18:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
:::I don't think that'll happen, but we'll see. And [[WP:PRESERVE]] will apply to other articles too, like [[Book of Exodus]], which is similarly sourced in the Summary section. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 19:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
::::{{reply to|Gråbergs Gråa Sång}} [[WP:PRESERVE]] does not trump [[WP:DON'T PRESERVE]], which certainly applies in the instance of the exegetical and duplicated [[The_Exodus#Biblical_narrative]] section. [[User:GPinkerton|GPinkerton]] ([[User talk:GPinkerton|talk]]) 19:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::IMO, [[WP:PRESERVE]] applies to the plotsections in the articles mentioned in this thread, since there are likely to be sources in abundance, and anyone can start using them. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 19:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::{{reply to|Gråbergs Gråa Sång}} The "plot" belongs in its proper article, the [[Book of Exodus]]. There is no call for a plot summary of ''Pride and Prejudice'' anywhere other than in the article ''[[Pride and Prejudice]]''; we don't need it, for instance, at [[Early modern Britain]] or [[British Empire]]. I don't see why the plot of the ''Book of Exodus'' is any different. [[User:GPinkerton|GPinkerton]] ([[User talk:GPinkerton|talk]]) 19:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::And to me it seems natural to describe the tale of the Exodus in [[The Exodus]]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Exodus/Archive_15#Missing?], as long as we have that article. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 19:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::{{reply to|Gråbergs Gråa Sång}} Plot summaries do not deserve their own articles. [[User:GPinkerton|GPinkerton]] ([[User talk:GPinkerton|talk]]) 20:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::{{U|GPinkerton}}, the article [[The Exodus]] covers far more than a "plot summary", it discusses the potential mythical and historical sources of the belief in the Exodus event as well as the development of that belief until the compilation of the Pentateuch, and its cultural significance.--[[User:Ermenrich|Ermenrich]] ([[User talk:Ermenrich|talk]]) 20:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::{{reply to|Ermenrich}} Quite. All topics properly covered under ''[[Book of Exodus]]'' (history of its composition, legacy and behaviour of its adherents, &c.). [[User:GPinkerton|GPinkerton]] ([[User talk:GPinkerton|talk]]) 21:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::I would have said something like what Ermenrich said, if I had been awake. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 06:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::::As stated elsewhere, not at all. The Exodus takes place over four books of the Bible, it isn’t all contained in the book of Exodus.—[[User:Ermenrich|Ermenrich]] ([[User talk:Ermenrich|talk]]) 22:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::::{{reply to|Ermenrich}} As mentioned elsewhere, that is entirely untrue. The Exodus is the departure of the Jews from Egypt, and that happens in ''Exodus''. [[User:GPinkerton|GPinkerton]] ([[User talk:GPinkerton|talk]]) 22:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I think that this above back and forth between Ermenrich and GPinkerton demonstrates the pitfalls of having editors interpret even the plot of religious texts without recourse to secondary sources. signed, [[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] [[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']] 22:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::::::{{U|Rosguill}}, It most certainly does not, it illustrates the pitfalls of an editor not actually looking at the articles they are discussing. See [https://books.google.com/books?id=4DVHJRFW3mYC&pg=PA59&dq=%22The+exodus+saga+in+the+bible%22&hl=en#v=onepage&q=%22The%20exodus%20saga%20in%20the%20bible%22&f=false] {{tq|The Exodus sage in the Bible incorporates events in Egypt after the death of Joseph through the Israelite departure, '''the wilderness wanderings, and the Sinai revelations, up to be not including the conquest of Canaan.''' The account, largely in narrative form, '''spreads over four books of the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible.'''}}--[[User:Ermenrich|Ermenrich]] ([[User talk:Ermenrich|talk]]) 23:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::::::I don't think so Rosguill, this branch of the discussion is very Exodus-specific (my fault, perhaps). [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 06:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Or see more authoritative definitions:
:::::::::::::::{{talk quote block|The Jewish liberation from slavery in Egypt. The story of the Exodus is contained in a series of narratives in the book of Exodus. It became the epitome of God's power to rescue his people.}} - ''The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions'' (2000)
:::::::::::::::{{talk quote block|The biblical traditions concerning the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt are mostly preserved in the second book of the Hebrew scriptures.}} - ''The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt'' (2001)
:::::::::::::::{{talk quote block|The Exodus, the escape of the Hebrews from slavery in Egypt under the leadership of Moses, is the central event of the Hebrew Bible.}} - ''The Oxford Companion to the Bible'' (1993)
:::::::::::::::{{talk quote block|Israel's departure from Egypt.}} - ''Oxford Dictionary of the Bible (2 ed.)'' (2010)
:::::::::::::::You can see plainly that the sources treat the Exodus as the events of ''Exodus''. This illustrates the pitfalls of falling into pits. [[User:GPinkerton|GPinkerton]] ([[User talk:GPinkerton|talk]]) 00:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
::I'm a newcomer to this discussion but I write primarily in the field of religion, which has at times included areas of the Bible, so I have an interest. I support {{u|Gråbergs Gråa Sång}}'s suggestion as both practical and realistic. Comparing different translations demonstrates no substantive shift in meaning in 99% of cases, so that's not a real obstacle. There are some real disagreements, but in most Bible articles, those disagreements are not pertinent to the topic, and when they are, they are worthy of articles all by themselves. Those should be mentioned and linked. "Interpretation" includes application and recommendations--"values attached meaning"--and everyone agrees there is no place for that on WP, but a plot summary does not need to be an interpretation. It can and should be simply a summary. I vote in favor of {{u|Gråbergs Gråa Sång}} suggestion, since it basically just acknowledges the reality that this is already being done with some success. [[User:Jenhawk777|Jenhawk777]] ([[User talk:Jenhawk777|talk]]) 17:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
::: @GPinkerton Now you are just confusing "unverifiable" with "not sourced". The first means that it ''can not'' be verified. The second means that it ''can'' be verified, but a source is not present. Completely different things. [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser|talk]]) 23:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
::::{{reply to|Debresser}} No, the latter means it ''could'' be verified ''if'' there was a source. If there there is not, it is not verifiable. We are not speaking of [[Verificationism]], but verifiability in Wikipedia. Unsourced=unverifiable=completely the same things. [[User:GPinkerton|GPinkerton]] ([[User talk:GPinkerton|talk]]) 02:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
::::: That is precisely my point. Who says there ''is'' no source?? There is first of all a primary source, which is the Bible itself. And there do exist many secondary sources as well for the Biblical narratives, just that we don't need to add them per [[MOS:PLOTSOURCE]]. [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser|talk]]) 07:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::{{reply to|Debresser}} ''Content that interprets or summarizes scriptural passages or narratives should generally be cited to appropriate scholarly sources''. It is not appropriate to use scripture as a primary source for anything, still less itself. [[MOS:PLOTSOURCE]] does not obviate the inability of scripture to be a reliable source of anything, and [[MOS:REALWORLD]] calls for the treatment of such narratives to be independent of the in-universe narrative. I argue [[MOS:PLOTSOURCE]] is designed for Wikipedia articles that deal with actual narrative works; it might be appropriate at ''[[Book of Exodus]]'' to add material cited to ''Exodus'' itself, but it is not appropriate anywhere else. It is not appropriate to use scripture as an unqualified source of information on any article not dealing with the scripture itself. [[User:GPinkerton|GPinkerton]] ([[User talk:GPinkerton|talk]]) 16:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
{{od}}
{{u|GPinkerton}}, I think it's worse than that. PLOTSOURCE is a [[WP:LOCALCONSENSUS]] allowing the cliques of genre fans to engage in what amounts to critical review, using Wikipedia as a publishing venue. It gives carte blanche to film fans to, for example, include intricate trivial plot details and showcase their diligent fandom. I am sure that the intentions are generally pure, but the result is great swathes of content that relies solely on individual Wikipedians' observations of primary material - often visual, not based on text that you can check - and that is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. OK, it's a rather fundamentalist view, but I have seen too many blatantly interpretive "plot summaries" to be at all sanguine about this. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' ([[user talk:JzG|help!]]) 18:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
:I agree, plot summaries are fine for universally acknowledged fiction, but summarizing scripture remains the distinct practice of exegesis, which does not match Wikipedia's aims of reflecting scholarly (and not rabbinical or exegetical) literature. [[User:GPinkerton|GPinkerton]] ([[User talk:GPinkerton|talk]]) 19:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

:What makes PLOTSOURCE a [[WP:LOCALCONSENSUS]]? [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 20:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Personally I do not think plotsource can be used when there is not only more than 3 but more then 100 versions. It seems just a recipe for edit wars over whether or not witches should live or silly text like "according to the NIJV Hop is the greatest, but according to the RNIV its Hope, whilst the ININV says "and hope if the glowiest".[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 12:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. I think this discussion is getting held up in the weeds. On the one hand some editors would like to do away with [[MOS:PLOT]] altogether and are arguing on those grounds. On the other, editors are arguing that different translations of the Bible are different - which is true to an extent. But it's not as though we don't possess original texts of the Bible in languages other than English. A number of the issues that have been raised so far deal with issues that arise from translating from the [[Septuagint]] or [[Vulgate]] rather than the original Hebrew/Aramaic of the Old Testament or Greek of the New Testament. Such bldifferences can easily be mentioned and dealt with. Obviously every text or language has ambiguities, and every translation is different, but this is not generally a problem when, for instance, you're summarizing [[War and Peace]] based on translation. Whether in the [[Book of Exodus]] the Hebrews are said to build "treasure cities" (KJV) "supply cities" (NRSV) or "store cities" ([[Jan Assmann]]) is not really a major issue for summarizing what happens. Nor is the different ways that a verb meaning "to execute" is translated, whether it be "impale" "crucify" or "hang": they all have the result the person in question is to be killed. When something rises to the level of being a major dispute between translations, then of course scholarly sources need to be used to comment. But such cases are extremely rare. I have yet to see a single convincing example of where the "translation problem" makes a major difference for summarizing the plot of a narrative Biblical book.--[[User:Ermenrich|Ermenrich]] ([[User talk:Ermenrich|talk]]) 15:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
:::Except that (unlike a novel) everyones translation is the authoritative version. Nor is it simple a case of "house, home or building". It it witch or poisoner? Nor is the Christian bible exactly a faithful translation of the Hebrew text (and that is the original version of the old testament).[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 15:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
::::Whether a particular group considers "their" translation authoritative is irrelevant. Scholars look at the originals, and Wikipedia summarizes scholarly knowledge. If there's a major difference (poisoner or witch) it can very easily be noted. Most such differences are not large, however, and we should show an obvious preference to modern, scholarly translations over older translations that are 1) less accurate and 2) do not reflect contemporary language and usage.
::::Anyway, I think I've made my position pretty clear. I'm going to bow out of this discussion rather than repeat myself.--[[User:Ermenrich|Ermenrich]] ([[User talk:Ermenrich|talk]]) 15:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
::::: If I read you right, we should identify and resolve the inconsistencies by [[WP:OR|our own analysis]]? I hope I am misunderstanding you there. It is really pretty simple. In all of literature there is no work that has a greater volume of secondary analytical sources. Not even Shakespeare comes close. Using primary sources is unnecessary. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' ([[user talk:JzG|help!]]) 16:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::If by "our own analysis" you mean "we should use a modern translation and note discrepancies between major '''modern''' translations if there are any with recourse to secondary literature," then yes, that's what I'm saying.--[[User:Ermenrich|Ermenrich]] ([[User talk:Ermenrich|talk]]) 16:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Guy's point is excellent, the Bible is the most examines commented on and analysed book in human history. I doubt there is one word that has not been mulled over in countless RS. Why do we need to even use it, what is the text that is being argued over here?[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 16:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
:I believe the discussion was started because [[The Exodus]] currently bases most of its plot summary on the last four biblical books of the Pentateuch themselves.--[[User:Ermenrich|Ermenrich]] ([[User talk:Ermenrich|talk]]) 16:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

:The text of [[WP:RSPSCRIPTURE]], see beginning of thread. And though I only used biblical examples, I didn't foresee the discussion becoming this bible-centric. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 16:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
:So why not use secondary RS instead?[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 16:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
::I can only speak for myself: 1) most secondary sources do not summarize the content of all four books in more than a cursory way. At best they mention specific episodes and analyze them 2) the NRIV Bible was on hand and I naturally assumed it could be used the same way as I could the [[Aeneid]] according to [[MOS:PLOT]].--[[User:Ermenrich|Ermenrich]] ([[User talk:Ermenrich|talk]]) 16:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

::Nothing stops that, certainly not [[MOS:PLOTSOURCE]], and it is welcome where it happens. But it didn't occur for the editors of the plot-sections [[David]], [[Solomon]], [[The Exodus]], [[Book of Exodus]], [[Book of Genesis]], [[Gylfaginning]] etc to do so, I'm guessing because the "better primary than nothing" mindset is out there. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 17:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
:::I seem to recall reading then NIRV makes a number of changes to the Hebrew text.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 17:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
::::Im sure that it does, but these are mostly syntactic as I recall. At any rate, what significant changes does it make to the Exodus narrative beyond details? We’re summarizing, not quoting after all.—[[User:Ermenrich|Ermenrich]] ([[User talk:Ermenrich|talk]]) 17:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::Because the whole reason why a (say) film plot is RS for its plot is because Col. Robert Neville, M.D is a US army doctor Vs mutants led by Anthony Zerbe (in its original form), but you could not use that as a source for the plot of the novel (even though there are many similarities). So we should also use the original (and only the original) of (say) the OT.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 18:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::The idea that some Hebrew text or English translation based on it is somehow more reliable than one based on Greek or Latin is some very special special pleading! Texts considered holy are very often mainly translated and edited by religious minorities (all religions are minorities) and their translations are inherently POV as a result. There is no possibility of neutrality in deriving Wikipedia's NPOV from scripture without the mediation of reliable scholarly sources (i.e. ones not written by the religions themselves centuries ago). Scriptural translations, however new, cannot be neutral or reliable, and that is not their intended purpose. [[User:GPinkerton|GPinkerton]] ([[User talk:GPinkerton|talk]]) 18:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::That is kind of my point, there is not single authoritative version.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 18:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

* I agree with [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]], [[User:Ermenrich|Ermenrich]] and others, a simple summary of the "plot" of a biblical story line can be sourced to a modern translation of the text itself, if anyone wants to add a secondary source they can do so but it should not be a requirement.[[User:Smeat75|Smeat75]] ([[User talk:Smeat75|talk]]) 19:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

* Coming over from WikiProject:CGR, I agee that in principle, the Bible itself is an adequate source for its own contents, '''provided''' that the ''interpretation'' of those contents should be sourced to reliable independent sources. Even though many passages in every book of the Bible have been commented on or disputed, the general narrative itself is usually straightforward. Where disputes arise as to the meaning of an unclear passage, or something that could be translated with two or more plausible meanings, or either literally or metaphorically, then of course additional sources are needed. But simply reporting a straightforward summary of any book should be non-controversial, and the Bible shouldn't differ in that respect from ''Pride and Prejudice'' or ''Winnie-the-Pooh''. Which, I might add, might be good for calming down after disputes like this. Hunny, anyone? [[User:P Aculeius|P Aculeius]] ([[User talk:P Aculeius|talk]]) 21:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
::{{reply to|P Aculeius}} My contention would be that scriptures differ from the examples you mention by their inability to be read without making a symbolic or interpretative judgements. For instance ''[[Numbers 31]]'' might be summarized thus: "Moses orders the genocide of the Midianites, the Eleazar and the Israelites obey and secure their sexual gratification by the concubinage of the remaining Midianite children, and then Moses organizes the division and ritual purification of the Midianites' property among himself and his warlords at Moab." That's what the text says happened. But doubtless this is not how Biblical exegesis frames the matter (i.e., the typical victim-blaming is usually employed in theological commentary). A straightforward summary, but perhaps not an uncontroversial one. [[User:GPinkerton|GPinkerton]] ([[User talk:GPinkerton|talk]]) 22:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
:::"Numbers" 31 is a perfectly good source for the fact that it ''says'' something. What it ''means'', or ''why'' it says it, requires an independent source. But the fact that it ''says'' it doesn't need another source. [[User:P Aculeius|P Aculeius]] ([[User talk:P Aculeius|talk]]) 22:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
:::That is far from a neutral summary of the contents of Numbers 31 [[User:GPinkerton|GPinkerton]]. Using the term "genocide", not in the text, is an interpretation which would certainly require a secondary source as would "secure their sexual gratification by the concubinage of the remaining Midianite children" which is also an interpretation, not what the text says, similarly using the term "warlords".[[User:Smeat75|Smeat75]] ([[User talk:Smeat75|talk]]) 10:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
::::{{reply to|Smeat75}} It is neutral. The words genocide, concubinage, and warlord are not in the text, but we don't summarize narratives by rearranging the original words but describing the events. Using terms like "warlord" summarizes the content of the text's ''"officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle"'', while "genocide" is the term used to describe the deliberate massacre of all the male Midianites, all the adult female Midianites, and the confiscation of their possessions, all of which Numbers 31 says Moses organized using the more wordy rhetoric of ''"Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him"''. Moses orders virgins to be spared ''"But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive"'' adding that they are ''"for yourselves"''. I don't really know how describing this process as genocide and concubinage can be controversial at all! It does, however, demonstrate that without secondary sources summarizing scriptural events will not be to everyone's satisfaction. [[User:GPinkerton|GPinkerton]] ([[User talk:GPinkerton|talk]]) 18:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::No of course we don't use the exact words only in a different order but that is a very slanted summary of Numbers 31. A neutral summary would say something like "ordered them all killed" not genocide and "you can keep the virgin girls for yourselves" rather than "secure their sexual gratification by the concubinage of the remaining Midianite children". Certainly if anyone wanted to use such POV terms they would need to be referenced to a secondary reliable source but a neutral summary does not.[[User:Smeat75|Smeat75]] ([[User talk:Smeat75|talk]]) 19:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::I said that "Numbers" 31 is a satisfactory source for what it ''says'', but I didn't use GPinkerton's wording, which was irrelevant to the point I was making. Obviously it's a questionable description, since it employs anachronistic terms, and seems to be applying modern sensibilities to a description of events that may or may not have happened, thousands of years ago. Naturally any summary needs to be neutrally worded—which is not to say that it can't say anything positive or negative, just that as editors we can't add our own opinions to the way that material is presented by the source. That's what independent sources are for. But it has no bearing on whether the a writing is an adequate source for its own contents. [[User:P Aculeius|P Aculeius]] ([[User talk:P Aculeius|talk]]) 20:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

*Honestly, my recollection of [[MOS:PLOTSOURCE]] is that a huge part of the reason for it is because so many works lack secondary sources on their plots - if we were to remove it we would have very little to say about many works at all. Additionally, the reading and interpretation of the plot of most works (''especially'' ones that have few secondary sources) is generally uncontroversial. Both of these rationales are as wrong as it's possible to be in the case of scripture. [[MOS:PLOTSOURCE]] even says {{tq|Sometimes a work will be summarized by secondary sources, which can be used for sourcing. Otherwise, using brief quotation citations from the primary work can be helpful to source key or complex plot points.}} Obviously that "sometimes" applies here and the "otherwise" does not, which means PLOTSOURCE does not apply to scripture; but if there's confusion, perhaps PLOTSOURCE should be rewritten to more clearly state that if secondary sourcing exists we are required to use it and not primary sourcing. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 14:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
*In my opinion, referencing a Biblical verse generally leaves less room for distortion than referencing a secondary source. While everyone has an agenda, it is much harder to fit an agenda into a word-for-word translation than into a freerunning discussion of the Bible as well as whatever other subjects one wants to discuss. Also, the reader can easily look up a Biblical source themselves, while an academic secondary source is more difficult to verify and its reliability much more difficult to verify. If someone will object that Biblical translations are often by biased religious groups while acceptable secondary sources are by academics, the response is that there also exist Biblical translations by academics. If there is a specific point in the Biblical text that is disputed (like "genocide" in the example above), then that's the moment to bring a secondary source which summarizes the controversy while giving each side its proper weight. [[User:Ar2332|Ar2332]] ([[User talk:Ar2332|talk]]) 19:52, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
:*Absolutely not. That argument would apply to all primary vs. secondary sources; you are essentially arguing that a primary source is always better than a secondary one, which is exactly the opposite of policy. We can argue whether it is acceptable to use primary scriptural sources ''in the absence of a secondary source'', or whether citations to primary sources need to be removed on sight rather than waiting form someone to do the legwork of replacing them; but it is non-negotiable that a (reliable, high-quality) secondary source is absolutely required in any situation where "analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic" text is required,. which is the vast majority of what we do. It is vital that secondary sources will ''always'' completely replace any editors's personal statement or interpretation of a primacy source, and it is policy and that we cannot cite entire sections solely to primary sources (certainly [[WP:NOR]] is a stronger policy than [[MOS:PLOTSOURCE]].) It is easy to say "everyone has an agenda so let's just use the primary source", but what you're ignoring is that when an editor performs [[WP:OR]] using a primary biblical source (something that I would argue is almost inescapable when citing one), we are reflecting their personal agenda as a random anonymous editor; whereas secondary sources have reputations and weight that can be used to evaluate them. Our articles should reflect the writings, interpretations, and focuses of reliable, established scholars of biblical text (or the equivalent in terms of reputation and reliability.) They should not reflect the personal musings, interpretations, focuses, or readings that anonymous editors bring to the primary text. That means that as a matter of policy we should always strive to minimize the extent to which we cite religious texts as primary sources. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 21:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
:::Sorry, but that's a complete misstatement of policy. Primary sources must be used with caution, but they are not inherently unreliable, nor should they ever be removed "on sight". In the case of what a work of literature (not limiting that to fiction, which is what PLOT and PLOTSUMMARY explicitly apply to; while the Bible may not rise to the level of a formal ''history'', and relates many events that are not of a historical nature and not susceptible of proof, it certainly isn't "fiction"—but this is beside the point I'm making here), the work itself is ''necessarily'' the most authoritative source for its ''contents''. Where translations differ in some meaningful respect, or different manuscripts give different versions, then of course additional sources are needed—''additional'', shedding light on what the original text says. In the case of an example cited above, "Numbers" 31, it would be absurd to depend entirely on secondary sources for the ''content'', without citing to the source in which it occurs—particularly as "Numbers" 31 is likely to be the only account of those precise events that secondary sources have to analyze—although of course they may be able to compare what is said with other passages and other events for which additional material is available.
:::It is '''not''' "original research" to report what is ''said'' by a primary source, as long as that account is explicitly attributed to it, reasonably accurate, neutral, and verifiable. If anybody can read "Numbers" 31 and see that it says what it is cited for, then there is no problem. And of course if what it says doesn't match what an editor writes about it, or the wording of the article isn't appropriate, that should be addressed by revising or rewording the article, not by removing the source: secondary sources are just as susceptible to being mischaracterized in an article as primary sources. Note, I am not contending that secondary sources are unimportant. They are essential for the interpretation of the material contained in primary sources. But we do not remove primary sources because the secondary sources for interpreting them are lacking, nor simply because secondary sources have been cited. It isn't always necessary to have primary sources, but there's nothing whatever wrong with using them, provided they're used appropriately for the ''content'' of what they say. [[User:P Aculeius|P Aculeius]] ([[User talk:P Aculeius|talk]]) 00:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
: {{U|GPinkerton}} said above "summarizing scripture remains the distinct practice of exegesis". A statement I completely disagree with. Summarizing is not the same as exegesis. A good summary will try not to interpret at all. It is precisely because of this distinction that I am of the opinion that the words "or summarizes" should be removed from [[WP:RSPSCRIPTURE]]. [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser|talk]]) 09:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
*I agree with Guy that PLOTSOURCE is a bad idea in general, although perhaps unavoidable if there are few sources discussing the plot (although arguably the solution is that marginally notable films and so forth should just be deleted). Without enforcing secondary source requirements it is very easy for editors to do as GPinkerton is demonstrating. For scripture it's especially unjustifiable because there are so many sources discussing it. We should try to use the most reliable sources to avoid cherry-picking the sources that might be pushing a certain agenda with their interpretation. ''[[The Oxford Companion to the Bible]]'' and ''[[The Cambridge Companion to the Bible]]'' seem like good places to start. [[User:Buidhe|b]][[User talk:Buidhe|uidh]][[Special:Contributions/Buidhe|e]] 23:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Coming to this discussion, I have to admit I'm not quite clear what the central point of this dispute actually is. Are we talking about providing a summary of the book of the Bible in the article? I don't see why [[WP:PLOT]] doesn't apply: what any article wants is a concise summary of the written text, with enough detail so a reader can identify which book of the Bible it is, not some paraphrase. (And if the summary is hung up on differences in translation, I suspect that is a warning that the summary is going into too much detail.) Is it about how to use statements from the Bible in other articles? Is there any reason not to treat it as we do any other primary source? We cite it for basic facts (e.g. David was king of Judah & Israel, with chapter & verse), then turn to secondary sources to explicate the text, if it is unclear. If there are significant differences in translations of the passage, & if it matters to the article, IMHO we provide the word in question (from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek) & again turn to secondary sources to explicate the text. Just because the Bible is a religious text shouldn't mean we handle citing it as a source any differently than, say, ''The Iliad'' or Pliny's ''Historia Naturalis''.{{pb}}But these are obvious solutions to this problem; having written this, I feel like I'm lecturing experts in a subject about which I audited a single class. Since there are a number of intelligent editors here I respect, I must be missing what the point of this discussion truly is. -- [[User:Llywrch|llywrch]] ([[User talk:Llywrch|talk]]) 21:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
:I found everything you've said perfectly common sense too, {{U|Llywrch}}, but as currently written [[WP:RSPSCRIPTURE]] states that {{tq|Scriptural texts, like the Bible and the Quran, are primary sources only suitable for attributed, relevant quotes and in compliance with other Wikipedia content policies and guidelines. Content that interprets or summarizes scriptural passages or narratives should generally be cited to appropriate scholarly sources (for example, in the academic field of religious studies) and attributed when appropriate.}} I guess some edits take this to mean that a summary of the content of say [[The Exodus]] from the Bible is in violation of this guideline. I haven't really understood most of the arguments put forth in favor of limiting summaries of biblical narratives in this way, which mostly hinge on (honestly, extremely detail-oriented) differences in different translation and the fact that various groups hold only their translation to be correct. It could indeed be that there's some degree of talking past each other here.--[[User:Ermenrich|Ermenrich]] ([[User talk:Ermenrich|talk]]) 21:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

== RfC Revisiting Hackaday ==
{{anchor|rfc_F84D093}}
{{rfc|sci|media|rfcid=548402A}}
Hackaday is currently listed in the [[WP:SOURCEGUIDE]] as "no consensus" per the [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_281#Hackaday|previous discussion]]. In the previous discussion, the editorial policies was not discussed. These policies are posted on their website at https://hackaday.com/policies/

<blockquote>When you contribute content to Hackaday, you retain ownership of the copyright, and you also grant permission to us to display and distribute it. In addition, you are responsible for the content of that material.
Hackaday has no responsibility for the content of any messages or information posted by readers. We, in our sole discretion, may or may not review, edit, or delete from the service any material which we deem to be illegal, offensive or otherwise inappropriate.
The tenor of the projects we feature on the service regularly use items in ways they were not originally intended (hack) and readers must understand the implications of this. Hackaday makes no guarantees or warranties as to the accuracy or completeness of content or the result of accessing and using information on our site. We shall not be liable to anyone for any damages resulting from information found on the service, even if damages are the result of inaccuracy, error, omission, or any other cause.
The opinions expressed by our editors and contributors are their own and not those of Hackaday.
We reserve the right to unpublish or refuse to unpublish anything for any reason or for no reason whatsoever.</blockquote>

With this new information taken in to account, I'd like to reconvene discussion on use of Hackaday as sources. Essentially, the only editorial oversight seems to be that they only choose to host or not host submitted contents. I argue that this source should be considered unreliable for factual accuracy, fair due weight presentation and notability building purposes just like HuffPost and Forbes contributor articles are treated in [[WP:RSP]]. [[User:Graywalls|Graywalls]] ([[User talk:Graywalls|talk]]) 14:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I am the Editor in Chief of Hackaday. First off, thank you for considering our site as a reliable source. We do indeed have an editorial practice that oversees all articles published. All contributors are paid for their work and have contracts making them part of our writing team. We follow editing practices that ensure every article is edited and fact checked by one of the editors (there is no circumstance under which anyone publishes their own work without an editor reviewing it, including me). You can review the [https://hackaday.com/about/|list of our current contributors and editors] on the about page. We do not accept content from outside of our writing team, and we do not publish sponsored content. The policies page that Graywalls linked to is quite old, having been published in 2014. It doesn't reflect our current system which has been in place since 2015, and needs to be updated. [[User:Szczys|Szczys]] ([[User talk:Szczys|talk]]) 01:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
*If so than all pre-2015 content is likely unusable. [[User:Buidhe|b]][[User talk:Buidhe|uidh]][[Special:Contributions/Buidhe|e]] 23:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
*I hold the position that Hackaday contents should be treated as [[WP:SPS]] and doesn't rise much above [[WP:BLOGS]] with very limited use in factual information (what are the qualifications of the editors?) and unusable for supporting notability of other organizations. The editorial policy explained by the involved staff member here is quite meaningless without the editorial policy clearly being published on the website itself. [[User:Graywalls|Graywalls]] ([[User talk:Graywalls|talk]]) 20:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

===Hackaday RfC===
* Option 1: May be useful for satisfying verifiability, but should not be used for purpose of determining notability.
* Option 2: generally reliable.
* Option 3: It's a blog. Generally unreliable for factual reporting and should be treated as any other [[WP:BLOGS]]
* Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated

====Hackaday RfC response====

* '''RS Depends on context''' - seems fine on actual articles and technical content. Really this needs to note subsections [https://hackaday.com/about/ about], -- the article space is separate from the blog area. Just like cspan or cnn here the webzine section has editorial control and paid writers, a mix of created content and curated collection; the blog section does not. Cheers [[User:Markbassett|Markbassett]] ([[User talk:Markbassett|talk]]) 07:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
* '''Reliable''' regarding the article space. The writers are experts in their fields, they have a technical background and they do not seem to feature articles that are outside the scope of the expertise of the writers. I agree with [[User:Markbassett]]. I also think that Hackaday can be used for establishing notability. [[User:Dwaro|Dwaro]] ([[User talk:Dwaro|talk]]) 10:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

== RfC: Sputnik ==
{{RSN RfC status|1591371060}}
{{rfc|media|pol|prop|rfcid=ED9E04B}}
Which of the following best describes the [[WP:RS|reliability]] of [[Sputnik (news agency)]]? {{duses|Sputniknews.com}} has been cited over 2,000 times on Wikipedia.
*'''Option 1:''' Generally [[WP:RS|reliable]] for factual reporting
*'''Option 2:''' Unclear or additional considerations apply
*'''Option 3:''' Generally [[WP:QUESTIONABLE|unreliable]] for factual reporting
*'''Option 4:''' Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be [[WP:DEPS|deprecated]] as in the [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 220#Daily Mail RfC|2017 RfC]] of the ''[[Daily Mail]]'' [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 15:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

===Responses (Sputnik) ===
* '''Option 4''' - Sputnik is literally RT's even less reliable sibling - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 15:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
* '''Option 4''' Sputnik News is currently described at the RS/P as "There is clear consensus that Sputnik News is generally unreliable. Sputnik is considered a Russian propaganda outlet that engages in bias and disinformation, with some editors considering it less reliable than Breitbart News. Some editors consider Sputnik a reliable source for official Russian government statements and positions." after the result of the RT RfC, I think this is a no brainer. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 15:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Option 4:''' As with RT its not bias, its lies.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 15:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
* '''Option 4''' Pure propaganda, not reliable for Russian official statements given the purely pro-government slant. [[User:GPinkerton|GPinkerton]] ([[User talk:GPinkerton|talk]]) 18:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
* '''Option 4''' Propaganda outlet. ([[User:Hohum|Hohum]] [[User talk:Hohum|@]]) 20:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Option 4''', its RT with less of a veneer of respectability. [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 22:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Option 4''' Exists purely as a propaganda outlet, actively and intentionally publishes false and fabricated information. [[User:AmbivalentUnequivocality|AmbivalentUnequivocality]] ([[User talk:AmbivalentUnequivocality|talk]]) 00:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Option 4'''. Nothing but propaganda. [[User:Bloodofox|:bloodofox:]] ([[User talk:Bloodofox|talk]]) 01:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Option 4'''. Let's formally deprecate and blacklist. This is a clear state-sponsored propaganda outlet with some straight-up ''[[dezinformatsiya]]'' mixed in. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]][[User talk:Neutrality|talk]] 01:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Option 4''', a propaganda arm of the Russian government which fabricates stories to further the interests of the Russian administration, certainly not reliable as a source for factual information. [[User:Tayi Arajakate|'''Tayi Arajakate''']] [[User talk:Tayi Arajakate|'''Talk''']] 02:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Option 3.999''', unreliable for everything, with the exception of statements by the Russian government.--[[User:Bob not snob|Bob not snob]] ([[User talk:Bob not snob|talk]]) 08:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Option 4''' with exception for official Russian govt position. [[User:Buidhe|b]][[User talk:Buidhe|uidh]][[Special:Contributions/Buidhe|e]] 23:42, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
* '''Option 4'''. Canonically unreliable. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' ([[user talk:JzG|help!]]) 10:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
* '''Option 4''': most fact checkers have a piece or two on false reporting published by Sputnik [https://toolbox.google.com/factcheck/explorer/search/sputnik;hl=en;gl=?authuser=1&pageId=none].--[[User:ReyHahn|ReyHahn]] ([[User talk:ReyHahn|talk]]) 15:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

===Discussion (Sputnik) ===
*

== Whitelist for batakindonews.blogspot.com ==

Can an admin/bureaucrat put this site: [https://batakindonews.blogspot.com/ batakindonews.blogspot.com] into some kind of whitelist for websites? This website is controlled by a guy who can't buy real website, but his news is filled with first-hand interview with the corresponding subject.--[[User:Jeromi Mikhael|Jeromi Mikhael]] ([[User talk:Jeromi Mikhael|talk]]) 16:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

:Per [[WP:BLOGS]], very unlikely, and that goes even more if you want to use it in [[WP:BLP]]s. Do you argue that the blogger is an ''"established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.[8]"''? Seems to me that you have to find other sources. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 16:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
::{{ping|Gråbergs Gråa Sång}} Nope. Won't use it for BLPs. Besides, the real difference between a blogspot and a news website is that someone has to pay for it, which kinda states that a reliable sources requires someone investing money in it. There were no assesment that says that this website was written by an expert, but most of it was written by first hand interviews. I think [[WP:NEWSBLOG]] is more proper.--[[User:Jeromi Mikhael|Jeromi Mikhael]] ([[User talk:Jeromi Mikhael|talk]]) 01:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
:::No, the difference between a blogspot and a news website is not "that someone has to pay for it", but rather that news websites have fact checking and editorial oversight, among other things. If you are saying this is a [[WP:NEWSBLOG]], what news organization is it the blog for? Because NEWSBLOG refers exclusively to blogs that are maintained and hosted by actual news organizations, not simply blogs that say they are news. [[User:AmbivalentUnequivocality|AmbivalentUnequivocality]] ([[User talk:AmbivalentUnequivocality|talk]]) 05:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
:::: {{ping|AmbivalentUnequivocality}} Sorry....but the main (and only author) of the blog is a reporter named Leonardo TSS (Leonardo Tolstoy Simajuntak), is a reporter from the [[KabarIndonesia]] online newspaper, based in the Netherlands. Here is the [https://batakindonews.blogspot.com/2015/03/koran-juga-sudah-ada-yang-online-harian.html accreditation certificate]. His blogspot may be an extension of the KabarIndonesia newspaper, but I'm just assuming here.--[[User:Jeromi Mikhael|Jeromi Mikhael]] ([[User talk:Jeromi Mikhael|talk]]) 07:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::: KabarIndonesia is maintained by the Yayasan Peduli Indonesia, and is listed as a ''[[stichting]]'' in the Netherlands [https://www.kabarindonesia.com/penulisreg.php]. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Jeromi Mikhael|Jeromi Mikhael]] ([[User talk:Jeromi Mikhael#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jeromi Mikhael|contribs]]) 07:05, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::: Just thinking here. How does an "interview" could be fact checked? For example, [https://batakindonews.blogspot.com/2016/05/msm-sinaga-militer-pertama-menjadi.html this article] only contains the indirect speech version of the interview. No personal opinion, etc, were added. Sorry if I'm wrong. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Jeromi Mikhael|Jeromi Mikhael]] ([[User talk:Jeromi Mikhael#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jeromi Mikhael|contribs]]) 07:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

== Using for [[Forbes.com]] for [[Kanye West]]'s networth ==

Opinions are needed on the following: [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Using for Forbes.com for Kanye West's networth]]. A permalink for it is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=959622005#Using_for_Forbes.com_for_Kanye_West's_networth here]. [[User:Flyer22 Frozen|Flyer22 Frozen]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Frozen|talk]]) 18:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
:see [[WP:FORBES]]. Staff written articles are fine. CONTRIBUTOR articles are seldom considered reliable and treated similarly to other self published sources. [[User:Graywalls|Graywalls]] ([[User talk:Graywalls|talk]]) 01:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
::[[User:Graywalls|Graywalls]], it would be best to comment on this at the WP:BLP noticeboard, where it's clear that I'm aware of WP:FORBES. My concerns are what I stated there, and that includes [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=959850003&oldid=959837689 my comment] there on an edit you made. As seen there, other have also expressed concerns. This section here was simply meant to be an alert to the centralized discussion; I was employing [[WP:TALKCENT]]. [[User:Flyer22 Frozen|Flyer22 Frozen]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Frozen|talk]]) 22:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

== Criteria for inclusion on the perennial sources list ==

[[Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Adding_notability_to_the_inclusion_criteria|There is currently a discussion]] about adding a notability criteria for inclusion on the perennial sources list, alongside stricter criteria for RfC's. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 23:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

== RfC on wording in [[Wikipedia:Deprecated sources]] ==

There is a [[WP:RFC|request for comment]] on the first sentence of {{slink|Wikipedia:Deprecated sources|Acceptable uses of deprecated sources}}. If you are interested, please participate at {{slink|WT:DEPS|RfC: Acceptable uses of deprecated sources}}. — '''''[[User:Newslinger|Newslinger]]''' [[User talk:Newslinger#top|talk]]'' 13:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

== RfC: Sina.com ==
{{RSN RfC status|1591508880}}
{{rfc|media|pol|rfcid=5B329B3}}

Which of the following describes [[WP:RS|reliability]] the news outlet [[Sina.com]]? [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 05:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

* Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
* Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
* Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
* Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail

[[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 05:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

=== Survey (Sina) ===
*'''Option 3 or 4''', no editorial independence, no reputation for fact checking, and no reputation for reliability. Per "Independent commercial news portals or news sites such as Sina or Tencent do not have the autonomy to produce original news content, and instead can only reprint news articles from state-run news outlets (Esarey and Qiang, 2011; Stockmann, 2011).”[https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/6147/5195] and [https://southerncourier.co.za/afp/62578/china-orders-media-giant-sina-to-improve-censorship]. [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 05:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''None, no assessment required''': Sina doesn’t create original news content and only posts articles from other sources. Therefore the reliability of an article posted on Sina is purely based on its origin news source, with Sina playing no greater role than a search engine. — [[User:MarkH21|MarkH21]][[User talk:MarkH21|talk]] 19:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''None'''. Sina is only a news aggregation website, so no effort should be made. That is all. [[User:Wo.luren|Wo.luren]] ([[User talk:Wo.luren|talk]]) 06:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
*'''None''': News sources of nearly all levels of quality and fact-checking can be found on Sina. The reliability of the sources should be based on the groups they are created by, not just simply the aggregation site that they are being hosted on. For example, something like [http://product.astro.sina.com.cn/?top=1008 "Foresee the Next Ten Years' Luck"] written by Xiamen Astrological Culture is definitely not an [[WP:RS]], while other articles being hosted on the site like [https://finance.sina.com.cn/chanjing/cyxw/2020-06-02/doc-iircuyvi6298248.shtml "Capital 'Fake Marriage' Agency Business Set to Price Dump"], written by Economic View, part of [[China News Service]] are much better sources. [[User:Khu'hamgaba Kitap|'''Kʜᴜ'ʜᴀᴍɢᴀʙᴀ]] [[User talk:Khu'hamgaba Kitap|'''K''''''ɪᴛᴀᴘ''' ''(parlez ici)'']] 15:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
*'''Not applicable''': Per KK, and the [https://southerncourier.co.za/afp/62578/china-orders-media-giant-sina-to-improve-censorship second link] HEJ provides is irrelevant to this "survey". CaradhrasAiguo ([[User talk:CaradhrasAiguo|leave language]]) 19:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

=== Discussion (Sina) ===
Relevant discussions can be found at [[Talk:Fan Bingbing#Sina.com]] and [[Talk:The New York Times controversies#Unreliable sources]]. [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 05:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

*I’m a little confused, shouldn’t the reliability be based on the underlying news source? E.g. a [[Xinhua]] article posted on Sina.com should just reflect the reliability of Xinhua. If that’s what this is about, then there’s no real point of assessing Sina.com separately. The source article is usually clearly marked.{{pb}}Or are we assessing something else? — [[User:MarkH21|MarkH21]][[User talk:MarkH21|talk]] 07:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
**I you happen to run across a link to a reliable source on Sina (or The Daily Mail or Infowars for that matter) you can use that source just as if you found it through Google. Nobody will know your secret. This noticeboard section is only for cases where someone tries to use Sina as a source. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 09:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
***{{ping|Guy Macon}} I agree. Does Sina post any of its own content? I thought it was a news portal. — [[User:MarkH21|MarkH21]][[User talk:MarkH21|talk]] 09:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
**** Its used on dozens of BLP pages where the underlying source (Chinese state media) would be inappropriate, in this case here we have {{Ping|CaradhrasAiguo}} who has asserted that they both publish original news stories and are generally reliable. Sina is used as a source 15 times on Fan Bingbing, the BLP page this discussion started on. [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 16:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
*****{{ping|Horse Eye Jack}} Looking at the Sina sources in [[Fan Bingbing]], they also say which Chinese newspapers the articles were taken from. I don’t think there’s any need to assess Sina itself since all of their content is taken from elsewhere. The reliability of an article posted is based solely on the origin of the article, not on Sina.{{pb}}In other words, this RfC is pointless unless someone gives an example of a Sina-original news article. — [[User:MarkH21|MarkH21]][[User talk:MarkH21|talk]] 19:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
******That is exactly the claim I’m reacting to, {{Ping|CaradhrasAiguo}} says "''[[Sina News]]'' reliability should not be impugned”[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_New_York_Times_controversies&diff=959870541&oldid=959869263] and claims to have refuted the [[First Monday (journal)]] article "I was not citing the reprimands to support the argument for reliability, merely as evidence to bolster the fact they do not 100% "reproduce content from official news organizations”.”[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fan_Bingbing&diff=959880498&oldid=959879669]. It would be helpful if they would come here to explain their argument. [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 19:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
:{{small|I've removed "RfC:" from the section heading, as this discussion was not submitted as a [[WP:RFC|request for comment]] (RfC). If you would like to turn this discussion into an RfC, please follow the instructions at [[WP:RFCST]]. — '''''[[User:Newslinger|Newslinger]]''' [[User talk:Newslinger#top|talk]]'' 09:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)}}
::Sorry this is my first time making one of these, does this work? [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 17:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
:::{{small|Looks good. I've added another RfC category and the [[Template:Rsnr|tracking tag]]. — '''''[[User:Newslinger|Newslinger]]''' [[User talk:Newslinger#top|talk]]'' 00:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)}}

== Using interviews as Population censuses ==

I want to put a {{Better source needed}} template temporary after this source here: [https://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-khan-abdul-gaffar-khan-s-great-granddaughter-seeks-citizenship-for-phastoons-in-india-2584887] my question here is can we use interviews as reliable sources for ethnolinguistic population counts. The interviewee (a famous person) claims that there are 3.2M [[Pashtuns]] in India. While the official government language census speaks of 21.800 Pashto speakers in India here [https://censusindia.gov.in/2011Census/Language-2011/Statement-1.pdf]. But anyways is an interview of a famous (organizational) person in general considered as reliable for population ethnolinguistic counts? [[User:Casperti|Casperti]] ([[User talk:Casperti|talk]]) 22:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

:This is another attempt of User:Casperti to [[WP:FORUMSHOP]] after being opposed [[Talk:Pashtuns#Infobox|here]]; additionally, User:Casperti is misrepresenting the source here. The claim is being made by the president of the [[All India Pakhtoon Jirga-e-Hind]], an organization representing Pashtuns in India. The number of Pashto-speakers does not equal the number of Pashtuns, as Pashtuns in India speak a number of languages. [[User:Anupam|Anupam]][[User talk:Anupam|Talk]] 01:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

::::another attempt?? Instead of making accusations again Could you please give me the explicit evidence for that? Beside [[Talk:Pashtuns#infobox]] you have already the comments of user Mar4d that does not support this source + you have created the wikipage of that organization which shows actually the POV in your case. In any case I am just asking whether it is even allowed. If it is not allowed then I take it back and do not have a problem with it. [[User:Casperti|Casperti]] ([[User talk:Casperti|talk]]) 02:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
:No.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 14:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
*Reliable source only for their opinion, not for facts. Should not be used in infobox and probably not WP:DUE. [[User:Buidhe|b]][[User talk:Buidhe|uidh]][[Special:Contributions/Buidhe|e]] 23:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

== [https://www.counterpointresearch.com/ Counterpoint Research] ==

Would a statistics site like Counterpoint Research be reliable to support stats? I read somewhere that Statista is unreliable, so I want to make sure.

Example URL: https://www.counterpointresearch.com/india-smartphone-share/

[[User:RedBulbBlueBlood9911|RedBulbBlueBlood9911]]|[[User talk:RedBulbBlueBlood9911|'''Talk''']] 07:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

== More nobility fansites ==

Adding to {{section link|Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 295|RfC: Three genealogy sites}}, there are some more sites that appear to be nobility fansites rather than reliable references.

* {{duses|almanachdegotha.org}} - virtually unreadable, no About page that I can find, no evidence of an editorial board.
* {{duses|chivalricorders.org}} - now defunct but archives also show no obvious evidence of reliability.
* {{duses|www.angelfire.com/realm/gotha}} - Angelfire-hosted "Online Gotha", appears to be a one-man project.
* {{duses|jacobite.ca}} - another one-man project, Jacobite fansite run by an enthusiastic amateur but no editorial board and no relevant academic status.
* {{duses|englishmonarchs.co.uk}} (added 22:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)}

There's another one which looks on the face of it to be reliable:
* {{duses|almanach.be}}
It ''looks'' OK, but I am a bit suspicious. Thoughts? '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' ([[user talk:JzG|help!]]) 09:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
* <s>'''Support deprecation''' at least of chivalricorders.org, www.angelfire.com/realm/gotha and duses|jacobite.ca. Not sure about the other two. Almanach de Gotha was the Royalist genealogist handbook in the 19th century, I don't know how reliable its modern revival is.[[User:Smeat75|Smeat75]] ([[User talk:Smeat75|talk]]) 13:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)</s>
:: Indeed it was. And Online Gotha has nothign to do with it. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' ([[user talk:JzG|help!]]) 22:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
: I am sure these have cropped up before and found wanting.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 13:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
: '''Depreciate all''' I agree with Newslinger that these sites (perhaps aside from the Angelfire one due to usage and Almanachdegotha.org as it does appear to officially represent the modern publication, even if in its modern form it isn't all that notable) aren't worth adding to the Perennial Sources List, as they are used only around 100 times. Guy, I don't see why you find reliable about the .be one, there's no indication it is definitely the online verison of the ''[[Almanach de Bruxelles]]'', which I can find essentially no reference to on google outside the initial 1916 NYT story, so I'm not sure that the original publication is even notable. The online version is totally inaccessible without a subscription, hasn't updated the copyright on the website since 2012 and looks exactly like all the other nobility websites, there's no reason to think that it is reliable merely because it charges a subscription and has an unsubstantiated connection. I would say that the original Almanach de Gotha published up through 1944 is reliable, though I have no opinion about the revival from 1998 onwards, though it appears not to be all that popular, as the official twitter account has less than 1,500 followers. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 22:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
:: I had more followers than that on my original Twitter account! Online Gotha is not affiliated with the revived Almanac de Gotha, as far as I can tell. It's a fansite. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' ([[user talk:JzG|help!]]) 22:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
::: I'm not so sure, it says on the website "Welcome... to the Official Website of the Almanach de Saxe Gotha the Online Royal Genealogical Reference Handbook Der Saxe Gotha Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels" And it also claims on its website to be © 1995-2020, 1995 being the same year that the rights were sold. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 23:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
:::: Hang on, {{duses|gotha1763.com}} also claims to be the official website for the book, and has a much sleeker website, yet appears to have nearly the exact same follower account and automated messaging on twitter as the .org site, [https://www.gotha1763.com/societe-des-amis It also claims] to have some kind of relationship with the King of Spain and Prince of Monaco, the Prince of Belgium and the Duke of Somerset? What? [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 23:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
:::::Almanachdegotha.org (Almanach de Saxe Gotha) is run by a, err let me be kind and say a special individual, who claimed to have re-established the Holy Roman Empire. The website trades on the respected name of the Almanach de Gotha and I see it has now added another respected publication, the Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels, to its handle, so it cons people. The genealogies were copied from the Online Gotha, the other texts from Wikipedia, so the genealogies are probably reliable at least.... The website Gotha1763.com is the website for the Almanach de Gotha books, so does not list its genealogies online. - [[User:DWC LR|dwc lr]] ([[User talk:DWC LR|talk]]) 14:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
::::::: {{Ping|DWC LR}}, fair enough for .org, but how do you know Gotha1763.com is legit? Its website is admittedly much better looking, but [https://twitter.com/gotha1763 its official twitter account], looks almost exactly the same as [https://twitter.com/almanachgotha the .org one] and I can't find any proof of its legitimacy. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 17:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
::::::::{{Ping|Hemiauchenia}} I’ve consulted their books, but their website has no use as a source because they don’t list their genealogies online (like some of the websites listed at the top), they are only available in the books which can be brought via their website direct, the publisher or book stores. It looks like .org just copy and pastes the tweets days later, .com always tweets first. The .org person is loopy so I’m not surprised. - [[User:DWC LR|dwc lr]] ([[User talk:DWC LR|talk]]) 07:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
*'''Deprecate all''' per the reasons given by nom.[[User:Smeat75|Smeat75]] ([[User talk:Smeat75|talk]]) 00:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
=== Burke's Peerage ===
*{{duses|burkespeerage.com}}
The [[Burke's Peerage]] website (which appears to be official) is cited over 500 times on Wikipedia, and the Book Volumes appear to be cited several thousand times. Burke's Peerage is obviously a much more notable and storied institution than the self published fansites, so I think it's worthy of its own separate subsection. My questions are: Is the website a reliable source, and does it have a separate reliability to the historical book volumes? [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 01:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
* '''Reliable''' for genealogy, most of the rest is supplied by the subject so I don't have a strong view. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' ([[user talk:JzG|help!]]) 15:58, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

=== Debrett's ===
*{{duses|debretts.com}}
Debretts.com is currently cited over 1,700 times, seemingly also primarily for biographical information, and, of course, for etiquette. Many of the links appear to be dead, several example archives of People of Today from 2012 can be seen [https://web.archive.org/web/20120913161838/http://www.debretts.com/people/biographies/browse/o/23024/Hugh%20Stephen%20Roden+ORDE.aspx here], [https://web.archive.org/web/20120913163624/http://www.debretts.com/people/biographies/browse/m/21529/Patrick+MERCER.aspx here] and [https://archive.is/20150223124824/http://www.debretts.com/people-of-today/profile/23502/Keir-STARMER Keir Starmer]. [[Debrett's]] is obviously a storied institution as well, being the longtime publisher of Debrett's Peerage, which again appears to be cited several thousand times. My main concern is that for the biographical information, particularly the (seemingly defunct as of 2017) "People of Today", it appears to be a [[Who's Who (UK)|Who's Who]] sort of thing where the information is simply solicited from the person without any fact checking, which would make it a self published source (see [https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/home/debretts-people-here-today-gone-tomorrow/137111.article this letter to Architects' Journal]). Debrett's is best known as an authority on etiquette, so I would tentatively consider them reliable in this area. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 01:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
* '''Mixed'''. Peerage is as reliable as you get for the kinds of things it publishes, but last time I looked ''people of today'' is basically pay to play. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' ([[user talk:JzG|help!]]) 16:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
:: The letter to [[Architects' Journal]] suggests that (at least in 2004) the entries for People of Today were solicited by Debrett's, and that the author did not have to pay to be included (but was strongly encouraged to buy the book), which in my eyes makes it at least a better source than [[Marquis Who's Who]] (admittedly an extremely low bar), which does engage in the pay to play behaviour you describe . I would concur that both Burke's and Debrett's Peerages are reliable sources for genealogy. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 17:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

== Request for comment: Carfolio.com ==

As a previous attempt to post a discussion on this page didn't work. I'm opening a request for comment on the reliability of carfolio.com.

This RfC asks:

* Should this [https://www.carfolio.com/ website] be considered a reliable source when sourcing information related to automobiles?

* If the answer to the above question is yes then on what grounds should this website be considered as reliable?

[[User:U1Quattro|U1 quattro]] [[User talk:U1Quattro|''TALK'']] 10:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
:'''Definitely less reliable than the manufacturer websites''' - I would go with the manufacturer websites instead of this website. There is just no editorial policy or anything suggesting that they are more reliable than car manufacturers, which would get sued if they lied about specs. Besides, their licence reads ''© Carfolio.com - all specifications presented on this site, their display and formatting belong to Carfolio.com. Unauthorised republishing prohibited.'' which seems to suggest that they own the data (which I think is not legal). And last but not the least, they seem to think that there are two [[Suzuki]]s and one is an Indian company (which gives an idea about how accurate their info is). [[User:RedBulbBlueBlood9911|RedBulbBlueBlood9911]]|[[User talk:RedBulbBlueBlood9911|'''Talk''']] 11:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
: '''Not Reliable''': I broadly agree with RedBulbBlueBlood9911's assessment of the site.One qualification is they do seem to have some editorial process, as at [https://www.carfolio.com/help/] under the heading "Add information" they state that "no submissions will be accepted without a veryfiable [sic] source". But, as they do not actually cite the sources on each page (as far as I can see), its impossible to determine what is cited and assess the merits of this editorial process. So essentially this makes them a tertiary source that actually obscures the sources they are based on. I would think accepting a source like this as reliable reduces the verifiability of WP, as you are essentially accepting the word of carfolio's unnamed editorial team that some unknown source is actually backing up their site. Also, I'm not a lawyer but their legal stance (in full here [https://www.carfolio.com/legal/]) towards the data on the site seems unenforceable and inconsistent with the idea that their data is fully sourced. [[User:Prova_MO|Prova MO]] [[User talk:Prova_MO|(talk)]] 19:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

== Toki Pona ==

Can anyone weigh in on the reliability of some of the sourcing for this article, [[Toki Pona]]?
* A reddit thread [https://www.reddit.com/r/tokipona/]
* Wikibooks [https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Updated_jan_Pije%27s_lessons/Lesson_8_Negation,_Yes_-_No_Questions]
* A blog [http://tpnimi.blogspot.com/2010/09/parts-of-speech.html]
* A google site [https://sites.google.com/view/sitelenemoji]
* Google play documents [https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.ourdhi.sitelenemoji]

As an uninvolved editor I reverted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toki_Pona&type=revision&diff=958322167&oldid=956573419 an edit] a week or so ago, that was cited to [https://sites.google.com/view/sitelenemoji this google site]. The editor has now reverted and left me [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHeironymous_Rowe&type=revision&diff=960205745&oldid=955680985 this message] at my talk. I'm pretty sure all of the items I listed above fail WP:RELIABLE and/or WP:SECONDARY (and that was just a quick glance at the references for that page, there are undoubtedly more), but I'd appreciate some input. Also, {{ping|Devbali02}} [[User:Heironymous Rowe|'''He''']][[User talk:Heironymous Rowe|'''iro''']] 18:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

:Related: [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1037#Disruptive editing: repeated addition of badly sourced information by Devbali02]] --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 22:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
:In the email message[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHeironymous_Rowe&type=revision&diff=960205745&oldid=955680985] {{userlinks|Devbali02}} claimes "The website in question, https://sites.google.com/view/sitelenemoji, is the official website of sitelen Emoji." The page is referenced at https://github.com/holtzermann17/toki-pona-emoji/issues/3 and references https://www.reddit.com/r/sitelenEmoji and https://www.facebook.com/groups/486127038880577/ so I think we can treat them all as [[WP:PRIMARY]] sources for Sitelen Emoji. The question in my mind is this: is there any [[WP:WEIGHT]] evidence that justifies making any mention of Sitelen Emoji anywhere on Wikipedia?

:Also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Emoji_Set_of_Sitelen_Emoji_as_of_April_2020.jpg

:Finally, this edit[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toki_Pona&diff=prev&oldid=955525508] makes my think we are either dealing with a COI editor or a misleading username. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 23:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
:::I think there is a lot of [[WP:OR]], [[WP:COI]], and [[WP:SELFPROMO]] at that article, on top of the [[WP:PRIMARY]] vs [[WP:SECONDARY]] issue. But I do not know enough about the subject, and do not have time to comb through that article to figure it all out. My list above was literally from a quick glance at a few of the references. It needs a thorough going over though. [[User:Heironymous Rowe|'''He''']][[User talk:Heironymous Rowe|'''iro''']] 23:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

* Response to the claims that this is a COI: I don't have my name mentioned in the most recent edit. It is important to understand here that Sitelen Emoji is not "an organization." It is neither a company, nor a non profit, nothing. It is simply a writing system for toki pona. Yes, I am involved in it, and have made certain tools for it. But as was mentioned in the edit, sitelen emoji is simply a set of emojis chosen by the community. '''I do not own sitelen emoji.''' If you want, another person knowledgeable about sitelen emoji can make this edit. But since your allegations may have resulted from confusion as to what edit you are reversing and what sitelen emoji is. You should look at the text in the edit for what it is. I have also posted this on another user's talk page, where this discussion is ongoing. [[User:Devbali02|Bali]] ([[User talk:Devbali02|talk]]) 10:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
{{od}}
[[User:Devbali02|Bali]], you admit being the same "Dev Bali" who (in your own words) "compiled earlier attempts to create one Sitelen Emoji" and "made an android keyboard that makes using the script like pinyin for Toki Pona". '''You have a clear [[conflict of interest]] (COI) regarding Sitelen Emoji and Toki Pona.'''

Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the '''[[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest|conflict of interest guideline]]''' and [[Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations|FAQ for organizations]] for more information. Plase obey the following rules.ou:

*'''avoid editing or creating''' articles about Sitelen Emoji and Toki Pona;
* '''propose changes''' on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{tl|request edit}} template);
* '''disclose''' your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI]]);
*'''avoid linking''' to your Sitelen Emoji website;
*'''do your best''' to comply with Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Core content policies|content policies]].
--[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 15:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

== Press Releases ==

Can press releases be considered realiable sources?
In the article [[VITAL (machine learning software)|VITAL]] the press releases below are used 9 times as inline references:
[http://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2014/05/13/635881/10081467/en/Deep-Knowledge-Venture-s-Appoints-Intelligent-Investment-Analysis-Software-VITAL-as-Board-Member.html GlobalNewsWire]; [https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20150211006103/en/Deep-Knowledge-Ventures-Insilico-Medicine-Enter-Convertible Businesswire]; [http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-12/brf-dkv121515.php EurekaAlert]; [https://www.thecorporatecounsel.net/nonMember/docs/05_14_AgingAnalytics.pdf The Corporate Counsel]. If NO, can secondary sources based on the same press release be considered reliable? See the links to Busines Insider, Vice, Fortune, Multitudes in the article.
Thank you for your advise.
--[[User:Postconfused|Postconfused]] ([[User talk:Postconfused|talk]]) 13:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
:For attributed claims, yes. And for nothing else.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 13:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

:They're primary sources. If you have long slabs of article sourced only to press releases, they should probably be removed - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 13:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
::To clarify - the problem is usually not an RS one - it's [[WP:UNDUE]], it doesn't connote notability, it's promotional, etc. In harsh sourcing environments, e.g. cryptocurrencies, the press releases and their claims should generally just be removed. In less harsh environments they might be useful; they're definite evidence the company said the things in the press release. But they don't connote notability of the fact, or that it should be included.
::Secondary sources closely based on the press release are considered [[churnalism]], and are functionally not much better than a press release - an article backed only by a wave of churnalism is likely to die at AFD, for not meeting [[WP:NCORP]].
::The article [[VITAL (machine learning software)]] has proper RSes that talk about the thing independently; it might be an idea to cut it more strictly to those. But that's an UNDUE thing, not an RS thing - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 13:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
::::Thank you [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]]. Unfortunately, the article did not die at AfD. No consensus(!?), despite the fact that the [[Columbia Business Law Review]] [https://journals.library.columbia.edu/index.php/CBLR/article/view/5118 Corporate Management in the Age of AI] and [https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/02/17/yuval-noah-harari-gives-the-really-big-picture the New Yorker] clearly stated that such press release was incorrect and exaggerated and "it was a lure for gullible outlets". Now I am going to rewrite the article but I wonder if the press releases and related churnalism can be removed. Once again, thank you for your advise![[User:Postconfused|Postconfused]] ([[User talk:Postconfused|talk]]) 14:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
:Press releases have zero usability for establishing notability. They're useful mostly for expanding and supporting factual claims for which a reliable source has already mentioned. "if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources." from [[WP:SPS]]. Moreover, we don't include anything on the face of earth that's verifiable [[WP:ONUS]] [[User:Graywalls|Graywalls]] ([[User talk:Graywalls|talk]]) 18:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
As someone who largely works on scientific articles, I would say that citing a press release that accompanies a scientific paper is essentially pointless and only the paper itself should generally be cited, as the press release generally adds nothing that isn't in the paper. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 17:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
:Seconded - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 18:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
:: [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] thanks for your comment. Would you consider the following three peer reviewed journals in the [[VITAL_(machine_learning_software)|same article]] reliable? [[Multitudes]], Critical Times (Duke Press) and the Journal of East China University of Political Science and Law (ref, [[VITAL_(machine_learning_software)#cite_note-Lin_2018-13|13]], [[VITAL_(machine_learning_software)#cite_note-Kyrou2015-17|17]], [[VITAL_(machine_learning_software)#cite_note-Colberg2019-18|18]])? They just quote the press releases or the above chournalism. --[[User:Postconfused|Postconfused]] ([[User talk:Postconfused|talk]]) 05:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

== Vector Marketing ==

Looking for opinions: is [https://www.consumeraffairs.com/news03/save.html this article] considered a reliable source for sourcing a lawsuit against Vector Marketing, specifically for the claim below?

<blockquote>In 2003, a recruit who was successful in a lawsuit against Vector for failing to adhere to labor laws in New York, co-founded a group, Students Against Vector Exploitation (SAVE).</blockquote>

The source in question is authored by the group whose co-founder initiated the lawsuit. This seems to fail [[WP:RELIABLE]] and/or [[WP:SECONDARY]].

[http://thebottomline.as.ucsb.edu/2011/04/beware-of-campus-scams This] is the existing source on the page for the lawsuit claim above, which bears no mention of a lawsuit. Because of this, the existing source was replaced with a "citation needed" tag and another editor reverted that edit claiming the source is verifiable. After starting a discussion on the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vector_Marketing talk page], the only source that was found to backup the lawsuit claim is the above article in question. Looking to get additional opinions from other editors.

As a side note, sourcing seems to be an ongoing issue on this page and could use some extra set of eyes. For example the [http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-09/did-i-participate-pyramid-scheme Popsci] source was previously discussed [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_193#Primary_source_being_used_as_a_secondary_source here] and subsequently removed from the page, yet it is currently on the page. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Ayepaolo|Ayepaolo]] ([[User talk:Ayepaolo#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Ayepaolo|contribs]]) 19:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
:{{small|{{bcc|Ayepaolo}}I've removed "RfC:" from the section heading, as this discussion was not submitted as a [[WP:RFC|request for comment]] (RfC). If you would like to turn this discussion into an RfC, please follow the instructions at [[WP:RFCST]], and use a [[WP:RFCBRIEF|brief and neutral statement]] as the first signed comment in the discussion. — '''''[[User:Newslinger|Newslinger]]''' [[User talk:Newslinger#top|talk]]'' 07:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC)}}

== Hong Kong Free Press ==

Could [[Hong Kong Free Press]] had requested for this source [https://hongkongfp.com/] and [https://hongkongfp.com/2020/06/01/breaking-hong-kong-police-ban-annual-tiananmen-vigil-for-first-time-in-30-years-citing-covid-19-measures/] for democracy protests and [[Tiananmen massacre]] vigil ban in Hong Kong, including China. --[[User:TheMuscovian|TheMuscovian]] ([[User talk:TheMuscovian|talk]]) 00:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
:{{ping|TheMuscovian}} Sorry, what is the question? — [[User:MarkH21|MarkH21]][[User talk:MarkH21|talk]] 01:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
::It means it reports and stories about [[Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests]], and some topics about [[COVID-19 pandemic]]. --[[User:TheMuscovian|TheMuscovian]] ([[User talk:TheMuscovian|talk]]) 01:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
:::I still don’t understand. Are you asking whether the Hong Kong Free Press is a reliable source for those topics? — [[User:MarkH21|MarkH21]][[User talk:MarkH21|talk]] 01:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

2020-06-03T10:14:15Z

Dwaro: /* Hackaday RfC response */ add comment

{{short description|Noticeboard for discussing whether particular sources are reliable in context}}
{{Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Header}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 295
|minthreadstoarchivSee = 1
|algo = old(5d)
|archive = Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d
}} __NEWSECTIONLINK__ 

== ''[[Newslaundry]]'' on [[OpIndia]] ==
{{atop|status=generally reliable|result=There is consensus that Newslaundry is generally reliable. Some editors have expressed concerns regarding possible bias in its political narratives and reporting on rival publications; in cases where this could reasonably apply, attribution is recommended, and sufficient.
----
{{pb}}Newslaundry is reliable based on its awards, retractions, transparency and what's known of its editorial procedures/standards, in absence of any compelling case to the contrary. While it would help to have a complete picture of its editorial policies, absence of evidence is not an evidence of absence.
----
For the specific question that was asked, attribution being present, it is acceptable on reliability grounds. On a personal note, this does not amount to a consensus to include; please consider [[WP:DUE]] (and other aspects, if any), which this noticeboard does not, and therefore, did not address. '''[[User:Usedtobecool|Usedtobecool]] [[User talk:Usedtobecool|☎️]]''' 13:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)}}
Is ''[[Newslaundry]]'' ([https://www.newslaundry.com newslaundry.com]) a reliable source for the following content in the [[OpIndia]] article, removed in [[Special:Diff/944447105]]?

{{tq2|A January 2020 report by the media watchdog Newslaundry noted the portal to contain several inflammatory headlines targeting the [[Left-wing politics|leftists]], [[Liberalism|liberals]] and [[Islamophobia|Muslims]].<ref name=":0">{{cite news|url=https://www.newslaundry.com/2020/01/03/fake-news-lies-muslim-bashing-and-ravish-kumar-inside-opindias-harrowing-world|title=Fake news, lies, Muslim bashing, and Ravish Kumar: Inside OpIndia’s harrowing world|last=Kumar|first=Basant|date=3 January 2020|work=Newslaundry|accessdate=3 January 2020|language=en-UK}}</ref> Mainstream media and the political opposition (esp. [[Indian National Congress]]) were oft-criticized; posts published by ''OpIndia'' ''Hindi'' from November 15 to 29 were located to be invariably situated against any criticism of the [[Hindu nationalism|Hindu nationalist]] [[Bharatiya Janata Party]].<ref name=":0" /> On February 12, OpIndia had organised an ideological seminar featuring prominent figures from right wing intelligentsia<ref name=":1">{{Cite news|last=Tiwari|first=Ayush|url=https://www.newslaundry.com/2020/02/16/i-survived-bharat-bodh-and-lived-to-tell-the-tale|title=I braved ‘Bharat Bodh’ and lived to tell the tale : Muslim-baiters, rape-deniers, livelihood-destroyers, apologists of religious violence — the Opindia and My Nation event had’em all.|date=16 February 2020|work=Newslaundry|access-date=17 February 2020|url-status=live}}</ref>; Newslaundry noted the seminar to have spread communally charged conspiracy theories about the [[Kathua rape case]], equate the [[Shaheen Bagh protests]] to formation of mini-Pakistan and engage in other Islamophobic discourse.<ref name=":1" />}}
{{Reflist-talk}}
See related discussion on [[Talk:OpIndia]]. — '''''[[User:Newslinger|Newslinger]]''' [[User talk:Newslinger#top|talk]]'' 15:04, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
:Do they have an editorial policy? I cannot find it.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 15:07, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
{{block indent|em=1.6|{{small|Notified: [[Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics]], [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian politics]], [[Talk:OpIndia]]. — '''''[[User:Newslinger|Newslinger]]''' [[User talk:Newslinger#top|talk]]'' 15:09, 8 March 2020 (UTC)}}}}
*Newslaundry is an unreliable source with a clear bias and no indication of factual reporting. We should not allow Wikipedia becoming a platform to document feuds between the partisan sources in question. [[User:Shashank5988|Shashank5988]] ([[User talk:Shashank5988|talk]]) 19:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
*'''Reliable''': According to [https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/rng-excellence-in-journalism-awards-2015-full-list-of-winners-3733730/ this], they won the [[Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Awards]] for their "investigative reporting".--[[User:SharabSalam|SharʿabSalam▼]] ([[User talk:SharabSalam|talk]]) 20:07, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
*'''Reliable''' According to [https://www.newslaundry.com/about-us their about page] they have won a lot of awards recently on the subject of investigation reporting and their work covering gender and human rights. But I couldn't find an editorial hierarchy. According to their hiring page, it looks like their reporters cover a variety of areas rather than having a "beat" and there isn't information about leadership. But I think the awards count for a lot. [[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]] [[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']] 02:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
*'''Unreliable''' - No information on leadership or editorial policy. As a new media site much like OpIndia, no certification from IFCN regarding fact-checking (which AltNews, cited in the article under criticism, has).[[User:Pectore|Pectore]][[User talk:Pectore|talk]] 06:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
*'''Unreliable''' We have no way of knowing if the editor also writes for it, they appear to have no editorial policy.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 09:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
*They do provide some information at [https://www.newslaundry.com/2014/06/28/our-position-on-newslaundry this webpage]. [[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]] [[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']] 02:08, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

*'''Unreliable''' No published editorial policy. Clear trait of bias as noted by some wiki editors. No redressal mechanism in case of feedback, I tried approaching them with no success. --[[User:Jaydayal|Jaydayal]] ([[User talk:Jaydayal|talk]]) 10:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
*'''Unreliable''' for OpIndia and other Right wing portals atleast. They’re in dirty spat with each others and regularly publish such stories which don’t have much factual accuracies. If we’re going to consider OpIndia (I think we already did) as unreliable then this also falls in same line. — [[User:Brihaspati|Brihaspati ]][[User Talk:Brihaspati|(talk)]] 11:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
*'''Reliable''' and [[WP:GREL|generally reliable]]. ''[[Newslaundry]]'' was awarded the [[Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Awards]] [https://rngfoundation.com/awards/pastawards/2015.html in 2015] for their extensive coverage of a political scandal in which members of parliament (in both the right-wing [[Bharatiya Janata Party]] and the centre-left [[Indian National Congress]]) and other well-known people misappropriated US$15 million of taxpayer money through [[Public sector undertakings in India|public sector undertakings]] for their personal or business interests. This five-part series is archived below:
*# [https://web.archive.org/web/20150906235745/http://www.newslaundry.com/2015/08/26/how-politicians-use-psus-as-cash-vending-machines-an-rti-investigation/ RTI Investigation (part 1): How politicians use PSUs as cash-vending machines]
*# [https://web.archive.org/web/20151001101806/http://www.newslaundry.com/2015/08/28/rti-investigation-part-2-how-vijay-darda-media-baron-and-congress-mp-used-power-ministry-to-forward-his-business-interests/ RTI Investigation (part 2): How Vijay Darda used power ministry to further his business interests]
*# [https://web.archive.org/web/20150910193654/https://www.newslaundry.com/2015/09/01/how-ministers-milk-psus-for-ads-and-sponsorships RTI Investigation (part 3): How ministers milk PSUs for ads and sponsorships]
*# [https://web.archive.org/web/20151103052240/http://www.newslaundry.com/2015/09/16/rti-investigation-part-4-corruption-allegations-surface-against-a-bjp-mp/ RTI Investigation (Part 4): Corruption allegations surface against a BJP MP]
*# [https://web.archive.org/web/20160104172532/https://www.newslaundry.com/2015/12/29/rti-investigation-part-5-psus-are-an-easy-pool-of-money-for-politicians-to-dip-into RTI Investigation (part 5): PSUs are an easy pool of money for politicians to dip into]
{{bi|em=1.6|The extent of the corruption exposed in this report is impressive, and the research involved multiple [[Right to Information Act, 2005|Right to Information]] requests. {{tq|[https://indianexpress.com/article/india/ramnath-goenka-excellence-in-journalism-awards-winners-5524092/ "The Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Awards, the most prestigious annual event in the Indian media calendar, is a recognition of the highest standards of journalism"]}} in India, just as the [[Pulitzer Prize]] is the most renowned form of recognition for American journalism. ''Newslaundry'' also won two [[Red Ink Awards]], [https://www.mumbaipressclub.com/public/index.php/redink2018-winners in 2018] for [https://web.archive.org/web/20181227003115/https://www.newslaundry.com/interactive/cauvery/cauvery-water-dispute-solution.html their coverage] of the [[Kaveri River water dispute]], and [https://www.mumbaipressclub.com/public/index.php/redink2019-winners in 2019] for [https://www.newslaundry.com/2018/08/20/ground-report-sukma-chhattisgarh-naxalites-adivasis-police-encounter their coverage] of a police cover-up of civilian casualties in [[Sukma district|Sukma]]. It's misleading to compare ''Newslaundry'' to [[OpIndia]] just because neither is certified by the [[International Fact-Checking Network]] (IFCN). ''Newslaundry'' is a news site, not a fact-checking site, and the IFCN only certifies fact-checking sites that are {{tq|[https://ifcncodeofprinciples.poynter.org/know-more/what-you-should-know-before-applying "dedicated solely to checking the discourse of politicians or detecting viral hoaxes in social platforms"]}}. Additionally, [https://web.archive.org/web/20190310013235/https://ifcncodeofprinciples.poynter.org/application/public/opindiacom/EED18C9F-C8B2-258A-BB43-7E90FA57C26C OpIndia was explicitly rejected by the IFCN in 2019], while ''Newslaundry'' never applied for certification.Finally, ''Newslaundry'' puts a byline with an author name on each of the pieces they publish. That's better than ''[[The Times of India]]'' {{rspe|The Times of India}}, and it's sufficient for a generally reliable publication. ''Newslaundry'' is like the Indian version of ''[[The Intercept]]'' {{rspe|The Intercept}}, and has even more prestigious awards. — '''''[[User:Newslinger|Newslinger]]''' [[User talk:Newslinger#top|talk]]'' 12:48, 11 March 2020 (UTC)}}
*'''Reliable''' - per Newslinger. In addition, it also doesn't sum up that they would be factually inaccurate while also winning high prestige awards, I've yet to come across an allegation of misreporting against them which even mainstream media agencies face from time to time. Though there may be a degree of editorialisation in their content so care should be taken regarding that. [[User:Tayi Arajakate|'''Tayi Arajakate''']] [[User talk:Tayi Arajakate|'''Talk''']] 14:20, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
*'''Reliable''' has a dedicated staff, uses bylines, has won awards for its journalism, imv [[User:Atlantic306|Atlantic306]] ([[User talk:Atlantic306|talk]]) 16:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
*'''Unreliable''' - No editorial policy available on the website. Concocted click-bait stories based on imagination. Retracted after clarification from the office of President of India. It published fiction instead of fake news. Not trustworthy.
*#[https://www.thetruepicture.org/newslaundry-spreads-fake-news-presidents-puri-visit-creating-caste-animosity/ Newslaundry spreads fake news about president's puri visit] [[User:Shubham2019|Shubham2019]] ([[User talk:Shubham2019|talk]]) 08:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
*#: ''Newslaundry'' was covering an alleged event that was initially covered by ''[https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bhubaneswar/puri-jagannath-temple-body-draws-flak-for-security-breach-of-president/articleshow/64744243.cms The Times of India]'', [https://www.news18.com/news/india/president-kovind-first-lady-harassed-during-jagannath-temple-visit-1791825.html News18], and [https://www.timesnownews.com/india/article/president-ram-nath-kovind-wife-savita-kovind-harassed-misbehaved-with-during-odisha-visit-to-jagannath-temple/246448 Times Now] – other reliable sources. When the press secretary to the President denied the incident, ''Newslaundry'' [https://www.newslaundry.com/2018/07/03/president-ram-nath-kovind-dalit-brahmin-caste-discrimination-jagannath-temple-puri-medias-blind-eye officially retracted the story], demonstrating a strong reputation for error-correction, which is identified in [[WP:NEWSORG]] as a hallmark of a reliable source.As an aside, you're using "[[The True Picture]]" ([https://www.thetruepicture.org thetruepicture.org], formerly thetruepicture.in), a site that was thoroughly discredited as a [[WP:QS|questionable source]] by [https://indianexpress.com/article/india/look-who-is-busting-fake-news-for-13-ministers-site-with-exam-warriors-link-5121254/ a 2018 investigation] from ''[[The Indian Express]]'' and a [https://www.boomlive.in/who-runs-the-website-the-true-picture/ 2018 report] from Boom (a fact checker that is [https://ifcncodeofprinciples.poynter.org/application/public/boom/1AFE35D3-8CF3-4715-094E-CBA320780E63 certified by the IFCN]). ''[[The Quint]]'' has [https://www.thequint.com/news/webqoof/who-runs-the-website-the-true-picture-that-claims-to-bust-fake-news additional coverage] of the exposés. These analyses show that "The True Picture" is closely affiliated with BlueKraft Digital Foundation, a company that {{tq|"has been involved in promoting various government initiatives, including Prime Minister [[Narendra Modi]]’s book ‘Exam Warriors.’"}} From this, it's clear that "The True Picture" is unreliable and has a strong conflict of interest. — '''''[[User:Newslinger|Newslinger]]''' [[User talk:Newslinger#top|talk]]'' 09:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
*#:: This reply is clearly not satisfactory, Newslaundry concocted a casteist angle in the issue. None of the articles cited give a hint of this angle. This was the reason they had to retract their imaginative story while others did not. It was clearly written to promote enimity between the communities and cater to a certain narrative to attack the government.As a side note, this kind of ideological reinforcement is being done by portals like Newslaundry, Altnews,Wire,Quint,Boom,NDTV. All of which are reinforcing each other's position and being cited in a circular manner to counter/manage the narrative or ideological resistance being provided by the portals of contradictory ideology. OpIndia, Republic,Swarajya, TheTruePicture,MediaBias fact check, Fact Hunt all are being campaigned against in wikipedia. The articles which attack the left wing portals are certainly written in Right Wing Portal and vice versa. Yet only one way citations are allowed i.e. against Right Wing Portal. Therefore there is no [[WP:NPOV]].
Either wikipedia has a policy of not allowing different ideological point of views or we seriously need to re-evaluate why all right wing portals are outright dismissed as unreliable/deprecated/questionable and left wing portals are treated as gospels which can't be wrong and don't need to be questioned. [[User:Shubham2019|Shubham2019]] ([[User talk:Shubham2019|talk]]) 16:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
:Bias is not a reason to reject a source. We dismiss sources that can be shown to knowingly and willingly publish falsehoods which they do not retract.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 16:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
: Your argument against ''Newslaundry'' depends solely on criticism from a [[WP:QS|questionable source]] ("The True Picture") against a properly labeled [https://www.newslaundry.com/2018/07/03/president-ram-nath-kovind-dalit-brahmin-caste-discrimination-jagannath-temple-puri-medias-blind-eye {{tq|"opinion"}} piece] from ''Newslaundry''. As the piece from ''Newslaundry'' was retracted before it was [[Help:Archiving a source|archived]], your claims are unverifiable. The fact that ''Newslaundry'' is willing to retract errors is a positive attribute. Compare that to [[OpIndia]], which has yet to retract their coverage of [https://www.boomlive.in/news-outlets-run-fake-letter-claiming-muslim-body-urged-congress-against-supporting-shiv-sena/ a fake letter falsely attributed to a Muslim body president], for example.If the right-wing sites you listed were reliable, they would be recognized with awards and favorable coverage from other reliable sources. But, the [[IFCN]] – a politically neutral organization – [https://web.archive.org/web/20190310013235/https://ifcncodeofprinciples.poynter.org/application/public/opindiacom/EED18C9F-C8B2-258A-BB43-7E90FA57C26C rejected OpIndia in 2018], while it [https://ifcncodeofprinciples.poynter.org/application/public/pravda-media-foundation/D27BB43D-D8FC-F85B-1C25-2AF73DF3A12C certified Alt News in 2019] and [https://ifcncodeofprinciples.poynter.org/application/public/boom/1AFE35D3-8CF3-4715-094E-CBA320780E63 Boom (boomlive.in) in 2019]. ''Newslaundry'' won the [[Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Award]] and two [[Red Ink Awards]], while OpIndia has never won any significant awards. These are some of the reasons ''Newslaundry'', [[Alt News]], and Boom are considered [[WP:RS|reliable]], while OpIndia is not. ''[[Media Bias/Fact Check]]'' {{rspe|Media Bias/Fact Check}} was discussed three times on this noticeboard, and is considered unreliable because it is [[WP:SPS|self-published]], not because it had any discernible overall bias.The [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view policy]] requires us to represent {{tq|"all the significant views that have been published by '''[[WP:RS|reliable sources]]''' on a topic"}} (emphasis added). — '''''[[User:Newslinger|Newslinger]]''' [[User talk:Newslinger#top|talk]]'' 16:59, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

*I wrote to the Newslaundry editorial team and this is what I heard back...I don't think there is any problem sharing the relevant portion of the email message:

::''Thanks for reaching out.''

::''We are currently redesigning our website and we'll have a page explaining our editorial policy on the upgraded site.''

::''Of course, like any credible news organisation, our work goes through a series of editorial filters before it is published. I believe the quality of our work testifies to this. Mr Raman Kirpal, cced in this mail, is our managing editor. He's an award-winning journalist with several decades of experience in the industry and he takes the final call on what appears on Newslaundry.''
:[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]] [[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']] 22:37, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
:: I inspected the source code of older versions of ''Newslaundry''{{'}}s home page, and noticed that ''Newslaundry'' switched its [[content management system]] from a (possibly in-house) platform based on [[AngularJS]] as of [https://web.archive.org/web/20200116232835/https://newslaundry.com/ 16 January 2020] to [[Quintype]] as of [https://web.archive.org/web/20200122171323/https://www.newslaundry.com/ 22 January 2020]. While most of the site has already been migrated to their new platform, there are a few pages that are currently only accessible through archived versions. This includes ''Newslaundry''{{'}}s [https://web.archive.org/web/20200106203816/https://www.newslaundry.com/about About Us page], which includes a list of ''Newslaundry''{{'}}s staff and a list of ''Newslaundry''{{'}}s owners (with percentage ownership specified for each owner). This transparency reflects favorably on ''Newslaundry'', and I expect to see the editorial policy when the site finishes migrating to the Quintype platform. — '''''[[User:Newslinger|Newslinger]]''' [[User talk:Newslinger#top|talk]]'' 01:08, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
*'''Generally reliable''' per Newslinger and others. I'm impressed by the apparent transparency (website transition confusion not withstanding) and their response to Liz. My only comment is that it might be, perhaps, that we should take any news items towards OpIndia (and similar sites) with a grain of salt per the concerns about an apparent on-going spat. [[User:Waggie|Waggie]] ([[User talk:Waggie|talk]]) 02:14, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
*'''Unreliable''' Do they have any Editorial Policy? Half baked stories with facts missing in most of there reporting, completely biased source. [[User:Santoshdts|Santoshdts]] ([[User talk:Santoshdts|talk]]) 10:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
*'''Unreliable''' They don't have a well defined editorial policy. The news reporting is mixed with biased opinions. They generally lampoon and criticises other media sources. There is a clear lack of objectivity. They have also published fake news in the past.[[User:IndianHistoryEnthusiast|IndianHistoryEnthusiast]] ([[User talk:IndianHistoryEnthusiast|talk]]) 21:21, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
*: Do you have a [[WP:RS|reliable source]] to back up the {{!xt|"fake news"}} claim? — '''''[[User:Newslinger|Newslinger]]''' [[User talk:Newslinger#top|talk]]'' 06:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
*:: They published a news story on the President of India, which was denied by the President's office. Newslaundry is not important enough to be covered by other reliable media portals. There are a few sites like these which are engaged in trashing each other online based on ideological differences, they publish hit-pieces on each other at random intervals, their editors and reporters fight on twitter. There's a clear lack of objectivity.[[User:IndianHistoryEnthusiast|IndianHistoryEnthusiast]] ([[User talk:IndianHistoryEnthusiast|talk]]) 08:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
*::: Your comment strikes a [[WP:FALSEBALANCE|false balance]] between ''Newslaundry'' and the near-unanimously condemned [[OpIndia]], and excuses OpIndia's unreliability as "ideological differences". Unlike OpIndia, ''Newslaundry'' corrects or retracts all of its stories that need doing so. — '''''[[User:Newslinger|Newslinger]]''' [[User talk:Newslinger#top|talk]]'' 04:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
*Unarchived from [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 288]] to request closure at [[WP:ANRFC]]. [[User:Cunard|Cunard]] ([[User talk:Cunard|talk]]) 01:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
* '''Generally reliable''' per {{noping|Newslinger}}. Note also that many comments above include uncited allegations. [[User:Daask|Daask]] ([[User talk:Daask|talk]]) 22:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Generally reliable''' per Newslinger. Just because two organisations are in a dispute, does not mean we have to play bothsidesism. [[User:Devonian Wombat|Devonian Wombat]] ([[User talk:Devonian Wombat|talk]]) 04:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
===Published editorial policy===
Per [[WP:NEWSORG]] news organizations do not have to have a published editorial policy. Thus, it looks like many of the above comments are irrelevant. -- [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 13:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
:True they may not publish them, it does not say they do not have to have them. Thus any argument based upon "I have no idea what their editorial policies are" are valid, they may not be strong arguments but they are still valid. Our criteria is "has a reputation for fact checking", whilst no publishing editorial policy is not an indicator they fail this, the lack of one is a good indicator they may not have such a reputation. After all if I have no idea how they decide what to publish I cannot know it is fact checked.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 13:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
* '''Acceptable''' for this, on the face of it: any caveats are addressed by the use of attribution. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' ([[user talk:JzG|help!]]) 16:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
{{abottom}}

== RfC: Burden of proof for disputed ==
{{archive top|No action taken. Based on existing policies and guidelines, there is general agreement that in most cases the [[WP:ONUS]] falls on those seeking to include content. However, as several editors have pointed out the scope of the question posed is unclear, so this RfC does not support any change to any policy or guideline. If the participants would like to discuss specific issues such as [[WP:SPS]] in more detail, then they should hold a discussion focusing on that topic. [[User:King of Hearts|King of ♥]][[User talk:King of Hearts| ♦]][[Special:Contributions/King of Hearts| ♣]][[Special:EmailUser/King of Hearts| ♠]] 13:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)}}
Where a source has been '''appropriately''' tagged '''in good faith''' as disputed, e.g. using {{tl|sps}}, {{tl|dubious}}, {{tl|better}}, on whom does the onus fall? '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' ([[user talk:JzG|help!]]) 12:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
# On those seeking to include the source, to show that it is reliable as used, per [[WP:ONUS]];
# On those seeking to remove the source, to show it is unreliable, per [[WP:PRESERVE]].
=== Opinions (burden of proof)===
* '''1''', because anything else is a POV-pusher's charter. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' ([[user talk:JzG|help!]]) 12:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
* '''1''', since [[WP:PRESERVE]] depends on [[WP:ONUS]]. [[WP:PRESERVE]] states that:
{{bi|em=1.6|{{tq2|Likewise, as long as any of the facts or ideas added to an article [[WP:ONUS|would belong]] in the "finished" article, they should be retained if they meet the three article content retention policies: [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|Neutral point of view]] (which does not mean [[WP:YESPOV|no point of view]]), [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|Verifiability]] and [[Wikipedia:No original research|No original research]].}}
The words {{xt|"would belong"}} link to [[WP:ONUS]], and [[WP:ONUS]] is part of the [[WP:V|verifiability policy]]. [[WP:ONUS]] takes precedence over [[WP:PRESERVE]] regardless of cleanup tags, so the cleanup tags aren't really relevant here. — '''''[[User:Newslinger|Newslinger]]''' [[User talk:Newslinger#top|talk]]'' 13:17, 19 April 2020 (UTC)}}
* '''3.''' Neither, because this is a false dilemma that attempts to misrepresent/strawman the actual issue, as several editors have raised in the discussion section. No one is arguing with JzG about the purported subject of this RfC. [[User:The Drover's Wife|The Drover's Wife]] ([[User talk:The Drover's Wife|talk]]) 13:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
* It depends, as we have had cases of editors in the past that have mass-tagged with these types of labels which have been shown where the tagging is wrong. Where there is consensus that the tag applies, then the onus does fall on those that which to retain the source and/or information to ultimately deal with it, though the process of how that happens depends on numerous factors. So it's not a simply-answered question here. --[[User:Masem|Masem]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 13:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''1''' - this is a rather straightforward application of existing policy, as {{u|Newslinger}} points out. A converse rule also faces the problem of proving a negative. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]][[User talk:Neutrality|talk]] 15:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''1''' - [[WP:BURDEN]] is policy, the countervailing claims aren't. This is straightforward application of fundamental Wikipedia editing policy. Anyone claiming otherwise needs to do the reading - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 21:48, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''1:''' I just took the time to carefully read all of the linked policy/guideline pages (always a good thing to do when one is already pretty sure what they say) and choice 1 is indeed a a rather straightforward application of existing policy. Plus, the person posting it is named "Guy" which I am sure everyone will agree<nowiki>[</nowiki>[[Citation (horse)|Citation]] [[Need, California|Need]][[ed (text editor)|ed]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> is always a big plus. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 03:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''1''' per Newslinger and others, and per [[WP:BURDEN]] and [[WP:DON'T PRESERVE]]. Also, it's better for Wikipedia to not say a thing than to say a false thing, which is why we insist on ''reliable'' sources. [[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']] [[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]] 05:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''1''': [[WP:ONUS]]'s statement that {{tq|The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content}} is a clear unqualified statement.{{pb}}On the other hand, [[WP:PRESERVE]]'s statement is qualified by {{tq|if they meet the three article content retention policies}}, which is predicated on demonstrating that the material indeed completely satisfies [[WP:NPOV]], [[WP:V]], and [[WP:NOR]]. Whether a claim that the material satisfies those policies is assessed, naturally, by consensus. ''Once consensus determines that these are satisfied'', then the content should be preserved. — [[User:MarkH21|MarkH21]][[User talk:MarkH21|talk]] 05:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''1''', unless the source appears in green on the list of perennial sources. If there is already consensus about the source’s reliability then all that editor needs to do is note that consensus (perhaps in the edit summary of a revert) and the onus transfers to the challenger. I’ve seen instances in which the reliability of a source like the NYT or Telegraph is questioned on the talk page and the challenger actually expects to be taken seriously, there is a limit to onus. [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 16:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

*'''Not a valid question as posed''', are we talking about new or long standing content? Is the tag in dispute? I agree with {{U|The Drover's Wife}} that this isn't a valid A/B question and with {{u|Masem}}'s thinking. Certainly if something fails V then it can be removed. However, if a difference citation that passes V is found then we should treat that content the same way we would any other reliably sourced material (sink or swim based on WEIGHT, CONSENSUS etc) and if it was long standing content it should be assumed to have consensus for inclusion. What if the tag is in dispute? If there is no consensus on the validity of the tag then I think we follow the same rules as consensus, that is lack of consensus means keep as is. Else editors could game the system by tagging the sources that support content they don't like as suspect and use that as reason to remove long standing text. So while #1 is the correct answer in many cases it is not the correct answer in all cases. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 17:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

=== Discussion (burden of proof) ===
This is one of two interlinked issues above - they need to be picked apart. This is my attempt to distil the central point {{u|The Drover's Wife}} is making, which seems to me to be a valid question. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' ([[user talk:JzG|help!]]) 12:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
:This is not, in any way, the point I was making. You've got a bad habit of deliberately misrepresenting the explicit points your critics make so you can shoot down your own straw-Wikipedian. As I said below: this is a false dilemma, because sources being tagged as self-published does not mean they're being tagged as "disputed", they're being tagged as self-published, and we have specific guidance as to what to do in those situations in [[WP:SPS]]. If you don't want to follow Wikipedia guidelines regarding self-published sources, you need to propose an RfC to change ''those'' - not to engage in this bizarre attempt at wordplay circumvention where you claim all self-published sources are "disputed", therefore allowing you to ignore existing guidelines. [[User:The Drover's Wife|The Drover's Wife]] ([[User talk:The Drover's Wife|talk]]) 12:51, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

False dilemma? If the problem is serious enough, the whole text being referenced should be removed, not just the source. --[[User:MarioGom|MarioGom]] ([[User talk:MarioGom|talk]]) 12:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

This seems to me to be a false dilemma for a different reason - the addition of a tag to an article does not necessarily imply a substantive dispute about the article's content. Quite a bit of tag-bombing is gratuitous IMO and represents one editor's ideosyncratic opinion rather than an actual dispute. So I would say that content isn't "disputed" unless there is a Talk page discussion underway, in which case BRD, BLPDELETERESTORE and ONUS would be among the competing principles at play. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 12:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

False dilemma, as for the others. A source being tagged as self-published means that it has been tagged as self-published, not that it has been tagged as "disputed" or "unreliable", and so Wikipedia has always provided the guidance in [[WP:SPS]] as to what to do in those situations. JzG evidently disagrees with [[WP:SPS]], so he's been trying to turn this into a burden of proof issue to allow him to sidestep that guidance. He doesn't have to show that it's unreliable, he just has to follow Wikipedia's existing guidelines regarding what self-published sources are appropriate and when even if he doesn't want to. [[User:The Drover's Wife|The Drover's Wife]] ([[User talk:The Drover's Wife|talk]]) 12:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Can we please not rehash this again in a new thread?[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 12:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
:I'm good with closing this [[WP:POINT]] nonsense and sparing the rehash, yes. [[User:The Drover's Wife|The Drover's Wife]] ([[User talk:The Drover's Wife|talk]]) 12:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
::At this point you are involved, and that we not be appropriate.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 12:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
:::I said I was good with closing it, not that I would do it. [[User:The Drover's Wife|The Drover's Wife]] ([[User talk:The Drover's Wife|talk]]) 13:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Don't know the context this arose from (update: what I get for looking at most recent first -- reading through the other discussion now; in any case, it doesn't affect what I write here), but my thoughts are similar to {{u|Newimpartial}}'s here. It's unclear what the implications of this RfC would be. Is a tag considered valid by default? Is the burden on the tagger to present an argument first? Is this about tagging, removal of tags, removal of sources, removal of sourced content, etc.? Why is this based on tagging at all? What difference does that make to a challenged source? Ultimately, [[WP:PRESERVE]] is a good idea to keep in mind, but doesn't trump [[WP:ONUS]]/[[WP:BURDEN]] when material/sources are challenged, but I don't think there's any neat way to frame that in an RfC given the amount of gray area there is. — <samp>[[User:Rhododendrites|Rhododendrites]] [[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</samp> \\ 13:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I think this might be better if rather than this we had a discussion (maybe at village pump) about having a clearer definition of when to use SPS.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 13:58, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
* I am OK with that as well. But there are different kinds of SPS. Blogs, vanity presses and predatory journals are all kinds of SPS. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' ([[user talk:JzG|help!]]) 15:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
::True, but the issue is not "is it an SPS" but "can we uses this SPS". So either the tag "SPS" must mean its a dodgy SPS or it just means its an SPS. What we need is clarity on what the tag is for.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 15:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
:::[[WP:SPS]] and [[WP:ABOUTSELF]] between them cover just about any situation in which I'd think it logical to use an SPS, and both of them are plenty specific - I'm not convinced that we'd be even having this discussion if JzG (and anyone else in that boat) just read the damn policies and acknowledged that they understand that they exist. [[User:The Drover's Wife|The Drover's Wife]] ([[User talk:The Drover's Wife|talk]]) 21:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
::::{{tq|just read the damn policies}} Your assertion that he literally hasn't is frankly bizarre - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 22:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::{{u|David Gerard}}, well, to be fair, they do get edited over time, and not always by people looking to retrospectively make their edits compliant. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' ([[user talk:JzG|help!]]) 22:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
::::::The whole crux of this dispute (at least the portion of it that I'm involved in) involves JzG removing self-published sources that are compliant with [[WP:SPS]] and [[WP:ABOUTSELF]]. It is impossible to resolve it if neither if you will acknowledge that they exist and engage in any way with why you are not following them. There would be no point having this noticeboard at all if everyone responded in every case "I refuse to engage with the existing written consensus guidance on this source or group of source, I argue that it's unreliable anyway and demand that you prove me wrong", which is what the various responses amount to an attempt to do. [[User:The Drover's Wife|The Drover's Wife]] ([[User talk:The Drover's Wife|talk]]) 01:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::::{{u|The Drover's Wife}}, {{tl|citation needed}} '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' ([[user talk:JzG|help!]]) 23:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, no one is saying SPS can never, ever be used. Just that those who want to use it have the burden of demonstrating why it can be and getting consensus for it. Concerns over tag bombing seem irrelevant because the tag is really a side issue - SPS are SPS regardless of tagging. Just because one can tag an SPS instead of removing them does not imply that SPS ''should'' be left in place - material can be tagged as unsourced or OR as well, but the same material can also be removed per [[WP:BURDEN]] and [[WP:NOR]]. Tag vs. removal is optional based on whether you think the content may be reliably sourceable/due and that someone else may find a source. [[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']] [[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]] 06:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
:We already have in/out policies in this area: [[WP:SPS]] and [[WP:ABOUTSELF]], both of which are long-accepted. Refusing to acknowledge that those policies exist and claiming that there's a "burden" of convincing a random editor that they should have to follow said policy is a stance that, if adopted more broadly, would make this entire noticeboard essentially moot: why bother establishing clear guidelines on the usage of sources if they can be ignored on a whim when someone disagrees with them? [[User:The Drover's Wife|The Drover's Wife]] ([[User talk:The Drover's Wife|talk]]) 06:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
:: If a self-published source can be shown to be written by a subject-matter expert, or if the use of the self-published source can be shown to qualify under [[WP:ABOUTSELF]], then [[WP:BURDEN]] is satisfied. — '''''[[User:Newslinger|Newslinger]]''' [[User talk:Newslinger#top|talk]]'' 10:51, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}

== (Infomercial voice) But Wait! There's still more!! (News about ''The Daily Mail'') ==

* [https://boingboing.net/2020/05/01/daily-mail-fakes-own-historica.html Daily Mail fakes own historical front pages] --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]])

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

We need to modify our handling of old pages from ''The Daily Mail'' to say that care must be taken to cite the original historical material and watch out for modern, edited versions. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 15:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
:Christ on a stick, what is wrong with them? This is exactly why some of us do not think the "discouragement" goes far enough.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 15:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

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

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

::I could formulate a rewording ... but idiots try to drive trucks through anything that looks like an exception. So I'd suggest this behaviour is egregious enough to remove the sentence. If people want to argue it case by case they can show they went to a microfilm archive or something, 'cos we literally can't trust the online version or reprints not to make stuff up - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 22:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
:::That would be my take, There are archive versions not held by the Daily Myth. Thus any use if the DM must be independent of the DM.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 22:36, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
::{{yo|XOR'easter}}, in this case BoingBoing seems to be insinuating that the ''Mail'' may have been trying to make themselves look less pro-Nazi, so there is a motive beyond a contempt for journalistic integrity. signed, [[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] [[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']] 23:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
:::To be fair it looks more like a case of "our readers are so shallow they cannot understand anything not couched in modern terms and style". What I do not understand is why bother to make so much effort to create a "Fakesimalie". They could have done a "Yay for us 70 years ago" without "faking" a front page so totally (such as "for King and Empire").[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 09:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
:'''Remove''' wording. This is yet another reason why we cannot trust this source. [[User:Buidhe|b]][[User talk:Buidhe|uidh]][[Special:Contributions/Buidhe|e]] 01:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
:: '''Done'''.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources%2FPerennial_sources&type=revision&diff=955189178&oldid=954862044] --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 12:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
:::I would rather this had been given more time for wider feedback, not that I disagree.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 12:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
::*I am tempted to revert that for 2 main reasons: 1. The inclusion there is the result of two RFC's. The wording is a summary of those RFC outcomes. By changing the wording fundementally in that manner, it no longer reflects the RFC. What that change does is prohibit (at least that is what it will be taken to do) all uses of Daily Mail historical material. It certainly needs a bigger discussion than the brief one here. 2. Its using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The Daily Mail despite its more recent faults has plenty of decent reporting over the decades previous. We cite the original publication, not The Daily Mail's reworked version of it. A more appropriate response would be adding wording to ensure the material cited has been verified from copies of the orignal. We take it on good faith anyway that written sources we dont have access to say what the editor says they do, and any editor using this as an excuse to misrepresent sources would be rumbled pretty quickly. [[User:Only in death|Only in death does duty end]] ([[User talk:Only in death|talk]]) 23:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
:::Personally I would we rather used a nuclear bomb over such blatant crappyness, but I get your point, and said as much myself early on. Yes I would rather you reverted and this was made a formal RFC to overturn the last two.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 09:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
::::See [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources%2FPerennial_sources&type=revision&diff=955351245&oldid=955194814].
::::Looks like I need to start a new Daily Mail RfC in order to make any changes to the Daily mail entry in the perennial sources list. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 09:51, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::See below - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 10:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
:So we are using a situation source (''[[Boing Boing]]'') to determine the RSP entry of the Daily Mail, that seems rather odd. Regards [[User:Spy-cicle| Spy-cicle💥 ]] [[User talk:Spy-cicle#top|''Talk''?]] 11:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
::It would if that were an accurate summary of the above. Fortunately, it isn't - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 12:09, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
::That is an accurate summary of the above and additionally there's no proof. According to [https://www.businessinsider.com/hitler-death-newspapers-2018-4#heres-what-the-new-york-times-looked-like-on-may-2-1945-1 a source as good as boingboing.net] The Times (apparently the May 2 1945 New York Times is meant) said "London newspapers received the announcement of Hitler's death just as the early editions were going to press but the second editions went 'all-out' on the news, with long obituaries of Hitler and biographical sketches of Doenitz ...". Thus the copy with the label "4A.M. Edition" might well greatly differ from what ends up in archives, and layout might greatly differ too if the early-morning audience was more inclined to visuals. The boingboing.net accusation is far more plausible but in the absence of a reliable source, or a copy of a "4A.M. edition" that differs from the picture, it's not established fact. [[User:Peter Gulutzan|Peter Gulutzan]] ([[User talk:Peter Gulutzan|talk]]) 13:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

:The term for it is [[historical negationism]] which has an illustrious history of practitioners. It is [[:wikt:beyond the pale|beyond the pale]] given it is an attempt to rewrite their own history as Nazi sympathizers. -- [[User:GreenC|'''Green''']][[User talk:GreenC|'''C''']] 13:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
===RFC: Remove "reliable historically" sentence from [[WP:RSPDM]] summary===
{{Pin message|}}{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1904479496}}
{{rfc|media|policy|prop|rfcid=FCA01CF}}
The [[WP:RSP]] summary on the Daily Mail includes the sentence "Some editors regard the Daily Mail as reliable historically, so old articles may be used in a historical context". However, the Daily Mail also presents altered versions of its historical content, [[WP:RSN#(Infomercial_voice)_But_Wait!_There's_still_more!!_(News_about_The_Daily_Mail)|as documented above]]. (At the bottom of the altered content was a [https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3064866/Read-history-happened-Extraordinary-Daily-Mail-pages-day-Adolf-Hitler-died-70-years-ago-week.html small single-sentence disclaimer] noting it had been "specially edited and adapted" - which was not noticed by many members of the general public.) This leaves readily available historical versions of Daily Mail content questionable - as well as its untrustworthiness per the 2017 [[WP:DAILYMAIL]] RFC and its 2019 ratification, the site dailymail.co.uk appears not to be trustworthy about the Daily Mail's own past content.

Suggested options:
#'''Remove''' the "reliable historically" sentence from the summary on [[WP:RSP]]
#'''Add a qualifier''': "Note that dailymail.co.uk is not trustworthy as a source of past content that was printed in the Daily Mail."
#'''Do nothing'''
#'''Something else'''

10:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

====Suggested action on [[WP:RSPDM]]====
*'''Remove''' the sentence - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 10:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Remove''' as the material they did publish might be reliable, they are just not reliable for having published it. But if it is reliable someone else would have written about it. Thus (and given the possibly of accidental or deliberate abuse) I have to change to remove, if they cannot be trusted over what they themselves have published they cannot be trusted over anything.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 10:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Remove''' per David Gerard's reasoning below. As a secondary consideration, we should be discoraging use of historical newspaper sources anyway. [[User:Buidhe|b]][[User talk:Buidhe|uidh]][[Special:Contributions/Buidhe|e]] 10:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
* '''Remove''', with the caveat that the ''print'' edition may pass, so a print archive might be acceptable? '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' ([[user talk:JzG|help!]]) 11:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
::So (in essence) remove and add qualifier?[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 11:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
:::I wouldn't even add suggested ways to use the DM, they'll be taken as blanket permissions - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 12:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
:::It doesn't look likely to pass, but an official WP consensus opinion that dailymail.co.uk is not a reliable source for the content of the Daily Mail would certainly be interesting - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 19:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
* '''Remove''' the qualifier, per Slatersteven, and also the notion that these sort of qualifiers confuse the situation. --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron]][[User talk:Jayron32|''32'']] 14:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Add a qualifier''' (though perhaps not needed as obvious). If the dailymail is unreliable, that may extend to their own historical content. But if you pull a dailymail piece off a microfilm archive or online archives not run by the mail ([https://www.historic-newspapers.co.uk/old-newspapers/daily-mail/], [https://www.gale.com/intl/c/daily-mail-historical-archive]) then there shouldn't be any problem in that regard.--[[User:Hippeus|Hippeus]] ([[User talk:Hippeus|talk]]) 14:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
* In my opinion, the best answer is [A] just remove all mention of historical from the Daily mail entry of RSPDM, and [B] have the closing summary of the RfC you are reading now specifically mention that a microfilm archive or online archives not run by The Daily Mail is as good or as bad as the source where you read it. Having this subtlety ''in the RSPDM'' will indeed lead to misuse. Having it in the RfC closing summary will allow any editor to use the historical page (assuming that her local library's microfilm collection or www.historic-newspapers.co.uk are reliable sources for what was printed all of those years ago; if some other source starts faking historical newspaper pages we will deal with that specific source in the usual way). So I !vote '''Remove.''' --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 15:55, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Bad RfC''' I will not say "support" or "oppose" because that might suggest respect for the WP:RSP essay-class page, which I do not have. It is in fact quite easy to see document images for back copies of the Daily Mail via Gale. (I did so for the May 2 1945 front page via my local library site for free, I assume that others have good library sites too.) [[WP:DAILYMAIL]] makes it clear that editors have a right to use such material in some circumstances, regardless what people say in this thread. [[User:Peter Gulutzan|Peter Gulutzan]] ([[User talk:Peter Gulutzan|talk]]) 17:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Remove''' the sentence, and add a statement that historical content on dailymail.co.uk may have been significantly modified from its original version. [[User:XOR'easter|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter|talk]]) 00:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Add a qualifier''' It is possible to trust archives that were archived by trusted sources such as a national library, at the time of publication. Trustworthy archives exist as evidenced by the original BoingBoing post that found the original. -- [[User:GreenC|'''Green''']][[User talk:GreenC|'''C''']] 13:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Something else''' - Clarify, do not make false statements. PRESERVE the indication of where there is good content of Daily Mail. I do not see support given re their current print about history, but if you need precision that the good is historical items not current items about history, it should per [[WP:BATHWATER]] clarify the good is older published work. These might not be readily available elsewhere, as there simply isn’t much historical sources, and if the guide indicates the previously acknowledged good data is bad, then it’s just a case of the guide is giving false information. Cheers [[User:Markbassett|Markbassett]] ([[User talk:Markbassett|talk]]) 19:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
:*There is certainly good content from the Daily Mail... but ''there is no indication'' of which content that is. The OP didn't point out the old content is good, but that it cannot be trusted. They aren't going to put warnings on their stories saying, "This content is okay, the rest is a bit dodgy." It's just not going to happen. This is how these papers compete with each other. They wind up people who otherwise like to believe they ''don't'' want to be ''informed'' about reality, but ''warned'' about reality. They aren't worried about Wikipedia. They are worried about Facebook and Twitter. It feels like they are being thrown out. ''They aren't even here.'' They've little to no interest in what this site represents. They just want to make a splash in the pond, not write an encyclopaedia. ~ [[User:RTG|R]].[[User_Talk:RTG|T]].[[Special:Contributions/RTG|G]] 10:08, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Add the reality''', or what is the point? Anything less is just covering it up more. ~ [[User:RTG|R]].[[User_Talk:RTG|T]].[[Special:Contributions/RTG|G]] 10:08, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Add a qualifier''' that the Daily Mail may change their historical content, making it unreliable. Best practice would be to use another source, or link to a reliable archiving service. [[User:Lawrencekhoo|LK]] ([[User talk:Lawrencekhoo|talk]]) 01:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
* '''Remove''' per nom, or add a qualifier as the second-best option: since they're faking their own historical content, they're not a reliable source even for that. As for the idea of saying that historical content can be cited if one finds and cites the original in a library (and not the current Daily Mail's provably unreliable claims of what the original was)... under what circumstances is a (say) 1951 edition of the ''Daily Mail'' going to be both ''a'' and also ''the only'' reliable source we can find for something, anyway, and under what circumstance is information only reported in one so old edition of them going to be [[WP:DUE]] (or, in the case of an article as a whole, [[WP:NOTABLE]])? I think, if anyone is trying to leave open ''some'' use of the Daily Mail as acceptable, I'd like there to be a concrete example of that being necessary and not just a contrived hypothetical. (Off-topic, discussing using very old documents as sources makes me think of [[Chizerots]], which has three sources, from 1870, 1909, and 2008 respectively, discussing how "the most beautiful" among them is a "type [that] seems more Arabian than Berberic".) [[User:-sche|-sche]] ([[User talk:-sche|talk]]) 15:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Add a qualifier'''. The fact that the Dailymail online cannot be trusted for archives for its past copies does not make their past copies inherently less reliable. You can still find physical copies that can be used for archives. If someone can provide actual evidence of the Daily Mail publishing false stories historically that can be justify the removal of this section. However, that is not the case this situation just makes finding archives of the Daily Mail harder which does not affect reliablity. Regards [[User:Spy-cicle| Spy-cicle💥 ]] [[User talk:Spy-cicle#top|''Talk''?]] 09:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
*'''Remove'''. The Daily Mail has never been a trustworthy publication. There is zero reason to ever source anything to it. Anything notable to include will be sourced elsewhere, and anything that only ever appeared on the Daily Mail is likely fake. No qualifiers; there's absolutely nothing usable about it. [[User:Oknazevad|oknazevad]] ([[User talk:Oknazevad|talk]]) 17:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

====Discussion on [[WP:RSPDM]]====
I think we should just remove the sentence. It's ill-defined and not well supported in the RFCs themselves - when, precisely, was the DM not terrible? By what measure? - and IMO, encrusting a qualifier with further qualifiers is not clear. And qualifiers have historically been used by editors who want to use bad content as an excuse to add otherwise-unusable content - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 10:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
:I was thinking that there are things they are notable for (such as the photo of St Pauls), but then if its notable others would have noted it, we don't need to use the (well this) Daily Myth).[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 10:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
If the result here is "Remove", it would probably also make sense to include an explanation that prevents this from being interpreted as contradicting the original conclusions. Maybe something like, "The original [[WP:DAILYMAIL]] RfC left open the possibility that it {{tq|may have been more reliable historically}}, but a subsequent RfC [link to this discussion] determined..." [[User:Sunrise|''Sunrise'']] ([[User talk:Sunrise|talk]]) 12:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
:certainly - it'll be linked as a third listed RFC, link it from [[WP:DAILYMAIL]] which is the 2017 RFC ... there will be various sensible ways to handle it. The present text has been modified in uncontroversial ways before, e.g. I noted other "dailymail" domains which aren't the DM, and dailymail.com used to be a proper newspaper, the [[Charleston Daily Mail]], which is in fact used as a source in Wikipedia, before the DM bought it from them - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 14:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
:certainly not - that would modify the closed and archived WP:DAILYMAIL RfC even though the subject here (read the topic, read the questions) is not about that, and even if it were it would not be legitimate here. If you want to overturn what the closers concluded in WP:DAILYMAIL your recourse is [[WP:CLOSECHALLENGE]]. [[User:Peter Gulutzan|Peter Gulutzan]] ([[User talk:Peter Gulutzan|talk]]) 14:12, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

:I think [[WP:RSPDM]] in general is not as well written as it could be, and undermines itself in significant ways. In particular, it does not cite its sources or attempt to justify its objections. In order to find those sources we are presumably expected to trawl through a total of 45 separate discussions.

:The Daily Mail is a well-established newspaper with relatively wide circulation. It is well known that it is biased, and it is also well-known to be disliked by precisely the sort of demographic that (one would assume) would edit Wikipedia. Given the zeal with which the DM is removed, it is quite easy for someone not intimately involved in the debate to conclude that the issue is not so much that the DM is unreliable, but that editors who denounce it do so for POV reasons. Particularly when the text being removed is something inherently subjective (e.g. a movie review) or where it is used as an example with explicit attribution (e.g. in a section on press coverage of an event).

:It might therefore be useful to augment [[WP:RSPDM]] and [[WP:DAILYMAIL]] with a new essay, putting the reasons for our attitude to the DM and giving appropriate examples so that editors less familiar with the history can catch up and understand why it is being removed. '''''[[User:Kahastok|Kahastok]]''''' ''[[User Talk:Kahastok|talk]]'' 15:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

::No, that's nonsense. The DM has similar politics to the Times and the Telegraph, but - and this is the key point - those behave rather more like papers of record that aren't given to fabrication.
::The primary objection that Wikipedia-type people have to the DM is that they are ''repeated, habitual liars who make stuff up, and are extensively documented as doing so''. Do you really not understand that that's the problem? - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 22:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

:::I suppose it's probably too much to expect you to actually read what I wrote before writing an abusive response. '''''[[User:Kahastok|Kahastok]]''''' ''[[User Talk:Kahastok|talk]]'' 10:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

* Seems just silly, RSP is lazy and obviously a blanket statement will be sometimes flawed by giving false conclusions. Instead of examining specifics of an item in context per RS, or dealing with Mail had some bits accepted as RS, this just further pursues the false dichotomy of everything published by X is bad in every way or everything published by X is perfect in every way. Silly. The real question should be at what point are we to just ignore the [[WP:RSP]] supplement entry in favor of using the senior guidance [[WP:RS]] and/or get actual specific judgement of [[WP:RSN]] instead ? Cheers [[User:Markbassett|Markbassett]] ([[User talk:Markbassett|talk]]) 19:33, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

===Additional RfC Question: Under what conditions can we trust ''The Daily Mail''? ===
(Background discussion moved from section above. See below for the actual additional RfC question)

Let's talk about the basic error in thinking that led us here. Again and again I see people claiming that they "just know" that:
* The Daily Mail wouldn't lie about a direct quote,
* wouldn't fabricate an interview,
* wouldn't lie about whether the person who's name is on the top of an editorial is the author who actually wrote those words,
* wouldn't lie if that "author" has a sufficiently famous name,
* wouldn't lie if doing so would result in a lawsuit or fine,
* wouldn't lie about material being original and not plagiarized with a few errors thrown in to make better clickbait,
* etc., etc.
Those who "just know" that there are times when the Daily Mail isn't lying expect the rest of us to find, not just multiple examples of The Daily Mail lying. but examples of them lying in every conceivable situation. Last week I had no idea that The Daily Mail might lie about the contents of their own historical pages but I knew from experience that they lie in ''all'' situations. Now I have an example of them lying in this new specific situation. I am getting sick and tired of playing [[Whac-A-Mole]]. At what point do we simply conclude that those who "just know" that The Daily Mail doesn't lie in some situations "know" no such thing and that The Daily Mail will lie about ANYTHING? --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 15:55, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
:You will of course believe that this is precisely a problem I keep hitting in DM removals. "Surely it's reliable for his words!" No, why would you think that, it's the DM - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 17:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Based upon the above, I propose the following:

''' There are no situations where <s>the post-1960</s> ''Daily Mail'' is reliable for anything. See below for claims about itself.'''

* If TDM publishes an interview, that does not establish that the interview happened or even that the person interviewed or the person doing the interviewing actually exists.
* If TDM publishes material under a byline, that does not establish that the person named wrote it, even if the person s famous or a paid TDM contributor. TDM can and will fabricate ''any'' material and publish it under ''any '' byline.
* If TDM publishes material, that does not establish that TDM has the right to publish it or that it was not plagiarized from another publication. All material published by TDM should be treated as a possible copyright violation.
* If TDM plagiarizes material from another publication, that does not establish that TDM did not edit it, introducing false information.
* Regarding using TDM as a source about itself, we can write "On [Date] The Daily Mail wrote X", but we cannot use any internet page controlled by TDM as a source for that claim. TDM cannot be trusted to not silently edit pages it publishes without changing the date or indicating that the page was edited. We should instead cite the Internet Archive Wayback Machine snapshot for that page. For printed pages, we need to cite a source that TDM cannot modify, such as an independent online archive or a library's microfilm collection.
* (added on 19:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)) In particular, the dailymail.co.uk website must never be used as a citation for anything, including claims about the contents of the dailymail.co.uk website or the print version of The Daily Mail. We are not to assume that what we read on any dailymail.co.uk page is the same as what was there yesterday, nor are we to assume that the content will be the same tomorrow, nor are we to assume that there will be any indication that a page was edited. We also are not to assume that users in different locations or using different browsers will see the same content.
* ''Even in situations where we have yet to catch TDM publishing false information, TDM is not to be trusted''.

<s>Note: I picked post-1960 because 1960 was when [[David English (editor)|David English]] started his career at TDM. If anyone has evidence of TDM fabricating material before then, we can change the cutoff date.</s> --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 16:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

=== Additional RfC Question Discussion ===

* '''Support''' as proposer. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 16:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
* '''Support''' As it is becoming clear that they cannot even really be trusted for their own opinions.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 16:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
*The "1960" date - or any other date, or possible or impossible excuse - will absolutely be taken as a green light for open slather on filling Wikipedia with DM cites - I base this claim on the spectacular examples of DM fans trying to find loopholes in the words "generally prohibited", including [[User_talk:David_Gerard#Millennium_(novel_series)|one earlier today]] who claimed that "generally prohibited" didn't mean ''completely'' prohibited, therefore his use was probably good.
:So I would ''not'' support listing a date without strong support for the DM ''ever'' having been good at any previous time - that is, clear positive evidence, rather than a lack of negative evidence.
:Examples of all the things they do would probably be good too.
:I would also explicitly note that the dailymail.co.uk website (by name) literally cannot be trusted as a source for the contents of the Daily Mail, amazing as that sounds - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 17:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
::Point well taken. I just removed the "post-1960" wording. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 19:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
:::I also added a paragraph covering the possibility of TDM serving up different content to different users. There are documented cases of e-commerce sites giving you a high price if you are using an iPhone and a low price if you are using Windows XP, higher for Beverly Hills and lower for Barstow, etc. It would be technically possible for TDM to serve up different content regarding, say, Brexit to UK, US, and EU readers, and really hard for us to detect them doing so. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 20:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
::::See below for what DM advocates are like in practice. I could do with backup here from those who can actually read policy - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 23:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support''' without the post-1960 wording - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 19:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support''' without the post-1960 wording, per above. Let's not waste any more time on this garbage source. [[User:Buidhe|b]][[User talk:Buidhe|uidh]][[Special:Contributions/Buidhe|e]] 20:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
**BTW, if people really want to get rid of DM references - talk on [[WP:RSN]] doesn't have any effect against dedicated DM warriors (and there really are dedicated DM warriors). The refs need to be got rid of, one edit at a time, and their removal defended (using literally our actual policies). [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=0&ns0=1&sort=create_timestamp_desc&search=insource%3A%22dailymail.co.uk%22&advancedSearch-current=%7B%7D This search] is a good start - just start at the top and work down, judging usage and removing or replacing per the RFCs. If a few people even did ten a day, that would help improve Wikipedia greatly - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 20:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - please respect the seniority in guidance of RS and RSN, and a comment section within a RFC is not a valid RFC. What is in RSP is just some editors opinionating and phrasing, not necessarily a summary or strong consensus of views. If it was wrong in this case is just another example of such is imperfect and limited. I have always found the RSP idea simply too dogmatic and plainly a lazy and silly premise that there can be a perfect dichotomy of all-perfect or all-wrong that applies to all content of a publisher for all time. Cheers [[User:Markbassett|Markbassett]] ([[User talk:Markbassett|talk]]) 19:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support''' It's important that we highlight the level of fabrication we're dealing with here, to help good-faith editors understand why the usual exceptions for attributed quotes aren't applicable to DM. –[[User:Dlthewave|dlthewave]] [[User_talk:Dlthewave|☎]] 02:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support''' without 1960 wording. There are zero places where the Daily Mail can be trusted. They're as bad as the National Enquirer. [[User:Oknazevad|oknazevad]] ([[User talk:Oknazevad|talk]]) 17:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

===Is this unique to the DM?===
Do other news sources do this? If so, we probably need to address it at the policy (WP:RS or WP:V) level. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 13:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
:Ish, I seem to recall that mock newspapers are common enough, but something tells me they are rather more obvious about not being genuine. But yes I can see this may need to be more general.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 14:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
::We would have to find a source that [A] Is willing to lie about/fake anything at any time, and [B] has been around for over 100 years. ''Infowars'' will lie about anything but nobody is going to believe a claim that something was published by Infowars in 1917. ''The New York Times'' might say "we published X in 1917" but they haven't shown themselves to be willing to lie about anything and everything. As far as I can tell, there is only one source that fits both [A] and [B]. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 16:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
:::Mmm, the NYT flaws are something RSP supposedly should note, (e.g. they have a thing on for Trump,) and RSP supposedly was/is to capture RSN discussions, not go off and try to evaluate 100 years of publishing where there is no article usage in question. Cheers [[User:Markbassett|Markbassett]] ([[User talk:Markbassett|talk]]) 19:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
:Typically you'll see a scan or image and then the actual original text as text - you won't see [https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3064866/Read-history-happened-Extraordinary-Daily-Mail-pages-day-Adolf-Hitler-died-70-years-ago-week.html the actual thing the DM did], which was to say in the headline:
:{{tq|Read history as it happened: Extraordinary Daily Mail pages from the day Adolf Hitler died 70 years ago this week}}
:and then - as a tiny text box in the bottom right corner of the fourth cover image:
:{{tq|SPECIALLY adapted and edited from the original Daily Mail editions of May 2, 1945 and April 30, 1945}}
:without even the original images. And with the text of the articles changed from the 1945 text.
:If you wanted to claim this is something that other newspapers do, requiring a general solution, I think you'd need to first provide evidence of other papers doing this - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 17:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
::'''No this is totally not unique'''. If you are from the USA, hear this, people ''know'' in the UK and Ireland that the tabloids are sensationalist. Sensationalism '''''is not''''' a dirty word in the newspaper media over here. All national sized newspapers are openly biased in one way or another. The least sensational is the London Times (''not'' the Irish Times, the Irish-only national papers are almost as bad as the British ones). This '''''does not''''' mean they are like the National Enquirer or the Weekly World News. That is not what a tabloid is over here. The newspapers ''are all'' walking the ''sensationalist'' line over here. Like your TV news. Ours is the other way around. Our ''TV'' news is almost impeccable. Newspaper news used to [[Page 3|feature a teenage girl with her boobs out]] every day. Get it. Understand. It's not a secret. Our '''''TV''''' news over here is like your National Geographic. They are impeccable, documentary style, highly esteemed. Our ''newspapers'' are like, boobs out, '''SPLASH SHOCK EVERY SINGLE DAY HEADLINES''', every single day. You can rely on them for daily ''gambling'' news. Newspapers here are the actual authority on that. One of the less popular daily tabloids, the [[Daily Sport]], is ''nothing but'' gambling and boobs. There have been sitcoms about British tabloids since maybe forty years ago. ''They are not ashamed of what they are''. It is simply what they are. ZOMG LET ME ASK YOU AGAIN CAN I HEAR THIS RIGHT???? Yes. Just like that. It has muted over the years, but it is still obvious. They run conflicting stories, they sensationalise, *they are often an important informative part of culture*... not simply nonsense like the Weekly World News, ''always based'' in fact... but that is as far as they can be ''surely'' trusted. If they say a bomb went off, you can be sure one went off... If they say the sky has fallen down, yes, get your umbrella out. Do they receive letters from Elvis on Pluto... '''''no that is not what people are saying about them'''''. Can you trust them to word and check facts as an impeccable source of information? ''No!!'' They are sensationalist. They ''actually try'' to walk the line between being honourable and being in court. They are not ashamed of that. They exhibit personality, bias, seriously... people do not respect them at all... people ''love'' them... You've watched or seen Japanese gameshows, and thought, maybe a lot of the Japanese are actually crazy, right? ''But RTG''... how is newspaper culture supposed to compare to crazy Japanese gameshows??? Well... we can't do Jerry Springer and Oprah like you can... can we. It's like having a different accent. We stress different words. We have different attitudes about different individual things. Overall, it's pretty much the same insofar as it can be. It's like getting to know a different city. It might be north-south. It might be east-west, or it might be none of the above. ~ [[User:RTG|R]].[[User_Talk:RTG|T]].[[Special:Contributions/RTG|G]] 17:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
:::Re "Our TV news over here is like your National Geographic. They are impeccable, documentary style, highly esteemed", see [https://skepticalinquirer.org/2019/09/the-remedies-of-national-geographic/] and [https://skepticalinquirer.org/2019/09/national-geographic-book-is-a-natural-disaster/]. I'm just saying. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 03:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
::::Okay, well you can't win them all, but the non-regional newspaper press defaults to popular sensationalism, not impeccable documentarianism. We rely on these sensationalist journals because they are popular and free on the internet, but they are off the cuff, and that is not what Wikipedia is trying to be. Good grief, did I delete the part where I pointed out that we have "newsagents" instead of "drugstores"? Newspapers are very useful to culture over here to inform people of incidents and events in the world around them, but they exist to sensationalise. ~ [[User:RTG|R]].[[User_Talk:RTG|T]].[[Special:Contributions/RTG|G]] 14:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
:::[[User:RTG]] Agree, at least for recent history. Newspapers in the U.K. were more restrained and respectful before the 1970s. In the United States, for many years mentions have noted that television news switched to being entertainment and sensationalizing, and newspapers reliability and neutrality were in decline in the 1990s as another ‘death of truth’. Newspapers seem to largely be BIASED, going past individual specialties (e.g. Wall Street Journal covers business) into catering to their local market or playing to a subscriber audience. (e.g. NYT runs anti-Trump, Washington Examiner runs pro-Trump). In some ways that makes it easier for WP to find the POVs, but in general it is a WP issue as editors proclaim EVERYthing from NYT is not just RS but also TRUTH and WEIGHT because NYT said so — or proclaim EVERYthing from Mail is FALSE so not RS and large WEIGHT POVs get obliterated. Seems like 80% or so of what U.K. population sees is deemed non-existent right now. Unless it’s BBC or London Times, it just isn’t acknowledged to exist. Cheers [[User:Markbassett|Markbassett]] ([[User talk:Markbassett|talk]]) 20:15, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
::::I'm not sure what there is to be done about that. It seems maybe even dangerous, not to have any biases in media at all, and that is because the people themselves cannot be strictly trusted. The people themselves are no more worried about their information services building an encyclopaedia than the Daily Mail is. I struggle with it. What is the popular meme? Even if you tell the people the best thing to do they won't do it. Jimbo Wales has been trying to start a people-driven news service for years. The current iteration is https://wt.social/ ~ [[User:RTG|R]].[[User_Talk:RTG|T]].[[Special:Contributions/RTG|G]] 11:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
*It is not unique to the DM, but the reason we have these sorts of discussion (as I said way back in the original RFC) is that they have a specific combination of prominence and unreliability that is comparatively rare. We can't individually depreciate or ban every single unreliable source; the purpose of these centralized RFCs is to address a situation where a source that is patiently unreliable in any context where we would want to use it is, nonetheless, being extensively used by some editors who try to insist it is reliable. I don't think we can address that in a sweeping sense at a policy level because whatever category we create or define, a source's defenders will insist it doesn't fall into it. When there's a significant disagreement over the facts as they relate to a specific source, and it's leading to constant issues over whether / where it can be used on Wikipedia, a centralized discussion like this is really the only option. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 15:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

===dailymail.co.uk reversion: eyes wanted===
{{archive top}}
Problem at [[For Your Eyes Only (short story collection)]] - see reversion with dismissive edit summaries, ignoring obvious policy issues, and personal attacks on [[Talk:For Your Eyes Only (short story collection)]]. More eyes needed.

I'll flag more of these in this section as they come up - I assure you, this is an absolutely typical example of the genre: ignore all policy and guidelines, dive straight into the personal attacks - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 22:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
:Stop being a disruptive little edit warrior and stop with the outright lies. If you’d bothered to read the bloody message on the talk page, you’ll see that I said I would replace the source. Stop being such a dramah monger. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 23:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
::Please desist in your personal attacks - these are a violation of the policy [[WP:NPA]]. I believe my claims are fully supported by the material in the history and on the talk page - you reverted against policy and strong consensus, and made personal attacks. You also responded to citation of policy with citation of essays. Have you considered following Wikipedia hard policy, such as [[WP:BURDEN]]? - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 23:22, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
:::No personal attacks, and stop being so disruptive. I have said I will find a replacement in the morning (I first said it about 5 or 6 posts ago, but you've ignored it and kept disruptively pressing your point). Take your little crusade elsewhere until I've had the chance to look properly. It's 12:40am and I'm off to bed, but (for the nth time), I will look again in the morning. In the meantime, reflect that there are ways and means of doing things, and you are not doing things terribly well. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 23:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
:::: www.dailymail.co.uk is not an acceptable source. You say you have a better source? Then use that source. Do not re-insert any citation to The Daily Mail. Also, please don't make obviously false claims like "No personal attacks" when 23 minutes earlier you posted a personal attack ("Stop being a disruptive little edit warrior... Stop being such a dramah monger.") --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 01:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::FFS... You really don't bother reading what people say, do you? "{{tq|You say you have a better source?}}" I've not said that at all. On several occasions I have said that I will look for one,after a night's sleep. If you are looking for the best way to piss people off with your little crusade, you've found it: an inflexible approach of edit warring to instantly remove information that has been in place for several years, without allowing a few hours for that information to,be replaced? Get a fucking sense of perspective. As to the supposed PAs: I have given a fair description of your approach to this situation. Now back the fuck off for a few hours to allow for a search for a new source. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 04:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::Or you know, you get a sense of perspective and re-read [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]]/[[WP:CIVIL]]. Leave the unreliably sourced information out until you have reliable source to back it up. Like everywhere else on Wikipedia. The world will not end if those passages are missing from the article for a few hours. [[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|c]] · [[WP:PHYS|p]] · [[WP:WBOOKS|b]]} 05:09, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::Seconded. SchroCat, I don't even need to leave this thread to see you ignoring policy and being combative and disruptive. Guy Macon clearly read what you wrote, he fucking quoted your personal attacks! If "dramah monger" really does fall under [[WP:SPADE]], then it would be perfectly reasonable for the rest of us to suggest that you're the one ''starting'' the drama as if out of [[WP:HIGHMAINT|some sense of blind entitlement]], and [[WP:TEND|being a hypocrite in expecting others to give you a few hours to bring in a replacement source instead of just letting the page not have that information during that time]]. [[User:Ian.thomson|Ian.thomson]] ([[User talk:Ian.thomson|talk]]) 05:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
* He obviously didn't read it, given what I've said, but if you want to back up a disruptive process by using personal attacks to call me a hypocrite with a "sense of blind entitlement". then I guess the blindness is thick on the ground here and the PAs are fine to throw around. As I said on the talk page, the information has been in the article for several years, and to a '''source that is not banned''' (and yes, Headbomb, the world will also not end if those passages ''remain'' in the article for a few hours while an alternative is sought - particularly as some was removed and some left with a cn tag - no logic there at all. And I'll let you strike your sentence saying the information was "unreliably sourced": it wasn't). I had acknowledged that I was going to look for an alternative source, and yet that still gives someone the right to edit war, rather than a few hours grace to find an alternative? Common sense has been replaced with the crusading zeal way too much. You lot have an apexcellent way of pissing people off by not bothering with common sense and choosing the most inflexible and disruptive path that inconveniences readers. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 05:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
:BTW, I've struck the lie in the title: I am not an advocate for the Mail and never have been. I voted in favour of the ban of the source and I'm glad to see it being removed, but it's the manner and method of that removal that is disruptive. Find a different way to deal with it, rather than edit warring and then calling me a "DM advocate". (That also falls under NPA, but I don't expect anyone will bother with leaving stupidity messages to warn Gerard about civility with name calling). - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 05:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
::Looking at the [[WP:DAILYMAIL|2017 RFC]] and [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_255#2nd_RfC:_The_Daily_Mail|2019 RFC]], I don't see you on either. Did you change usernames? - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 19:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=For_Your_Eyes_Only_(short_story_collection)&diff=955634489&oldid=954323755 This edit] removed a reference to the [[Mail on Sunday]]. Has the ''Daily Mail'' ban been extended to the ''Mail on Sunday''? While they have the same owner they are editorially distinct as far as I am aware. From what I recall of the discussion all the evidence of falsified stories/quotes related exclusively to ''The Daily Mail'' title and its online presence. [[User:Betty Logan|Betty Logan]] ([[User talk:Betty Logan|talk]]) 06:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
::Neither [[WP:DAILYMAIL]] or [[WP:DAILYMAIL2]] covered the Mail on Sunday and there has been no RfC since then that would mean the source is unsuitable. Nice to know the disapprobation of the above (not to say the edit warring and grief) has been over the illicit removal of information cited to a source that is not deprecated. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 07:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC) p.s. I've tweaked the title again to reflect the reality. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 07:09, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
:::[[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]],
:::* Did you make this edit?[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=For_Your_Eyes_Only_%28short_story_collection%29&type=revision&diff=955638089&oldid=955635728]
:::* Did that edit add the source ''www.dailymail.co.uk''?
:::* Did you also add "work=Daily Mail" in that same edit?
:::* Is www.dailymail.co.uk the URL for ''The Daily Mail''?
:::* Did I revert you with this edit?[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=For_Your_Eyes_Only_(short_story_collection)&diff=next&oldid=955638089]
:::* Was my edit summary in any way unclear?
:::* Did you then edit war to re-insert the source ''www.dailymail.co.uk''?[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=For_Your_Eyes_Only_%28short_story_collection%29&type=revision&diff=955673497&oldid=955659484] '''again'''?
:::These are simple questions. You should be able to provide yes or no answers to each of them, but please do feel free to explain, in detail, why your edits actually added (and were reverted for adding) [[The Daily Mail]]] but you are now claiming[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources%2FNoticeboard&type=revision&diff=955692589&oldid=955689966][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources%2FNoticeboard&type=revision&diff=955692758&oldid=955692589]that they only added [[The Mail on Sunday]]? --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 08:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

*Was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=For_Your_Eyes_Only_(short_story_collection)&diff=955634489&oldid=954323755 this] or [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=For_Your_Eyes_Only_(short_story_collection)&diff=next&oldid=955634581 this] removing a banned source? Yes or no? Did this whole annoying mess start with the boundaries of [[WP:DAILYMAIL]] and [[WP:DAILYMAIL2]] being pushed to delete information removed from a legitimate source? Why, when you removed the www.dailymail.co.uk source (rightly), do you feel it suitable to edit war to delete information cited to a legitimate source? These are simple questions. You should be able to provide answers to each of them.
:And again, it comes down not just to the removal of information (some of which was removed illegitimately, some legitimately), but in the crass and inflexible way it was done. As the information has been there for over a decade, was it urgent that it was removed immediately, even after I had said I would look for an alternative after a night's sleep? Again, this is a simple question. You should be able to provide an answer for it. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 09:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
:A less easy to answer question is how many illicit removals have been made of information sourced to the Mail on Sunday? I do hope that a concerted effort is made to replace the information that should not have been removed. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 09:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
::{{ec}} Evasion noted. I will take your refusal to give a straight answer as an admission that in this edit[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=For_Your_Eyes_Only_%28short_story_collection%29&type=revision&diff=955673497&oldid=955659484] you did indeed insert a citation to The Daily Mail. Again, please stop claiming that you only added a citation to The Mail on Sunday.

::Re ''"Why, when you removed the www.dailymail.co.uk source (rightly), do you feel it suitable to edit war to delete information cited to a legitimate source?"'' First '''ONE REVERT IS NOT EDIT WARRING.''' Please retract your false accusation and apologize. Second, I am not required to carefully examine your edits and remove only those portions that violate Wikipedia policy. It is '''your''' responsibility to make edits that follow policy. If someone reverts an edit of yours that contains a policy violation along with other material, It is ''your'' job to create a new edit that only contains non-violating material. Instead you purposely re-inserted the citation to www.dailymail.co.uk -- a citation that you yourself admit is not allowed. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 11:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
:::"One revert is not edit warring": yes it is, despite the shouty caps and bolding, if there has been a back-and-forth a couple of times and you join in, then you were as guilty of edit warring and me and Gerard. So no, no retraction, and certainly no apology. As you seem to be trying to avoid any responsibility for removing information cited to a legitimate source, there is little I can (or wish) to say or do. But you keep telling yourself you are perfect and I am the bad guy, if that's the way you want to go. You were in the wrong for some of these actions. Your evasion on the question of how much legitimate information has been removed is noted. No surprises. I'm off; I'll leave you to have [[The Last Word]] - I'm sure you'll enjoy that. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 11:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

::::And again you misrepresent Wikipedia policy. [[WP:EW]] says "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page '''repeatedly''' override each other's contributions... ''What edit warring is:'' Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold, but while a potentially controversial change may be made to find out whether it is opposed, another editor may revert it. This may be the beginning of a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. '''An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts.'''" (emphasis added). Making false accusations against other editors is a form of personal attack. I think it is becoming clear that your behavior is something that needs to be dealt with at [[WP:ANI]]. Given the previous blocks in your block log for edit warring and personal attacks, an indefinite block is likely. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 12:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::I misrepresent nothing. I was actually blocked for undertaking one revert in an edit war between two others, so feel free to take that case up on my behalf. And if you honestly think that going to ANI is a beneficial step, crack on and do just that. Or is it an empty threat and a way to raise my block log? Don't ping me to this page again, I really have no desire to discuss anyone so willfully obtuse who refuses to acknowledge that they have erred even in the slightest (I have admitted it, by the way: it's just you who are trying to evade any sense of doing anything wrong.) - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 12:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

*'''Follow-up comment''' I think there are two issues that emerge from this discussion:
# It appears that ''Mail on Sunday'' is not proscribed by either RFC, and as such citations to it should not be removed without further discussion.
# There is then the manner in which the sources to ''The Daily Mail'' are being culled. While a consensus exists to remove it as source I cannot honestly say [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=For_Your_Eyes_Only_(short_story_collection)&type=revision&diff=955635728&oldid=955634581 this edit] exemplifies good practice. The problem with ''The Daily Mail'' is that it is untrustworthy, but much of what they report is still accurate. This was acknowledged in the RFC, and one of the arguments advanced by editors in favour of a ban was that an alternative source could be located for credible claims in most cases. Unfortunately this solution is being thwarted by an aggressive culling campaign. This edit removed legitimate encyclopedic information, which is probably to the detriment of the article. In the case of non-controversial claims that are not about living people would it not be better practice to simply remove the source and replace it with a {{tl|citation needed}} tag? While SchroCat technically shouldn't have restored the source I get the sense from him that what he was really doing was restoring the information, and he eventually located alternative sources. Is this not the most desirable outcome?
: [[User:Betty Logan|Betty Logan]] ([[User talk:Betty Logan|talk]]) 19:40, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
::{{u|Betty Logan}}, the Mail is deprecated. That means it's untrustworthy. If something is ''only'' in the mail, we can't use it; if it is in another source as well, use that instead. Don't use the Daily Mail as a source. Or any tabloid, for that matter. The '''print edition''' of the MoS ''may'' be considered reliable case by case. But is still a tabloid so a better source is always preferred.
:: I have two particular problems with the Mail as a source for Wikipedia. The first is how it's used, which is often for trivia, especially salacious trivia (that's their speciality, google "[https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/avn35k/all-grown-up-sexing-up-the-internet-with-the-daily-mail all grown up]"). The second, and related, is the notorious "sidebar of shame". I have a serious problem with linking to any site carrying that kind of bullshit from any Wikipedia article. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' ([[user talk:JzG|help!]]) 10:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
::: So a "quality broadsheet", e.g. ''[[The Times]]'', ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'', etc., which quotes the ''Daily Mail'' as '''it's sole source''' would be acceptable? Thanks. [[User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]] ([[User talk:Martinevans123|talk]]) 10:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
::::{{u|Martinevans123}}, yes. They can be expected to have fact-checked it. But calling the Telegraph a "quality broadsheet" is a bit of a stretch these days. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' ([[user talk:JzG|help!]]) 11:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::How would you describe it? Next on the list to be a banned? [[User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]] ([[User talk:Martinevans123|talk]]) 12:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

:::{{u|JzG|Guy}}, no-one is claiming that the Mail should be retained as a source. Two RfCs (in which I voted to ban its use both times) have confirmed that. What we are talking about is two different things here: 1. Much of this grief started because Gerard edit warred to remove a citation from the hard copy Mail on Sunday. That should not have been removed, and he has still to account for that. 2. The ''process'' when information from the Damily Mail or dailymail.co.uk is flawed. In this case the information has been in the article for over a decade, and yet it was suddenly necessary to delete it immediately without providing an adequate window to find a replacement? No. That's just dumb. It doesn't help our readers and it annoys the crap out of people. I said on the article talk page right at the start that I would find a replacement, but this was ignored, and the edit warring continued. How does that help anyone? As it was, the information was finally left in the article overnight (UK time) until I was able to find a replacement in the morning. I cannot see any benefit in the inflexible, unthinking '''immeditate''' removal-without-the-option approach. The information is still in the article, and all now connected to a reliable source (two sources at one point). The best outcome has been achieved despite the fervour for the inflexible and immediate approach. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 10:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
::::I had always assumed that anyone removing a DM source was supposed to search for an alternative source, or add a <nowiki>{{cn}}</nowiki>, or both. Not just remove both DM and the info itself wholesale in one edit. [[User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]] ([[User talk:Martinevans123|talk]]) 11:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::I do not recall that ever being said, and will make more work as at some point the unsourced material might have to be removed (per [[wP:v]].[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 11:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::As opposed to "make more work" by having to search for the info and a fresh source all over again? Isn't one expected to search for a better source for information sourced to any unreliable source? Isn't that normal procedure? Thanks. [[User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]] ([[User talk:Martinevans123|talk]]) 11:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::Tagging with <nowiki>{{Deprecated source}}</nowiki> would also have had the desired effect of highlighting the problem. If such a tag had been left on there for a day or so, that would also have avoided all the kerfuffle; as it is there has been a ''lot'' more work invoved because someone edit warred to remove a source that is entirely legitimate`. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 11:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::True, but it is a users choice if they wish to remove badly sourced information or tag it. There is no policy that even implies you should add back badly sourced information. We gain nothing with tags all over the pace saying "bad source" "dodgy information" "BorisJophnsonsaidit", we do however (I would argue) lose. Wikipedia has a reputation for unreliability. If our articles are littered with crap even we think is unreliable that image is hardly going to improve.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 11:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::I certainly wasn't suggesting we "add back badly sourced information". Quite the reverse. [[User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]] ([[User talk:Martinevans123|talk]]) 11:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::{{u|Martinevans123}}, no, the onus is on the person including content to find reliable sources. It's an instance of BRD. There have been attempts to claim this by people who fundamentally oppose the entire idea of deprecation, but it's not policy. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' ([[user talk:JzG|help!]]) 11:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::Some of this information was added when the DM was still considered to be [[WP:RS]]? [[User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]] ([[User talk:Martinevans123|talk]]) 11:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::So? If it is now a dodgy source its a dodgy source.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 11:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::So Guy said {{tq|"the onus is on the person including content to find reliable sources".}} I'm just saying that when it was originally added the person may well have been justified in using the DM as a reliable source. A person just removing the source now isn't adding anything. [[User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]] ([[User talk:Martinevans123|talk]]) 12:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::No they are removing something we now know cannot be trusted for information. What Guy said applies just as much to wanting to add information back (or indeed retaining information). This is why the DM was deprecated, because of its massive over use. We now have to clean up that mess.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 12:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::But there is absolutely no need to do it in such an inflexible and disruptive way. When Gerard removed a legitimate source and edit warred on it, there was no mess to clean up. When two editors decided to delete information supported by the Press Association and a Scottish newspaper, we're crossing a line between responsible housekeeping and disruptive editing. The orginal title of this section was "‎DM advocate". I'd rather be called a cunt that a DM advocate, but such is the mindset of a small group of zealots that anyone who asks for an 8-hour moritorium on removal is the subject of abuse and lies. Your call on whether you think this is an ideal pathway for the inhabitants of the RS board to behave, but I suggest the approach needs a rethink. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 12:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::We seem to be talking at cross purposes. It looks to me to be a rather odd case of [[WP:BRD]]. I'm just suggesting that removing material and a DM source wholesale, without any attempt to find an alternative source, might do more harm than good. [[User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]] ([[User talk:Martinevans123|talk]]) 12:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::::True, but [[wp:brd]] is clear that once material, has been removed it is down to those who wish to include it to make a case at talk, not just add it back with a change of source (you are right, by the way, the new sources should have been enough as far as I can see). Thus (whilst) the DM part of this debate is about RS, the rest is not.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 12:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Ah. So all those instances where I've followed David Gerard round and re-added stuff with a good source (and which he's consistently thanked me for), I should have instead taken to the Talk page? [[User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]] ([[User talk:Martinevans123|talk]]) 12:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC) And it's not like I've really "followed him round" at all. I've seen his standard edit summary about DM pop up in my watchlist and when I've gone to look at the deletion I've thought "oh that looks like a very reasonable claim, there must be at least one other RS source that supports that...."
:::::::::::::That's taking a misreading of BRD too far for any common sense approach. If the source is being challenged, then replacing the source is sufficient, even if that is just replacing exactly the same information, including qquotes. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 12:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::We also have [[wP:agf]], I have no idea abvout this case but I have had trouble finding sources others have found. You are assuming no effort was made.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 12:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::A more useful edit summary might say "I've looked for a better source and I can't find one, so am removing"? [[User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]] ([[User talk:Martinevans123|talk]]) 13:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Three things: firstly, I was talking in general about providing a different source when material is challenged. (Don't forget that [[WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION|the verification policy]] says that @{{tq|Material that fails verification may be tagged with <nowiki>{{failed verification}}</nowiki> or removed}}". There is, written into policy, a way that information does not have to be unthkingly removed as a matter of course. It can be tagged for a short period to allow for a replacement to be made. Secondly, If it is removed, there really is no reason to have to discuss replacing it with an alternative source on the talk page. Replacing the information with a new source is entirely appropriate. Thirdly, it seems that a few people have said they can't find the information (although raising AGF is a bit of a straw man here). I found it in two sources and Sarah SV found two sources using variants of the quote made to different journalists; I also found another variant on the official Bond site. Just because the person desparately removing as many DM sources as quickly as possoble didn't find an alternative (and yes, that does pre-suppose they bothered looking), it doesn't mean the infomation isn't there to those who know how to look for things properly. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 13:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
::::{{u|SchroCat}}, Oh, so David's actions resulted in better sourcing. So we're good then. Shall I close this? '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' ([[user talk:JzG|help!]]) 11:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::Yes, may as well gloss over the removing of a legitimate source and the sub-standard way people are demanding the immediate removal without thought to the loss of legitimate information. The lack of flexibility is always a given when a crusade is in progress. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 11:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Can we please only discuss the DM, anything else just confuses the issue.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 12:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
:As long as we are clear that the Mail on Sunday (paper version, not online) should not have been removed. At. All. Neither should the other sources. Part of the problem is that I have seen no comment from Gerard to acknowledge that they were wrong to remove it in the first place and doubly wrong to edit war to remove it a second time. I hope this disruptive approach is not something that is going to be repeated. In terms of the DM info, allowing a short moritorium on finding a new source seems to be a common sense way of approaching this, rather than such an inflexible approach that is currently in favour. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 12:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
::This RFC is about the daily mail, only the DM and just the DM. If you have other RS issues start a new thread. If you have issue about user conduct this is not then place.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]])
:::Actually this sub-thread is (currently) titled "dailymail.co.uk reversion: eyes wanted". Since its opening post it has been nothing to do with the RfC (as such it should never have been a sub-thread of the RfC in the first place; the topic of discussion has not essentially changed since the first post, given we are still discussing matters relating to the opening post). We can change it from a sub-thread to a full thread if you prefer? - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 13:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
::::As this is not (and does not appear to be) an RS issue, but rather an issue over user conduct this is not the right venue anyway.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 13:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::Very true. Once has to question way it was opened in the first place, and why a personal attack was used as the original title. Never mind - but I really don't have high hopes that this has made any difference, and will not be surprised when it inevitably happens again. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 13:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}

===Another unreliable source? (www.dailymail.co.uk and www.mi6-hq.com) ===
{{archive top}}
In this edit,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=For_Your_Eyes_Only_%28short_story_collection%29&type=revision&diff=955677210&oldid=955676854] {{userlinks|SchroCat}} replaced a citation to [ www.dailymail.co.uk ] with a citation to [ www.mi6-hq.com ]

[https://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/articles/james-bond-primer-for-new-readers] says "We are a not-for-profit fan website, maintained by men and women passionate about the subject."

[https://www.mi6-hq.com/contribute] says "Want to join a community of Bond experts that has been growing since 1998? MI6 is made more diverse, engaging and current thanks to it's regular contributions by guest authors. We are constantly on the look out for authors, photographers, artists, videographer, podcaster or reviewers, all with a passion for James Bond in print or on the screen. If you have an original idea for a feature, or some tidbit to share, please get in touch with our team."

So, generally reliable or self-published fan site?

The quote "it relates to the fact that if you don't have that Quantum of Solace in a relationship" comes from [ www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-510171/Live-Let-Dye-Daniel-Craig-turns-clock-darkened-hair-007-photocall.html ] (25 January 2008). mi6-hq.com published it at [https://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/articles/bond_22_prod_diary08.php3?t=qos] on 30 January 2008. This highlights one of the problems with replacing citations to The Daily Mail; if you search for other sources that say what DM said, you find a bunch of low-quality sources that pretty much parrot what was on the DM page a few days earlier. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 12:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

:Pretty obviously not an RS, no - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 22:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

::I am getting the usual insults and refusal to follow Wikipedia policies at [[Talk:For Your Eyes Only (short story collection)#Replacing one unreliable source with another? (www.dailymail.co.uk and www.mi6-hq.com)]]. Normally I would report this at ANI, but I am still recovering from my recent [[Cardiac Arrest]] and I don't think the stress would be good for me. Would someone else here be willing to file it? --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 23:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
:::It gets worse and worse. He now claims that in the last few days you went to a library, found not just one but two sources that by an amazing coincidence just happen to contain the exact same quote from The Daily Mail that he edit warred to keep in, and yet for some inexplicable reason he cannot remember who Daniel Craig said it to or when he said it. Meanwhile, the person he says authored the source (Noah Sherna) doesn't seem to exist, but in yet another amazing coincidence, Sherna Noah writes for ''The Daily Mail''.[https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2978484/I-love-wolf-whistlers-says-Celia-Imrie-Actress-says-people-complain-lighten-up.html] --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 01:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
::::Don't lie. I have claimed nothing of the sort. I have also made no comment on who Craig said it to, so I am unsure where these falsehoods come from. I have advised exactly how you can verify the source, so try reading what I have said properly and use the link provided. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 01:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
::::{{u|Guy Macon}}, Sherna Noah works for the Press Association. ''The Guardian'' also has a version of the same quote; I've left it on the talk page. It appears to be the same point made during an interview with a different reporter. [[User:SlimVirgin|SarahSV]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]] 03:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
:::{{u|Guy Macon}}, someone needs to read [[WP:FANSITE]]. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' ([[user talk:JzG|help!]]) 10:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
::::{{u|JzG|Guy}}, no they don't. Macon needs to ensure he posts all the facts and 1. doesn't miss out key points (like two other reliable sources were added shortly afterwards), and 2. he doesn't lie, like he has above (I did not claim I went to the library and I did not say anything about who Craig was talking to; feel free to look at the article talk page to find out where I have said either of those things. They are entirely false). BTW, FANSITE shortcuts to [[Wikipedia:External links]], which isn't the guideline you are after - you mean [[WP:UGC]], which advises against, but it certainly doesn't provide a blanket ban against all such sites. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 10:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::{{u|SchroCat}}, mi6-hq.com isn't a fansite, then? Someone should tell the person who maintains it. Wikipedia isn't a fansite either. These articles would mostly be improved by being about half as long. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' ([[user talk:JzG|help!]]) 11:25, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::{{u|JzG|Guy}}, that's not what I said. I was pointing out the link you provided, to FANSITES, actually discusses the addition of fansites in external links, not within articles. The pertinent link on this occasion [[WP:UGC]], which advises against, but it certainly doesn't provide a blanket ban against all such sites. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 11:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::When you tell a person to verify a sources by going to a library, meanwhile refusing to say where you checked the source, a reasonable person would conclude that you checked it in a library. (later you decided to reveal that you checked in using an online source). When you repeatedly refuse to answer the simple question of where and when Daniel Craig said that, a reasonable person would conclude that you most likely ''can't'' answer the question. When you quote [[WP:UGC]], claiming that it allows use of fansites (the actual wording is "Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is also generally unacceptable") a reasonable person would assume that you are either incapable or unwilling to follow Wikipedia's rules (something we have already seen with Wikipedia's rules againstr personal attacks). When you repeatedly claim that if you make an edit that violates Wikipedia's sourcing policies, the person reverting you is somehow required to carefully search your edit for any portions that don't violate Wikipedia's policies, and you [[WP:IDHT|just flat out ignore it]] when you are told again and again that there exists no such requirement, a reasonable person would assume that you are either incapable or unwilling to even discuss whether you are following Wikipedia's rules.
:::::::This all started with you edit warring to retain [ www.dailymail.co.uk ] as a source and with [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] asking you to follow our rules.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:For_Your_Eyes_Only_(short_story_collection)&diff=prev&oldid=955641548] and correctly identifying [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources%2FNoticeboard&type=revision&diff=955638938&oldid=955638125] that your behavior is typical of someone who fights to keep ''The Daily mail'' as a source. Your subsequent behavior here has demonstrated that he was right. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 15:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::"When you tell a person to verify a sources by going to a library": I didn't. I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFor_Your_Eyes_Only_%28short_story_collection%29&type=revision&diff=955826273&oldid=955821028 told you to go to THE library] - the one we have on WP. I even fucking linked it for you. If you're not able to click on the link despite it being handed to you a second time, I do begin to wonder just why you are being so obtuse. Other inaccuracies here include "you quote WP:UGC, claiming that it allows use of fansites": you'll have to read what I said a little more closely. I said "[[WP:UGC]], which advises against, but it certainly doesn't provide a blanket ban against all such sites", and actually there is some deliberate leeway in the wording of the guideline (for example, if such a site was being written by one individual who was a published expert in the area, then it would be a point for discussion). "incapable or unwilling to follow Wikipedia's rules" another tedious PA you like to throw out, and hopelessly wrong too, ditto the link to IDHT - all tiresomly inaccurate.
::::::::More nonsense follows; "This all started with you edit warring to retain [ www.dailymail.co.uk ] as a source". Again, that's a straight lie. This started when Gerard [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=For_Your_Eyes_Only_(short_story_collection)&diff=955634489&oldid=954323755 removed a reference from the paper version of the Mail on Sunday]. A legitimate source. I'll keep repeating that a legitimate source was removed until it finally sinks in and you stop telling porkies. "your behavior is typical of someone who fights to keep ''The Daily mail'' as a source" Another straight out falsehood. I don't know how many times I have had to say that I support the ban on the Mail (that I voted for twice) and the idea it should be removed: it's the crass and inflexible way it is being done that it disruptive. Now, if you're done with trolling and telling lies, I'll leave you to it. There is nothing contructive to be had in listening to more falsehoods from you - you appear to be in competition with the Mail to see how many inaccuracies you can cram into each line. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 15:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
[self-reverted] --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 16:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::{{u|Guy Macon}}, this is thoroughly out of order. {{u|SchroCat}}, it would be better not even to respond. [[User:SlimVirgin|SarahSV]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]] 16:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
*I have already asked you once not to ping me to this page. Stop. You are behaving like the worst sort of disruptive troll. Stop. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 16:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
* mi6-hq.com? Is that Mike Corley? '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' ([[user talk:JzG|help!]]) 10:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
:: Mike Corely appears to be focused on conspiracy theories involving MI5 persecution. I don't think he has much interest in James Bond, but of course mi6-hq.com is a fansite where anonymous users can post content, so you never know. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 15:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Can we please not discus 15 different sources in one thread?[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 15:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}

=== Daily Mail: The halving===

In Q3 2018, there were [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_255#Bot_for_removing_banned_publications?|27,336 uses of the Daily Mail as a reference]] on Wikipedia. At this moment, there are [https://archive.is/17rFs 13,630].

The cleanup of the backlog of bad sources continues. Please use a search something like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=0&ns0=1&sort=create_timestamp_desc&search=insource%3A%22dailymail.co.uk%22&advancedSearch-current=%7B%7D this one], and help improve Wikipedia. If a few people can each do even ten a day, that'll make Wikipedia a noticeably better place - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 21:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

=== Daily Mail: It's below 10,000 ===

The deprecated source backlog has less than 10,000 entries remaining! Your assistance is most welcomed - start at the top of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=0&ns0=1&sort=create_timestamp_desc&search=insource%3A%22dailymail.co.uk%22&advancedSearch-current=%7B%7D this list] (or wherever you like really), and see if ''you'' can knock off five - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 19:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

== WhatCulture ==

[https://whatculture.com/ WhatCulture], the website where contributors "[https://whatculture.com/write-for-us do not need to have any relevant experience or hold any particular qualifications]", probably deserves an edit filter. Last month, I took the issue to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&oldid=952423596 MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist] because its use on Wikipedia [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=0&ns0=1&search=%22WhatCulture%22&advancedSearch-current=%7B%7D is being a problem]. It is generally specifically used for lists, celebrities, films, [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 8#What Culture, Complex, and Crave Online|video games]], and especially wrestling, and one can obviously tell the format of the coverage just by looking at its homepage. Frankly my blacklist suggestion was declined due to the lack of actual spam (the ''raison d'être'' of the blacklist), and during that time I came to better understand the use of edit filters. I then realized that I could either take the issue here on RSN or on [[WP:EFN]], in which case the former is obviously correct. Normally, I do not request for putting warnings on links that should be avoided, but when those links become widely used, they become more or less an epidemic that needs to be curbed. I am not sure what I would be using that website for, if anything, so it would help if anyone can tell me why the source is at least useful. '''[[User:FreeMediaKid!|Free]][[User talk:FreeMediaKid!|Media]][[Special:Contributions/FreeMediaKid!|Kid]]!''' 21:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

*'''Not reliable''' and would love to see it blacklisted. I'd put in the pile of "humor-based publications" like Mad and Cracked that are meant to be fun to read but have zero journalistic merit and should not be used for any real claims. --[[User:Masem|Masem]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 21:55, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
* '''Not reliable''' Top 10 clickbait garbage absolutely a terrible source. [[Watchmojo]] should also be added the list for the same reason, it is currently used in {{duses|watchmojo.com|30 articles}} [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 22:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Not reliable''' The pro wrestling project included WhatCulture as a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Sources#Unreliable_sources unreliable source]. --[[User:HHH Pedrigree|HHH Pedrigree]] ([[User talk:HHH Pedrigree|talk]]) 22:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Not reliable''' - the pro wrestling wikiproject has had this on its list of unreliable sources for some time, it is unreliable for any claim.[[User:LM2000|LM2000]] ([[User talk:LM2000|talk]]) 00:28, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Not reliable''' Some of their lists are fun but not appropriate as a source. The only exception I could see would be if they interviewed any notable wrestlers/media personality, in which case it may be usable as a primary source regarding the interviewee.--[[Special:Contributions/69.157.254.64|69.157.254.64]] ([[User talk:69.157.254.64|talk]]) 02:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Not reliable''' I've removed references citing them previously so it's kind of nice to see it being discussed here. The reason being that a lot of it is second-hand or pure speculation, not to mention they recently put out a fake news article saying that Karl Anderson had signed with AEW. The fact one of their presenters is considered a valid source on [[2019 WWE Superstar Shake-up|2019 Superstar Shake-up]] is baffling to me. [[User:Solitude6nv5|Solitude6nv5]] ([[User talk:Solitude6nv5|talk]]) 17:06, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' The way I see it, it's a bit like imdb, anyone can register and provide content. It does have some editorial work, but I've never liked the website, too heavy on adverts, with advert chains to fake news websites. [[User:Govvy|Govvy]] ([[User talk:Govvy|talk]]) 11:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

{{re|HHH Pedrigree|LM2000|Solitude6nv5|Govvy}} - could you state whether you would want this source blacklisted? '''[[User:Starship.paint|starship]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|.paint]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|talk]])''' 02:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
*Well, the project blacklisted the source because [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Sources#Misquoting-F4W's-Bryan-Alvarez-for-rumours copied a made up rumor from Reddit]. Also, as thFreeMediaKid said, "do not need to have any relevant experience or hold any particular qualifications" it's not a good begining. Looks like a farm content. --[[User:HHH Pedrigree|HHH Pedrigree]] ([[User talk:HHH Pedrigree|talk]]) 09:09, 30 May 2020 (UTC)--[[User:HHH Pedrigree|HHH Pedrigree]] ([[User talk:HHH Pedrigree|talk]]) 09:09, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

== RfC: ''[[Apple Daily]]'' ==
{{RSN RfC status|1589929920}}
{{rfc|media|prop|rfcid=49200B1}}
Given that references to ''[[Apple Daily]]'' are used in a lot of [[Hong Kong]]-related articles, editors are requested to comment on its reliability.

Please choose from the following options:
*''Option 1'': Generally reliable
*''Option 2'': Reliable, but may require further investigation
*''Option 3'': Unreliable for certain topics (such as those which may be considered controversial)
*''Option 4'': Generally unreliable for factual reporting
*''Option 5'': Publishes incorrect or fake information and should be deprecated.

Thanks. 23:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

===Survey (''Apple Daily'')===
*'''Option 4''' <del>or '''Option 5'''</del>: It's a tabloid that regularly relies on poor sources, such as using [https://twitter.com/SolomonYue/status/1201162734626209792?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1201162734626209792 a tweet] from <ins>[[Solomon Yue]]</ins> <del>a protest conspiracy theorist</del> to cover which Hong Kong officials are on the U.S. list of [[Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act|sanctioned individuals]] in [https://hk.news.appledaily.com/local/20191202/3FJEQFKAX7GMTSCCJP4PPLSVII/ this article] (now being added ''en masse'' to articles). A recent example of it producing false <ins>(i.e. ''factually incorrect'' but not necessarily with the intent to misinform)</ins> news (bolding mine):{{tqb|For example, a protest supporter last month '''posted a misleading image''' depicting Lam using her mobile device during the enthronement of the Emperor Naruhito, a sign of disrespect. Within hours, the post was shared thousands of times, including by prominent activist Agnes Chow and local news outlet '''Apple Daily'''. It turned out '''the image was actually taken before the event started''', according to a report from Annie Lab, a fact-checking project at HKU’s Journalism and Media Studies Center.|source=[https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/11/12/asia-pacific/politics-diplomacy-asia-pacific/fake-news-violence-hong-kong-protests/#.XruyDWhKhO8 A 2019 article] by ''[[The Japan Times]]''}}{{pb}}It's been described by academic sources as producing [[fake news|sham news]], among a host of other journalistic issues:
**A ''[[Wall Street Journal]]'' [https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB944517810654941374 article] (1999): describes it as giving {{tq|readers a heavy diet of sex and violence}} and having been {{tq|attacked for bringing tabloid journalism into Hong Kong homes}}
**A ''[[Far Eastern Economic Review]]'' article (''Taiwan — Lai's Next Move: The publisher with the Midas Touch hits new highs. But mainland China remains a dream'' (2001)): describes it as a {{tq|racy tabloid}}
**An ''[[Hong Kong Economic Journal|EJ Insight]]'' [https://www.ejinsight.com/eji/article/id/2314546/20191128-jimmy-lai-s-newspaper-up-in-credibility-survey-finds article] (2019): describes it as having {{tq|never claimed to be objective or unbiased}}, particularly in reference to the [[2019–20 Hong Kong protests]]
**[https://books.google.com.au/books?id=ZuoqDwAAQBAJ A journalism book] published by the [[The Chinese University of Hong Kong Press]] (2015): criticizes it for breaches of privacy and paparazzi-like conduct.
**[https://books.google.com/books?id=GbvBDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA231&lpg=PA231 An academic reference book] by [[Berkshire Publishing Group]] (2014): {{tq|its sensational style and use of checkbook journalism as well as paparazzi led to controversy among journalists and the public. The boundary between entertainment news and hard news in ''Apple Daily'' was blurred}}
**[https://books.google.com/books?id=SSicBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA62&lpg=PA62 An academic book on HK media] by [[Routledge]] (2015, quoting 2005 criticism): {{tq|''Apple Daily'' has been described as 'well known for its brazen, sensational news coverage ... Legitimate political and social topics have been supplanted ... by sex, sensational crimes, the rise and fall of celebrities, scandalous paparazzi investigations, rumors, and even sham news.}}
:To its credit, it's an example of press freedom in Hong Kong with extensive coverage of the protests, and is a rare publisher in HK that is willing to take on the Chinese government. Nevertheless, it's a tabloid that engages in the usual poor journalism practices across all types of content. — [[User:MarkH21|MarkH21]][[User talk:MarkH21|talk]] 23:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC); modified 02:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC); expanded 08:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC); struck Option 5 on basis on undemonstrated intention in false reporting 05:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC); parenthetical on "false" to save everyone's time 16:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC); add years of sources 18:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
*<s>'''Option 2 or 3''', I think we should treat them with the same care we treat the [[New York Post]] and [[New York Daily News]], they are usable in some circumstances but we always prefer higher quality sources.</s> A distinction should be made between Apple Daily and the purely tabloid Next Magazine which should be deprecated. We must also be careful to make it clear that this is only about Apple Daily HK not Apple Daily Taiwan which has a completely different staff and editors (the Taiwanese one being much better, although they just had cuts [https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3891358] so who knows what the future holds). [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 15:46, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
:*'''Option 1 or 2''', changing iVote per [https://www.ejinsight.com/eji/article/id/2314546/20191128-jimmy-lai-s-newspaper-up-in-credibility-survey-finds] (the EJI Insight article provided above). They appear to currently be the third most reliable paper in HK and on a ten point scale score barely lower than SCMP (5.71 vs 5.89). The tabloid stuff looks to be largely in their past or confined to the separate Next Magazine publication. [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 17:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
* '''Option 3''' If it just a question of whether it is reliable, I would say no. I don't see a clear-cut case of intentional false reporting, so I don't think Option 5 is appropriate. In general, I would avoid it and seek better sources. However, ironically, I think the "controversial topics" of option 3 are where it may be valuable as a source. There simply aren't many news outlets covering Hong Kong political dissent, and I don't see major concerns about its coverage of this topic in particular. Editors should use it cautiously on a case-by-case basis. [[User:Daask|Daask]] ([[User talk:Daask|talk]]) 20:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
* <s>'''Option 2''' or</s> '''Option 3'''. Apple Daily isn't a fake news site, however some of the info may be opinionated against the government and should be treated with caution. It might, for example, downplay the violence by protesters and exaggerate use of violence by police. However, if it is reporting the GDP of France, it should be reliable. Political articles almost certainly cannot be quoted directly; they should be paraphrased if possible. [[User:Eumat114|Eumat114 formerly TLOM]] ([[User talk:Eumat114|Message]]) 14:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
::striking out option 2 per arguments below. Not as bad to require a 4, but definitely not desirable in BLPs. [[User:Eumat114|Eumat114 formerly TLOM]] ([[User talk:Eumat114|Message]]) 03:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' They sometimes produce churnalism based on social media posts or images – but that's no different from other publications. They used to have a reputation of focusing too much on celebrity gossip, but that is no longer the case since a few years ago, as is reflected in survey results showing Apple Daily's reputation rising from the bottom to the top of the list. They take a different political position than every other print newspaper in Hong Kong, but that's not a reason to declare a source unreliable any more than to declare the ''Guardian'' unreliable just because they support Labour in a sea of pro-Tory newspapers. ''Apple Daily'' (HK) is perfectly reliable for news on property developments and government policy decisions, or reviews of local restaurants. [[User talk:Feminist|feminist]] | wear a mask, protect everyone 10:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
* '''Option 3/4''' See my comment in [[#Discussion (Apple Daily)]]. [[User:Matthew hk|Matthew hk]] ([[User talk:Matthew hk|talk]]) 19:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
* '''Option 2''': I agree with Daask. I would call Apple Daily a situational source, whether its usage is appropriate or not depend on the context, but I don't think this option is provided. ''Apple Daily'' is useful if we want to cover some of the more obscure details that English sources didn't cover, especially in the political/social aspect (certainly controversial topics), complementing other RS. If a controversial statement can be sourced to a RS, however, use those instead of Apple Daily. [[User:OceanHok|OceanHok]] ([[User talk:OceanHok|talk]]) 17:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

*'''Option 2''', as mentioned above by other users, it is ranked above average among HK newspapers, television and online news sites by both citizens and independent research.--[[User:Roy17|Roy17]] ([[User talk:Roy17|talk]]) 19:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''', per all, no point to make me Apple daily is not a RS. ----[[User:Streetdeck|'''Wright''']] [[User talk:Streetdeck|'''Streetdeck''']] 01:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' or '''Option 2''': In a recent CUHK research, Apple Daily enjoy high reputation in terms of credibility. If a page has only (or primarily) included Apple Daily as source, stating the need of having more diversified sources at the top of the page will mediate any potential problem. [[User:Universehk|Universehk]] ([[User talk:Universehk|talk]]) 23:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Option 1''' or '''Option 2''': In the [http://www.com.cuhk.edu.hk/ccpos/b5/research/Credibility_Survey%20Results_2019_CHI.pdf most recent survey conducted by CUHK], AD is second highest mark on Media Credibility--[[User:PYatTP|PYatTP]] ([[User talk:PYatTP|talk]]) 02:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' is ranked as one of the more reliable Hong Kong outlets and without a convincing rationale questioning its reliability I side with it being generally reliable with the caveat of seperating out fact from opinion, imv [[User:Atlantic306|Atlantic306]] ([[User talk:Atlantic306|talk]]) 22:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

===Discussion (''Apple Daily'')===
*{{Ping|MarkH21}} please either source or retract, the statement that Solomon Yue is a conspiracy theorist violates [[WP:BLP]] no matter what space its made in unless backed up by a WP:RS. I noticed its unattributed on their page, it has been removed. [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 02:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
*:{{ping|Horse Eye Jack}} Sorry, I took the statement from the WP article lead at face value too quickly. Digging in further though, sources do prescribe him as tweeting conspiracy theories: {{tqb|It’s a theory that seems to be somewhat related to the Wuhan lab conspiracy. One tweet by Republican Party official Solomon Yue, who has more than 100,000 followers, said: “#coronavirus is stolen from Canada by espionage & sent to Wuhan to be weaponized to kill foreign enemies.”|source=[https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/1/31/21115589/coronavirus-wuhan-china-myths-hoaxes-facebook-social-media-tiktok-twitter-wechat Article] from [[Vox]]}}{{tqb| The problem of containment gets worse when power users such as politicians give this false information a boost. In US, Trump helped amplify tweets from the support of QAnon, the conspiracy group active in spreading Corona virus rumors. Republican party official Solomon Yue tweeted to more than 100,000 followers that the virus was stolen from Canada for use of a Bio weapon|source=[http://risingkashmir.com/news/covid-19-islamic-vantage-point-358996.html Article] from [[Rising Kashmir]]}} I’ve struck the label about him as a conspiracy theorist above, but the main point still stands about the article being based on his tweet. — [[User:MarkH21|MarkH21]][[User talk:MarkH21|talk]] 02:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
*::The points a good one, I agree that Apple isnt generally reliable but we have a very high standard for calling someone a conspiracy theorist. Tweeting or re-tweeting conspiracy theories doesn’t count, we need a WP:RS to say in black and white “X is a conspiracy theorist” or “X is the originator of the Y conspiracy theory." [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 02:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
*:::I agree, and thanks for removing the statement from his article. — [[User:MarkH21|MarkH21]][[User talk:MarkH21|talk]] 02:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
*::::{{Ping|MarkH21}} Also just noticed that you’re mischaracterizing the The Japan Times article, neither the quote or the article supports the assertion that they’re "producing false news,” at most you can say “shared a misleading image.” Please correct yourself. I also note that since Solomon Yue is not a conspiracy theorist but is in fact the highest ranking member of the RNC born in China what they say and do is definitely newsworthy and reporting on it doesn't make them unreliable. [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 16:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
*:::: Also ''Multimedia Stardom in Hong Kong: Image, Performance and Identity'' doesnt make that statement, its a direct quote from Lo 2005 (and thus a little dated for our purposes, we are discussing Apple News’s reliability today not in the late 1990s). Representing a quote as coming from the source which used the quote is dangerous academically. [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 16:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
*:::: Actually now that I look at it a few more are too dated for our purposes: that WSJ piece is 1999 and the FEER piece is 2001. [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 16:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
*:::: The Berskshire book has been weirdly fashioned to remove both the beginning and end of the statement which changes the meaning entirely, the full statement is “Yet, its sensational style and use of checkbook journalism as well as paparazzi led to controversy among journalists and the public. The boundary between entertainment news and hard news in Apple Daily was blurred, '''but Lai insisted that journalism should feel the market’s pulse and reader’s feelings. Criticism of the government and the powers that be, including Lai’s good friends, was the rule and without exceptions.'''” [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 16:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
*:::: The title of that EJI piece (which I believe is our most recent) is “'''Jimmy Lai's newspaper up in credibility''', survey finds” btw, looks like you cherrypicked pretty hard to get these. [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 16:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
*:{{od|:::}}The original ''Apple Daily'' article said that Lam was using her phone during the ceremony, as opposed to before the ceremony: {{tq|但她被當地電視台拍到在觀禮期間玩手機，對場合有欠尊重}}. Roughly: {{tq|but she was filmed by a local TV station playing on her mobile phone during the ceremony, showing no respect for the occasion}}.
*:Of course reporting that Solomon Yue says XYZ isn’t unreliable. However, publishing an article saying that six people are on the US sanctions list on the basis of his tweet that says {{tq|Gang of Six: [six names]}} is very different.
*:This is about the general reliability of ''Apple Daily''. Editors can cite ''Apple Daily'' articles from 1999 or 2020 on Wikipedia. This is a whole body of literature being assessed.
*:I don’t see how the part of the sentence about what the ''Apple Daily'' founder insists is relevant to assessing the reliability of the Apple Daily, or how it’s essential to the prior assertion in the quote.
*:The EJI article isn’t asserting that Apple Daily is the third most credible news outlet; it says that the ''Apple Daily'' was [http://www.com.cuhk.edu.hk/ccpos/en/research/Credibility_Survey%20Results_2019_ENG.pdf third out of eleven paid local newspapers] in a '''public opinion survey''', while asserting in EJI's voice that the ''Apple Daily'' {{tq|never claimed to be objective or unbiased}}. The survey barely means anything, and I hope that Wikipedia never has to rely on public opinion polls to determine reliability (even the deprecated ''[[Breitbart]]'' is distrusted by only 9% of US Republicans and 36% of US Democrats [https://www.journalism.org/2020/01/24/democrats-report-much-higher-levels-of-trust-in-a-number-of-news-sources-than-republicans/ in a public opinion study] by the [[Pew Research Center]]). — [[User:MarkH21|MarkH21]][[User talk:MarkH21|talk]] 09:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC); minor typo fix/clarification 03:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
*::Your current argument is that Apple News made an error, you still have a long way to go to support “producing false news“ as that appears to be 100% your opinion rather than the opinion of the WP:RS.
*::I don’t see how reporting on his tweet is journalistic misconduct as you’re claiming, plenty of people report on tweets these days and the tweet was by a notable person who is an expert in the field.
*::We actually base general reliability on recent rather than historical reporting, if that were the case the we would have WaPo banned as a white supremacist conspiracy outlet. Thats why its wikipedia policy that the most recent WP:RS is the queen bee in any dispute.
*::A public opinion survey in their home market has a bit more standing than your OR about false news. The way you pull that quote from the piece is highly misleading, in context it doesnt mean what you’re trying to force it to mean. Also again, even if it meant what you think it means bias and objectivity aren’t an issue for us WP:RS wise, lots of biased yet reliable sources. [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 14:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
*:::False news isn't the same thing as [[fake news]]; fake news must be deliberately false. At least this is the most common definition and is the one used at the WP article, and seems to be the one you're using; I'm using "false news" to literally mean news that is factually incorrect. ''Apple Daily'' frequently reports information that is false, i.e. erroneous, but not demonstrably intentionally so. They have a habit of frequently making erroneous reports (here's [https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1127824/apple-daily-apologises-excos-franklin-lam another blatant front page error from 2013]).
*:::The article isn't just reporting on the tweet, it just says that [[Regina Ip]], for instance, is on the sanctions list. It credits the reporting of these people being on the list to Solomon Yue, without disclosing that it was based on the tweet {{tq|Gang of Six: Commissar Carrie Lam, [...] Regina Ip are on a leaked 🇺🇸 sanction list.}}
*:::You're going pretty far back with that WaPo comparison. I don't think we're far enough into the 21st century that the recency consideration should exclude 1995-2005.
*:::It's not OR; RSes have reported several times about high-profile mistakes in ''Apple Daily'' reporting. I'm not trying to force anything, the quote means exactly what it means. But public opinion surveys don't have any standing on what makes a source reliable. This survey also appears to be the sole reason for your !vote that ''Apple Daily'' is {{tq|Generally reliable}}. — [[User:MarkH21|MarkH21]][[User talk:MarkH21|talk]] 15:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
*:::: This is getting off topic so I’l just address the main point and then you can edit your original comment. [[False news]] is not different from [[fake news]] or [[sham news]], they’re different names for the same thing. What you are doing is calling errors/mistakes false news and that needs to stop now. [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 15:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
*:::::Again, I've clarified several times that what I mean by "false news" is "factually incorrect news without a demonstrated intent to misinform", so there's no further need to explain what I meant. There are several differing definitions of the terms discussed at [[fake news]], as covered in its "Definitions" and "Types" sections. I've explained the definition that I am using and clarified the exact statement that I am making. — [[User:MarkH21|MarkH21]][[User talk:MarkH21|talk]] 16:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
*:::::: I’ve searched high and low for a definition of false news like what you’re describing here (the [[fake news]] page makes it abundantly clear that they are generally used interchangeably), I cant find one. Can you link your preferred definition? We generally don’t let editors define words however they like when wikilinking those words would indicate something completely different (as it does here if we wikilink [[false news]] in your statement). By your definition of false news every single WP:RS has “produced false news” which is an odd statement that I think would be objected to by almost everyone. [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 16:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
*::::::: [https://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6380/1146 An MIT study published in ''Science''] defines "false news" in the exact same way that I have: {{tqb|We have therefore explicitly avoided the term fake news throughout this paper and instead use the more objectively veriﬁable terms “true” or “false” news. Although the terms fake news and misinformation also imply a willful distortion of the truth, we do not make any claims about the intent of the purveyors of the information in our analyses. We instead focus our attention on veracity and stories that have been veriﬁed as true or false.}}The rest of the paper then uses "false news" in exactly that way. Is that enough? Plenty of other reliable sources use "false news" to literally mean news that is incorrect, rather than the narrower requirement of being deliberately incorrect. There's a case to redirect [[false news]] to [[misinformation]] instead of [[fake news]], but I don't intend on wasting any more time on this off-topic matter. — [[User:MarkH21|MarkH21]][[User talk:MarkH21|talk]] 16:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
*:::::::: Using that definition publishing false news does not effect reliability as it relates to wikipedia so I’m confused by your argument. We require that it be deliberate. [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 17:43, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
*:::::::::The point was that they have had several high-profile incidents of erroneous reporting and sloppy journalism, and have been criticized for doing so. It’s more frequent and severe (relative to the body of independent coverage about their journalism, and relative to the age of the newspaper) than one would typically find for “Generally reliable” sources in [[WP:RSNP]]. — [[User:MarkH21|MarkH21]][[User talk:MarkH21|talk]] 17:51, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
: As someone who is is not familiar with the reliability of Apple Daily or Hong Kong news in general, I have to agree with Horse Eye Jack here that sources that are over a decade old are not appropriate to determine reliability. For instance [[Buzzfeed]] built an award winning news operation after initially being a publisher of listicles, if you were to judge Buzzfeed by article discussing the publication in the early years, you'd get inaccurate impression. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 18:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
::If it were "fake news" (deliberate false reporting), which I don't think Apple Daily has done, then it would go to Option 5. Reliability is not just about whether the newspaper reports news falsely '''and deliberately'''. Reliability is about whether the newspaper reports news falsely at times '''(even if not deliberate)'''. This is related to the reputation for fact-checking, which according to arguments above have appeared multiple times. [[User:Eumat114|Eumat114 formerly TLOM]] ([[User talk:Eumat114|Message]]) 03:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
:::Reliability is more about owning errors, when reliable sources make errors (and they routinely do, NYT makes multiple errors a day) they correct or retract their error. Apple News (HK) does appear to do that. [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 15:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
:Seems more a Tier III thing personally, as it is, in my opinion, not completely reliable on controversial topics. As expressed above, they do correct their error.--[[User:1233|1233]] ( [[User Talk:1233|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/1233|C]]） 03:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

*Too long don't read. ''Apple Daily'' has many error as well as [[tabloid journalism]]. The magnitude of error is way too large. For example reporting [[Wang Ming-chen]] as the first Chinese physicist when copy editing the original ''[[The Beijing News]]''. However, the The Beijing News article clearly stated that she is the first Chinese female physicist and by common sense many Chinese physicist are born earlier and obtain PhD way earlier than Wang.

:Another example, they made a huge investment on video news. However, for [[Hysan]], they can't even read the source material probably and reporting the company has 10 properties in Causeway Bay in the video news. But in fact, the company annual report clearly stated 9 in Causeway Bay and 1 in Wan Chai/Mid-level. Their investment on photoshop / video compare to basic proofreading fact checking is disproportionate.

:For other metric, a depart of [[CUHK]] (香港中文大學傳播與民意調查中心) conducted a survey on creditability, many citizen gave the newspaper quite a low score. (this is an <s>option</s> (edit: damn me for another typo. I mean [[opinion]]) article on [[Ming Pao]] regarding the survey, not the primary source [https://news.mingpao.com/ins/%E6%96%87%E6%91%98/article/20191128/s00022/1574863275810/%E9%A6%99%E6%B8%AF%E5%82%B3%E5%AA%92%E5%85%AC%E4%BF%A1%E5%8A%9B-%E4%BD%8E%E8%99%95%E6%9C%AA%E5%BF%85%E6%9C%80%E4%BD%8E%EF%BC%88%E6%96%87-%E8%98%87%E9%91%B0%E6%A9%9F%EF%BC%89] )

:For the good side Apple Daily has on-site reporter on live event, accusing them not reporting that they actually saw is a [[WP:OR]]. Instead, for HK local news, if more than one source to reporting event A and if Apple Daily's narrative is roughly the same as other newspaper, i don't see any point to not to keep 2 newspapers as citation. I personally not recomanded to use Apple Daily as single citation without cross checking BTW. [[User:Matthew hk|Matthew hk]] ([[User talk:Matthew hk|talk]]) 19:44, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
::I don’t see that Apple Daily got a low score, I see that Apple Daily got the third highest score. Google translate yields "Among the paid newspapers, almost all the newspapers' scores have dropped, and they have fallen considerably. With the exception of the Apple Daily, its scores and rankings in 2016 have risen, and this year it has risen to the third place, which is almost the same as the score of the second Ming Pao, and the South China Morning Post continues to top the list.” [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 19:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

:::The <s>option</s> (edit: typo: opinion) article is stating overall the newspapers got a low score. By a metric of 1 to 10. Yeah 5.18 in Y2016 and rank 8th among paid newspaper is self-explanatory. It was ranked 3rd with a score of 5.71 in Y2019 , after the outbreak of [[2019–20 Hong Kong protests]]. Apple Daily is ranked 11th in 2006, 2010, 2013 surveys BTW. [[User:Matthew hk|Matthew hk]] ([[User talk:Matthew hk|talk]]) 19:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

:::: The scores are relative not absolute, they can only be used to judge the newspapers against each other. You can’t just say “5.71 is not 10 so it must be bad!” when the source doesn't say that. [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 20:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

:::::The score itself does not have a conclusion by itself. But the opinion author, 蘇鑰機, which also came from CUHK, choose "香港傳媒公信力：低處未必最低" as the headline, which roughly translated as overall the creditability of the whole industry is falling and not yet bottom . Ranked 11th for 2006, 2010, 2013, 8th in 2016 and 3rd in 2019. That's some reference point for other people to judge Apple Daily's credibility. [[User:Matthew hk|Matthew hk]] ([[User talk:Matthew hk|talk]]) 18:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

:::::: Dude you don’t get to file a bogus ANI report [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Coordinated_edit_on_adding_hoax_to_Dahua_Technology] on me (which you almost got boomerang blocked for) and then carry on discussions with me as if nothing has happened. Pound sand, I’m done with you and your disruptive editing style. Don’t let me catch you on my talk page either, you’re banned from there. [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 00:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::Seriously, {{u|Horse Eye Jack}}, I recommend against holding this kind of attitude against users who fail to assume good faith. An allegation of editing on Dahua Technology, however egregiously failing to AGF, is not going to solve disputes. This discussion id ''different''. Putting that aside, I consider Apple Daily '''kind of reliable''' for reporting straight facts like [https://hk.appledaily.com/local/20200526/2QUEQ4MKPZPQWV2FMU6ZZCXZQ4/ this report on COVID-19] but reports like calling the Communist Party [https://hk.appledaily.com/china/20191204/67K6DNQIQIQGTNNNGR4T2V3I2U/ bandits] or reports of the protests (particularly the use of police force)? I'm not going to cite them. It is nowhere near reliable for contentious topics, as mentioned above. [[User:Eumat114|Eumat114 formerly TLOM]] ([[User talk:Eumat114|Message]]) 04:22, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

*Many users here tend to discredit Appledaily because of its political standpoint. The truth is, the press in HK is so distorted and heavily influenced by Chinese govt that often very few other established newspapers would cover the sensitive topics that Appledaily covers, so people not familiar with press in HK may find that Appledaily is sometimes contradicted by other sources, but local citizens and researchers' rankings reflect the actual credibility Appledaily deserves.--[[User:Roy17|Roy17]] ([[User talk:Roy17|talk]]) 19:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
*:{{ping|Roy17}} What do you mean by {{tq|independent research}} and {{tq|researcher’s rankings}} if it’s different from the local citizens’ rankings (i.e. the CUHK public opinion survey)? — [[User:MarkH21|MarkH21]][[User talk:MarkH21|talk]] 03:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
*{{ping|PYatTP}} 3rd (not 2nd) in the specific category of local paid newspapers (11 entries) of the public opinion survey. Also emphasis on it being just a public opinion survey. — [[User:MarkH21|MarkH21]][[User talk:MarkH21|talk]] 02:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

== Is B'Tselem a RS? ==

There have been several posts here in the past about [[B'Tselem]] that I've found, and from what I can tell about the consensus is that it can be used but at the very least it needs to have inline attribution. B'Tselem is an advocacy organization, not merely an NGO, as such it has a POV and we should not attribute something to it in Wikipedia's voice. I found discussions here [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_61#Reliability_of_Israeli_human_rights_organization_B'Tselem]] , [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_78#CAMERA_/_Alex_Safian]] and [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_170#POICA_&_Israel]]. In the IP conflict area, any pro-Israel NGO is often dismissed automatically, yet ARIJ and B'Tselem is allowed because it's pro-Palestinian, even though they play loose with the facts (as was shown with B'Tselem a few weeks ago with Coronavirus and the UN). Regardless, I think there should finally be a decision that this NGO doesn't speak for Wikipedia and is not a RS that can be used for a neutral ref-tag without an "according to B'Tselem..." [[User:Sir Joseph|Sir Joseph]] [[User_talk:Sir Joseph|(talk)]] 03:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
:It simply is not true that B'tselem is a "pro-Palestinian NGO" nor is it true that pro-Israel NGOs are dismissed out of hand. B'tselem is a human rights group, and one with a sterling reputation internationally. NGOs that do not have a a good reputation may be (example CAMERA as you note), but B'tselem does have such a reputation. Other reliable sources (eg NYTimes[https://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/17/palestinians-film-west-bank-protests-with-israeli-supplied-cameras/][https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/17/world/middleeast/israel-gaza-roof-knocking.html][https://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/04/world/israeli-officer-is-charged-in-4-killings-in-west-bank.html][https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/14/world/middleeast/gaza-protests-palestinians-us-embassy.html] BBC[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8580150.stm][https://www.bbc.com/news/av/magazine-34222451/skunk-water-in-use-in-the-west-bank][https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28439404] the Guardian[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/mar/09/israel][https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/sep/11/israelandthepalestinians?gusrc=rss&feed=worldnews][https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/feb/11/israel]) regularly cite B'tselem. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 03:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
::Up above you claimed Virtual Jewish Library isn't a RS, even though it's cited by the NYTimes many times. And what is wrong with CAMERA? They report on media inaccuracies. The fact that they are pro-Israel means that you don't like it. There's also NGO Monitor, which is pro-Israel, that gets tossed out often, and Ad-Kan. Please let's not pretend that there's an even playing field here. (You say there are pro-Israel NGO's that are allowed, can you name some?)[[User:Sir Joseph|Sir Joseph]] [[User_talk:Sir Joseph|(talk)]] 03:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
:::A source isnt reliable or unreliable by virtue of its stance on Israel or Palestine or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is reliable or unreliable by virtue of its reputation for fact checking among other sources. JVL does not have a good reputation. B'tselem does. Therein lies the difference. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 03:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
:::Oh, a pro-Israel NGO that is used? Hmmm, the ADL? [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?target=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.terrorism-info.org.il%2F&title=Special%3ALinkSearch ITIC]? Some of the worse ones that are still used include [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?target=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.hudson.org&title=Special%3ALinkSearch the Hudson Institute]. Being pro-Israel or any other position isnt what determines if a source is usable. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 04:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
*As to the matter, they are a political advocacy group. They aren't just for human rights. They are against settlements which is a political issue. They also routinely ignore human rights when it's perpetrated from the Palestinians, or worse, see [[Ezra Nawi]] for just one example. [[User:Sir Joseph|Sir Joseph]] [[User_talk:Sir Joseph|(talk)]] 03:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
:::Reliability and bias are two separate things. B'Tselem has a reputation for accuracy. Maybe the Virtual Jewish Library does as well, but that's another conversation. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 03:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
::::That's the thing, it doesn't have a reputation for reliability, it has been found repeatedly to make things up. This was in March when even the UN praised Israel and the PA's cooperation, [https://www.israelhayom.com/2020/03/29/israel-accuses-ngo-btselem-of-exploiting-coronavirus-epidemic/]. If they are biased, their sourcing should not be in Wiki's voice. [[User:Sir Joseph|Sir Joseph]] [[User_talk:Sir Joseph|(talk)]] 03:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::The Israeli military is not the source of truth in this world, sorry. That they accuse B'tselem of something does not make their well-earned reputation for fact-checking and accuracy not true. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 03:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::Right, so B'Tselem makes up fake news, and Israel corrects it and it's published in multiple RS, but according to you, only the B'tselem source is usable. Does that make sense? [[User:Sir Joseph|Sir Joseph]] [[User_talk:Sir Joseph|(talk)]] 04:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::Im sorry, I stopped reading at "fake news". '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 04:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
*for more information on B'Tselem from a RS (as Nableezy would say) another NGO who documents funding please look here, to say that it is just a human rights org is not true. [https://www.ngo-monitor.org/ngos/b_tselem/] (please read the Political Activities section) and then from another RS, [https://www.algemeiner.com/2016/10/23/btselem-spreads-anti-israel-lies-at-the-un-security-council/ B’Tselem Spreads Anti-Israel Lies at the UN Security Council] and this was a political event, not about human rights issues. Here's an opinion piece about how B'Tselem lost its way and isn't a HRO anymore and is a political organization, [http://www.thetower.org/4600-btselem-must-take-responsibility-for-the-consequences-of-its-actions/ B’Tselem Must Take Responsibility for the Consequences of Its Actions]. [[User:Sir Joseph|Sir Joseph]] [[User_talk:Sir Joseph|(talk)]] 04:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
::Youre bringing the chief of staff of NGO Monitor writing and saying that trumps the NYT or the BBC or the Guardian who all regularly cite B'tselem. Thats not how reliability is determined.And, oh by the way, note what said chief of staff of NGO Monitor wrote: '' the European Union, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland continue to fund B’Tselem''. Thats because of their oh so sterling reputation. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 04:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
:::Just a side note here, when you say regularly cite them I am just not seeing it. Most of the sources you list are over a decade old. [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 04:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
::::NYT: [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/19/world/middleeast/israel-settlements-palestinians.html][https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/10/world/middleeast/netanyahu-palestinians-arabs-west-bank.html] [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/20/world/middleeast/israel-palestinian-war-crimes-hague.html]BBC: [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-51299145][https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-49657915][[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-51288218]Reuters: [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-palestinians-eu/eus-borrell-warns-of-violence-if-israel-annexes-jordan-valley-idUSKBN205288][https://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-netanyahu/israels-netanyahu-announces-post-election-plan-to-annex-west-banks-jordan-valley-idUSKCN1VV21L][https://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-palestinians-annexation-turkey/turkey-says-oic-to-convene-after-netanyahu-annexation-plans-idUSKBN1VZ095]Those recent enough for you? '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 04:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::Yup! Thank you, though it is kind of funny, the last two Reuters articles copy paste the paragraph cited to B'Tselem. [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 04:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
* Just as with good news sources, the distinction between facts and opinion can usually be identified in Btselem's output. In the case of opinion, "according to" is appropriate. In the case of facts, its reputation for accuracy is very strong. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]][[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]] 05:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
:On what you base you claim that they are trustworthy?They are even don't pretend to be some neutral observer.They have clear agenda so everything they present should be taken with their agenda in mind --[[user:Shrike|Shrike]] ([[User talk:Shrike|talk]]) 07:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Attribute''' even when they are used by media they tend to be attributed, so we should follow that as well. Especially the accuracy of their [https://www.camera.org/article/b-tselem-s-annual-casualty-figures-questioned/ casualty stats] have been called into question. [[User:Buidhe|b]][[User talk:Buidhe|uidh]][[Special:Contributions/Buidhe|e]] 08:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
*:Camera.org is not reliable itself. According to camera.org, the NYT is biased,[https://www.camera.org/article/camera-monograph-indicting-israel-new-york-times-coverage-of-the-palestinian-israeli-conflict/] the Washington Post is biased[https://www.camera.org/about/history/] and they even put editors in Wikipedia to promote pro-Israel POV. I dont think you should rely on such source.--[[User:SharabSalam|SharʿabSalam▼]] ([[User talk:SharabSalam|talk]]) 08:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
*::Btzelem is bisaed too what is difference? --[[user:Shrike|Shrike]] ([[User talk:Shrike|talk]]) 12:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
:::You cannot assert that the 'facts' themselves are biased. Camera's mission is to spin the facts, not document the realities. One has a forensic approach to a 'crime scene', the other gives a tabloid account in which the assailant was compelled to defend themselves against the 'victim'.[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 18:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
::::Is that your neutral unbiased opinion? Perhaps this is reason enough why Wikipedia is biased. Terribly shocking. Camera just reports on the media's inaccuracy. I hope people don't presume to say that the media is accurate all the time, but of course it's yet another pro-Israel RS that is labeled as not-RS by people here, just like NGO Monitor, and others.[[User:Sir Joseph|Sir Joseph]] [[User_talk:Sir Joseph|(talk)]] 03:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Generally reliable''' per Nableezy. It has been cited by multiple reliable sources like the BBC, Reuters, New York Times, etc.--[[User:SharabSalam|SharʿabSalam▼]] ([[User talk:SharabSalam|talk]]) 08:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

*'''Reliable''' B'tselem is an NGO with positions based on international human rights law and has gained international awards for this work. The executive director, [[Hagai El-Ad]] has twice been invited to address (in 2014 and 2018) the UN Security Council. It receives funding from the EU and other governments. Their reports and statistics are widely cited. Does this sound unreliable?.[[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 12:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Unusually Reliable''' and Zero's point on the distinction between its reportage on facts versus comments that may be construed as B'tselem opinions, should be followed with regard to whether to attribute or not when citing this source.
::'''Additional Comment'''. There is a lot of verbal confusion here, such as calling B'tselem an 'advocacy group', and unfamiliarity with what it does. An NGO whose remit is basically to document empirically (and this involves extensive field work interviewing people involved in incidents in order to sift out the facts from witness bias, as well as constructing vast databases, with statistical analyses) human rights abuses measures these in terms of two systems of law: Israeli and International. This is not 'advocacy' in the usual negative sense of the term, as biased lobbying for some cause. As one book puts it.
::<blockquote> [https://books.google.com/books?id=cmSSAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA110 'Information on Israeli human rights violations is highly politicized. B'tselem, the Israeli Information center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories is perhaps the best neutral source.'] Jack Donnelly, 'International human rights: unintended consequences of the war on terrorism,' in Margaret Crahan, John Goering, Thomas G. Weiss (eds.), ''The Wars on Terrorism and Iraq: Human Rights, Unilateralism and US Foreign Policy,'' [[Routledge]], 2004 {{isbn|978-1-135-99507-2}} pp.98-111, p.110 n.10</blockquote>
::We use mainstream newspapers whose reportage is basically breaking news written rapidly as every incident unfolds, without attribution all over these I/P articles. B'tselem instead exhaustively sends out interviewers to ascertain from all eyewitnesses (and from Israeli army reports and legal judgements) what actually appears to have happened, and is infinitely more objective. The fact that what it reports is often upsetting to espousers or spinners of the official government or military line doesn't make it an advocacy organization and indeed even the IDF has long admitted that it is dependable, as witness the following statement by the Israeli historian and senior IDF figure, [[Mordechai Bar-On]]
::<blockquote>In one case the IDF chief of staff publicly challenged the numbers B'tselem reported on Palestinian casualties, and subsequently apologized when he learned that his figures were wrong and B'tselem's report was correct. In later years the military authorities often asked B'tselem to confirm their own information.' [[Mordechai Bar-On]], [https://books.google.com/books?id=Fi2QH5_x1pYC&pg=PA401 ''In Pursuit of Peace: A History of the Israeli Peace Movement,''] [[United States Institute of Peace|US Institute of Peace Press]] {{isbn|978-1-878-37953-5}} 1996 p.401 n.119 </blockquote>
::In short, recourse to RSN re B'tselem should stop until there emerges, not from notorious activist NGOs touting an official viewpoint, but from serious sources analyzing its actual performance, any evidence it systematically indulges in spinning the facts it reports so abundantly. It is more reliable than most of our unquestioned mainstream newspapers.[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 14:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
:::Do you not get the irony and hypocrisy here? So B'Tselem is OK, but another NGO is a "activist NGO?" NGO Monitor showed when B'Tselem made stuff up, just in March it made up a story about the coronavirus, yet it was dismissed because it was NGO Monitor, and IDF was dismissed because it was IDF, so the bias is clear for all to see. [[User:Sir Joseph|Sir Joseph]] [[User_talk:Sir Joseph|(talk)]] 18:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
::::You seem to fail to understand that NGO Monitor is not reliable and they havent shown anything. What Btselem reported was that [https://www.btselem.org/press_release/20200326_israel_confiscates_clinic_tents_during_coronavirus_crisis Israel confiscated tents the Palestinians designated for a clinic]. That has also been reported by the [https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-agrees-to-halt-most-demolitions-of-palestinian-buildings-during-pandemic/ Association for Civil Rights in Israel] and as a result of those complaints the IDF has said they will stop demolitions in the West Bank. Not quite the silly spin you would like to put on this. You cant take crap sources complaining about ones that actually have a solid reputation and use that as evidence against said solid reputation. That has nothing to do with hypocrisy, and you would do well to stop making such personal attacks that have literally no basis in fact. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 19:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::Why isn't NGO Monitor not reliable? And what B'tselem report was not that the IDF will stop demolishing stuff, but that the IDF confiscated supplies and demolished tents, yet they did no such thing. You are posting a news article that has nothing to do with what I posted. Bottom line is B'Tselem has ceased to be a neutral and human rights org and is now an advocacy org. It is not a RS. [[User:Sir Joseph|Sir Joseph]] [[User_talk:Sir Joseph|(talk)]] 03:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::Youve made your position on that clear. Unfortunately nobody else seems to agree with it, nor do the many sources that cite B'tselem as the widely respected human rights organization that it is. Why isnt NGO Monitor reliable? Thats like asking why isnt Electronic Intifida reliable. But its because [https://online.ucpress.edu/jps/article/49/2/65/107373/Delegitimizing-Solidarity-Israel-Smears-Palestine serious sources] dont treat it as a serious source for reliable information, but rather as essentially a [https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-undisguised-agenda/ propganda] outfit known to lie and distort in order to advance its agenda. Youre comparing the equivalents of Electronic Intifida and If Americans Knew and demanding that they be treated like B'tselem. Thats just silly. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 04:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::SJ. Don't assert that I am being hypocritical.It is an [[WP:AGF]] violation. You are making a simple categorical error, which I guess I'll have to explain to you.
::::::: There is a category NGO.
::::::: Both B'tselem and NGO Monitor are subsumed within that category.
::::::: Therefore anything that is said of one, applies to the other. If B'tselem is OK as a source, so it any other NGO commenting on, or active, in that area.
::::::: Is it really necessary to explain to you that subsets of a category are not, by virtue of belonging to the same category, interchangeable? Or that because Jews, Christians and Muslims are subsets of the broad category [[Abrahamic religions]], what is said of any one of the three applies automatically to the other two? Jeezus! (sorry, [[tetragrammaton]], for the life of the prophet!).[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 10:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Attribute''', like media does. They are an advocacy group, though a respected advocacy group.--[[User:Hippeus|Hippeus]] ([[User talk:Hippeus|talk]]) 10:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Attribute''' per Buidhe. Also per the previous discussions cited above, this is clearly not a neutral think tank, but an advocacy organization. Data from this group should be clearly attributed whenever used.[[User:YUEdits|YUEdits]] ([[User talk:YUEdits|talk]]) 01:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC){{od}}
Let me summarize.
*It was asked if B'tselem was a reliable source. The answer is unequivocably yes.
*Many editors think attribution is required because it is an NGO. It was [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_61#Reliability_of_Israeli_human_rights_organization_B'Tselem pointed out in the original discussion 9 years ago] that since B'tselem is a major source for facts in the I/P area, reflex attribution everytime would mar innumerable pages with a formulaic repetitiveness.
:<blockquote>'I think that formulation may be too critical of B'tselem. The question here is really whether and when in-text attribution is necessary. IMHO, much or most of the time it is not. We should focus on what is actually controversial, everything can be potentially controversial, especially here. Much of the actual criticism of B'tselem could be characterized as nitpicking or cavilling,...Right now, the article in question has too many "According to B'Tselem"'s, detracting from readability and doing little positive'[[User:John Z|John Z]]</blockquote>
*For this reason, (given also that the Israeli army itself, whose actions B'tselem often criticizes, is known to accept that it is accurate- I recall one general remarking that it kept the army on its toes) [[User:Zero0000]] offered a sensible suggestion:
*Source facts to it, and only use attribution when B'tselem offers an opinion, a position he affirmed in 2011.
:<blockquote>Btselem is undoubtedly Israel's most widely respected human rights organization. Of course anything potentially controversial sourced to them should clearly indicate them as the source (which goes for all NGOs). [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]</blockquote>
*So. Recent bad habits of reverting out B'tselem as not RS are against consensus. This is resolved as it was in 2011.
*But editors have yet to clarify the point about attribution issue raised also in 2011: (a)invariably or (b)occasionally, according to the nature of what is being cited. If (b) you get formula splatter, which mars pages.[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 18:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
* '''Attribute'''. I personally take their reports seriously, but this is a TA where it's difficult to establish a "baseline" of reliability (eg. some source with which to compare others), so any source that might be seen as "taking a side" should be attributed. This applies to most every local governmental and non-governmental organization, some foreign governments and a host of media entities. [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 16:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
* The full name for B'Tselem is "The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied territories". This is therefore clearly an [[advocacy organization]], and one that advocates a rather unpopular point of view in Israel. It has therefore all the incentive to be biased in its reporting. That is one reason I think that information from this source is suspect. In addition, when I look at the list of [https://www.btselem.org/about_btselem/board_members Board Members] I am unimpressed by the general academic level (chaired by a high-tech executive, includes a script-writer), and very much impressed by how many political activists are on the board... Not to mention the fact that there is no indication that the board exercises any editorial control. Last but not least, their website has a blog section. In short, this organization is likely to be very POV in its reporting, has no indication of editorial supervision of its publications, and in general does not impress with its academic level. As a result, '''the blog section is of course completely unreliable''', and '''the rest of its publications are likely so biased and lacking editorial control, that they can not be used as reliable sources either'''. [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser|talk]]) 23:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
:: Nableezy has said above: "It simply is not true that B'tselem is a "pro-Palestinian NGO" nor is it true that pro-Israel NGOs are dismissed out of hand. B'tselem is a human rights group, and one with a sterling reputation internationally." His opinion has been quoted by others here as a reason to consider B'Tselem a reliable source. However, reading his statement makes it clear that his opinion is only based on [[argument by assertion]], and therefore lacks any basis in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. [[WP:SCHOLARSHIP]] for example warns of the dangers of scholarly publications "that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view" and that is all the more true when this is not even a scholarly publication. [[WP:BIASEDSOURCES]] acknowledges that "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective" but also asks us to "consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering", and B'Tselem is lacking at least in the first of these requirements. [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser|talk]]) 23:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
:::Uh, it isn't my opinion. [https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-head-of-israeli-human-rights-ngo-b-tselem-addresses-un-security-council-1.6572743 Haaretz]: ''Israeli human rights NGO'', [https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/12/world/middleeast/btselem-fire-israel-human-rights-group.html NYT] ''an Israeli human rights group that monitors the treatment of Palestinians'', [https://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/06/world/middleeast/06gaza.html NYT] ''the Israeli human rights group''. Please dont pretend like I am asserting something that has literally thousands of sources backing it up. But claiming that an argument by assertion (which was not made) is invalid and then proceeding to actually argue by assertion and not offer '''any''' evidence for your comment is a little funny. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 14:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
:::And, as for those other reliable sources citing B'tselem, please see [[WP:UBO]]. Whether or not the POV is ''unpopular in Israel'' is literally the least important thing I've read in weeks. What matters is how other reliable sources treat B'tselem, and they treat it as reliable. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 14:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

:::{{cite book|author=Robert C. DiPrizio|title=Conflict in the Holy Land: From Ancient Times to the Arab-Israeli Conflicts|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=RNjKDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA51|date=29 February 2020|publisher=ABC-CLIO|isbn=978-1-4408-6748-4|pages=51–}}
:::Brief review - "B'tselem is internationally recognized for its work on behalf of human rights..."
:::{{cite book|author=Donal Carbaugh|title=The Handbook of Communication in Cross-cultural Perspective|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=3C4lDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA318|date=19 August 2016|publisher=Taylor & Francis|isbn=978-1-317-48560-5|pages=318–}}
:::{{cite book|author=Marc H. Ellis|title=The Heartbeat of the Prophetic|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Yh83DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA383|date=19 September 2017|publisher=Wipf and Stock Publishers|isbn=978-1-5326-1906-9|pages=383–}}

:::So easy to find RS approving of B'tselem. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 17:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
:::: These source only mention that B'Tselem exists and that it is a group of political activists in the field of human rights. That is not the question here. The question here is if they are a reliable source, and that I do not see written in these sources. [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser|talk]]) 22:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
:::::When reliable sources cite a source, and do so repeatedly, that shows its reliability. Again, see [[WP:UBO]]. It has been repeatedly demonstrated that B'tselem is regularly cited by reliable sources. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|nableezy]]''' - 01:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

== RfC: [[PanAm Post]] ==
{{RSN RfC status|1590555240}}
{{rfc|econ|media|rfcid=675C7BF}}

Hello! Another source that has raised questions: [[PanAm Post]]. I noticed that PanAm Post was describing a member of their staff as having a Harvard University "degree". They say that Emmanuel Rincón, a self-published author {{small|([[WP:QUESTIONABLE]]/[[WP:RSSELF]])}} who writes for the site, has "[https://panampost.com/author/emmanuel-rincon/ a degree in Modern Masterpieces of World Literature from Harvard University]". That "degree" is a free [[edX]] course provided by Harvard ([https://www.edx.org/course/modern-masterpieces-of-world-literature see here, where 40,000 people are already enrolled!]). This raises concerns about their reliability and if the site exaggerates the credentials of their staff (or their reporting).

So I am asking the community to decide the following evaluations about PanAm Post:

*'''Option 1:''' Generally [[WP:RS|reliable]] for factual reporting
*'''Option 2:''' Unclear or additional considerations apply
*'''Option 3:''' Generally [[WP:QUESTIONABLE|unreliable]] for factual reporting
*'''Option 4:''' Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be [[WP:DEPS|deprecated]]

Not sure if these type of RSN RfCs are still permitted since changes were proposed when I was last active, but a few opinions on this source would be appreciated!----[[User:ZiaLater|ZiaLater]] ([[User talk:ZiaLater|talk]]) 04:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
*An embellished author profile is concerning, but these profiles are often embellished though normally not as above. Are there any other red flags? Looking at their website, much of the content appears to be opinions.--[[User:Hippeus|Hippeus]] ([[User talk:Hippeus|talk]]) 10:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

* '''Option 2:''' PanAm Post has been listed in [[WP:VENRS]], an essay dedicated to list and analyze reliable sources for Venezuela related topics, where it has been described as: {{tq|Miami-based newspaper, described as "libertarian". Generally reliable, but news articles should be differentiated from opinion pieces and original invetigations, which should be attributed.}}

:It appears that PanAm Post is generally considered as reliable to report news.

:[https://es.panampost.com/orlando-avendano/2019/06/14/enviados-de-guaido-se-apropian-de-fondos-para-ayuda-humanitaria-en-colombia/ PanAm Post] was the outlet that published an investigation denouncing the embezzlement of payments for the housing of Venezuelan military defectors by representatives of opposition leader [[Juan Guaidó]] in Colombia, which led to the audit and investigation of the situation afterwards. However, there have also been concerns about its neutrality and reliability after {{ill|Orlando Avendaño|es}} assumed the position of chief editor, along with {{ill|Vanessa Vallejo|es}}. Care should be taken with opiniated articles.

:I don't know if there are different authors or important differences between the English and Spanish versions, but this should also be taen into account.

:I stand with the original description, that if used, PanAm Post articles should be attributed. --[[User:Jamez42|Jamez42]] ([[User talk:Jamez42|talk]]) 13:01, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

:PS: Since the source has been described as "libertarian", the Cato Institute RfC, which has received similar allegations, might be relevant to the discussion, and it might help to invite editors more knowledgeable about this. --[[User:Jamez42|Jamez42]] ([[User talk:Jamez42|talk]]) 19:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

*'''Option 2''' I guess, it is to me unclear how reliable this website is. As said by Jamez42, it has been cited by other reliable sources before so it is notable [https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-39140060 BBC][https://apnews.com/e65ab83089bf47d586c3827fcab014d5 AP][https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/juan-guaido-promised-to-save-venezuela-a-year-later-the-flame-he-lit-is-petering-out-his-us-backers-are-weighing-their-options/2019/12/17/48a18186-1495-11ea-80d6-d0ca7007273f_story.html WaPo][https://www.wsj.com/articles/cuba-holds-the-keys-to-venezuela-1539546540 WSJ][https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-politics/venezuelas-guaido-calls-for-probe-into-funds-for-military-defectors-idUSKCN1TG0NK Reuters] but no information on how reliable is their reporting per se.--[[User:ReyHahn|ReyHahn]] ([[User talk:ReyHahn|talk]]) 15:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
*:In Forbes [https://www.forbes.com/sites/alejandrochafuen/2020/03/27/the-2020-ranking-of-free-market-think-tanks-measured-by-social-media-impact/#197ee27a17b5 The 2020 Ranking Of Free-Market Think Tanks Measured By Social Media Impact], it was described as popular and with "solid reporting" on topics related to free market.--[[User:ReyHahn|ReyHahn]] ([[User talk:ReyHahn|talk]]) 05:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
*:Associated Press called PanamPost "a conservative online publication run by mostly Venezuelan exiles from Miami" in a [https://apnews.com/6b39dbf32283fd9c21028e62c5ee8506 piece] that confirms PanamPost original investigation.--[[User:ReyHahn|ReyHahn]] ([[User talk:ReyHahn|talk]]) 12:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Option 3''', much of their reporting has a strong right wing bias which often manifests itself as omitted information, poor sourcing, entertaining questionable scientific views, and sloppy reporting. Ownership is also secret which makes it impossible for us to determine whether this source is independent of the subjects it reports on. The irony here is that the topic for which they’d be the most useful, Venezuela, is also the topic they are entirely unreliable on reporting. Their opinion pieces are batshit crazy, but its not like anyone was going to try to use an opinion piece anyway. [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 15:34, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
*:{{re|Horse Eye Jack}} do you have some sources to back their "right wing bias"?--[[User:ReyHahn|ReyHahn]] ([[User talk:ReyHahn|talk]]) 17:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
:::Have you ever read them? Their editorial and opinion section is openly right wing, often comically so, (for example [https://panampost.com/emmanuel-rincon/2020/03/30/latin-american-political-left/] header: "Few dare to acknowledge the reality that the world has been dominated by different shades of the left, over the last century. And to move forward, '''we''' must recognize that we have been defeated. It is time to rethink the world and Latin America"), something that cant be said of right of center publications like the WSJ. If you’ve read them for a while you might have noticed that the opinion section tends to bleed over into the journalism more than is appropriate from a reliable source. [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 17:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
:::Also for what its worth the author of that extremist opinion piece is the guy "with a degree in Modern Masterpieces of World Literature from Harvard University” [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 17:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
::::I guess this is where opiniated articles should be distinguished from their reliability. --[[User:Jamez42|Jamez42]] ([[User talk:Jamez42|talk]]) 19:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
::::: No this isn't, if they had a separate editorial board and journalistic staff that would be one thing but they don't. That guy writes both opinion pieces and news articles (with barely a change in tone I might add). Thats just not something a reliable source does, sorry. [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 19:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Option 3''' per Horse Eye Jack. A publication which blurs opinion and news to the degree that this publication does, which entertains those ludicrously insane viewpoints and blends them in with its supposedly factual reporting, and whose ownership is secret, cannot be a reliable source. [[User:Devonian Wombat|Devonian Wombat]] ([[User talk:Devonian Wombat|talk]]) 04:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
*:{{ping|Devonian Wombat}} can you share an example of a non-opinion article being heavily opinionated ?--[[User:ReyHahn|ReyHahn]] ([[User talk:ReyHahn|talk]]) 16:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
*::Sure, here is an article: [https://panampost.com/emmanuel-rincon/2020/05/06/bill-gates-strange-relationship-with-china-and-the-coronavirus/ Bill Gates’ Strange Relationship with China and the Coronavirus] which is not marked as opinion, instead simply as “coronavirus”, which accuses Bill Gates of essentially being a spy for the Chinese government, accuses the WHO of covering up for China, and to top it off, goes on a massive anti-vaccine rant for several paragraphs that declares the HPV vaccine caused thousands of deaths, and says that efforts to create a vaccine for coronavirus is part of Bill Gates’ effort to enrich himself. There is also this article: [https://panampost.com/emmanuel-rincon/2019/12/16/the-death-of-venezuelas-interim-government/ The Death of Venezuela’s Interim Government] which is not marked as an opinion piece, instead as news, where the author spends the entire article ranting that the reason Juan Guido is not very popular is solely because he has tried to make some compromises with former supporters of Chavez and Maduro, and ends with a pretty clear call for violence. [[User:Devonian Wombat|Devonian Wombat]] ([[User talk:Devonian Wombat|talk]]) 23:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
*:::{{ping|Devonian Wombat}} Many thank for the examples. Could you please elaborate with what you mean that its ownership is secret? --[[User:Jamez42|Jamez42]] ([[User talk:Jamez42|talk]]) 01:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
*::::{{ping|Jamez42}} The PanAm Post is owned by PanAm Post LLC, but there is no information on who owns PanAm Post LLC, meaning that the site could have a conflict of interest with things it reports on, and we would not know. [[User:Devonian Wombat|Devonian Wombat]] ([[User talk:Devonian Wombat|talk]]) 01:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
*:::::{{ping|Devonian Wombat}} Understood. Many thanks! --[[User:Jamez42|Jamez42]] ([[User talk:Jamez42|talk]]) 23:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

*'''Option 3-4:''' For some more background on PanAm Post, it was founded by Luis Henrique Ball Zuloaga, a prominent anti-Chávez businessman. Ball is the son of Luis Henrique Ball Martinez, an executive of his father R. R. Ball's Biogen medical distribution company (an [[American Cyanamid]] distributor) in Venezuela that [https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-CRECB-1966-pt3/pdf/GPO-CRECB-1966-pt3-1-2.pdf was accused of participating] in the [[price fixing]] of pharmaceuticals during the [[tetracycline litigation]] controversy. [https://issuu.com/olympusamerica/docs/sin_fronteras-april_2012 Ball continues the management of his family's company], though it is now known as Grupo Ciencia. He is also [https://contextodiario.com/venezuela/los-casos-de-corrupcion-que-no-investiga-panam-post/ the cousin of] [[María Corina Machado]], a prominent opposition politician in Venezuela.

:Ball is [https://web.archive.org/web/20150907103737/https://www.atlasnetwork.org/about/people/board on the board] of [[Atlas Network]]. Atlas Network states the following about Ball: {{tq|Mr. Ball was until recently a regular columnist of Venezuela’s leading daily newspaper, El Universal ... Mr. Ball was amongst Venezuela’s most vocal public critics of the new Venezuelan Constitution proposed (and now in force) by Hugo Chávez in 1999. At the time, Venezuela’s leading daily newspaper “El Universal” described Mr. Ball as the “mastermind” of the campaign against the approval of the new constitution in the referendum of December 15, 1999. During the fall of 2001, Mr. Ball was named Chairman of the Organizing Committee of the first national work stoppage organized by the Federation of Chambers of Commerce jointly with the Federation of Trades Unions to protest against the autocratic tendencies of Hugo Chavez. In 2004 Mr. Ball was formally accused of “Civil Rebellion” and “Treason” by the National Prosecutor in Venezuela.}} In an article titled [https://www.clublibertaddigital.com/ilustracion-liberal/13-14/el-fracaso-de-la-izquierda-luis-henrique-ball.html "The failure of the left"] by Ball, we see his thoughts on Venezuela, writing "Since 1958 Venezuela has had nothing but leftist governments." He described the PanAm Post as his [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pet_project pet project], saying "[https://www.radiotelevisionmarti.com/a/luis-henrique-ball-el-socialismo-es-pobreza-cuba-marti/254746.html PanAm Post has been more a vocation ... rather than a business activity]". According to Ball in an error-ridden PanAm Post article, [https://panampost.com/luis-henrique-ball/2019/04/06/a-state-department-spokesperson-berates-the-panam-post/ the Trump administration has even described the PanAm Post as "a Russian Troll" after he criticized the US for not maintaining a "credible threat of force on the Maduro regime"]. Ball has also [https://panampost.com/luis-henrique-ball/2016/06/22/new-york-times-venezuela-i-accept-about-time/ discounted ''The New York Times'' and described it as the "Soviet Times" in an article that again said that Venezuela has only had left-wing governments].

:The PanAm Post also promotes [[climate change denial]] articles against the [[scientific consensus on climate change]] as well, writing things such as "[https://panampost.com/david-unsworth/2019/09/20/greta-thunberg-queen-of-the-climate-change-alarmists/ I, for one, am thrilled to have access to a cheap and practical source of energy: fossil fuels are not going to destroy the planet or make it uninhabitable for human and animal life]" and the "Proud to Be a [https://panampost.com/frank-worley-lopez/2014/01/13/proud-man-made-climate-change-denier/ 'Man-Made Climate Change' Denier"] article that describes global warming as "[a] massive lie designed to manipulate global policy into a wealth redistribution system. ... It is better to be a denier and free than a believer drinking the cyanide laced flavor-aide (it wasn’t cool-aid) in a socialist paradise".

:Then you have the PanAm Post being picked up by [[Snopes]] for [https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/china-cellphones-coronavirus/ regurgitating unproven information] from ''[[The Epoch Times]]'', which has been [[WP:DEPREC|deprecated]] on [[WP:RSP]]. Emmanuel Rincon, the questionable editor mentioned above, even [https://panampost.com/emmanuel-rincon/2020/05/06/coronavirus-chinas-strategy-to-drive-a-new-world-order/ cites ''The Epoch Times'' when discussing COVID-19 in China].

:In summary, we have an extremist founder who created PanAm Post as a "vocation" that attacks what Wikipedia regards as reliable sources, with PanAm Post being used as a platform for climate change denial and anti-China rhetoric resued from ''The Epoch Times'' (among other [[WP:FRINGE|fringe topics]]), while their staff uses possibly cooked-up credentials. This seems like a similar case to [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_287#RfC:_Grayzone|The Grayzone]], with [[WP:RSP]] stating {{tq|Some editors describe The Grayzone as Max Blumenthal's blog, and question the website's editorial oversight.}} This seems like a blog for Ball and friends, not a reliable source.----[[User:ZiaLater|ZiaLater]] ([[User talk:ZiaLater|talk]]) 03:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
::I don't think this should be heavily judged on Venezuelan politics. Venezuelan politics are a mess. Many journalists have spoken against the Venezuelan government and accusations by Maduro administration do not usually add to much. Also PanamPost has also been very investigative on Maduro's rival [[Juan Guaidó]], even finding reported corruption scandals, see [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-politics/venezuelas-guaido-calls-for-probe-into-funds-for-military-defectors-idUSKCN1TG0NK Reuters]. On the ''Russian Troll'' affair, the ''Soviet Times'', ''Greta Thurnberg'' and ''China'' articles, those are labeled "politics and opinion", we need to discuss news articles and not opinion. Additionally, even if Ball founded it, could you clarify what is his position in the publication? it is certainly not the only reporter, while in The Grayzone a moderate percent of articles are pure Blumenthal (its main editor). For the rest you posted, I have nothing to say, it should be weighted in, I guess climate denial and anti-China go along with their libertarian bias.--[[User:ReyHahn|ReyHahn]] ([[User talk:ReyHahn|talk]]) 06:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
:::The anti-authoritarianism can be credited to their libertarian roots but there is nothing libertarian about climate denial nor is that a position that most libertarians hold. Climate denial is more a [[fusionism|fusionist]] position and when found within libertarianism is pretty much only found within [[right-libertarianism]]. [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 16:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
:::Well, {{u|Devonian Wombat}} also has a good point that their opinion and news articles blend together (sometimes within the same news and opinion categories). Overall, their website is a mess and promotes some dubious material.----[[User:ZiaLater|ZiaLater]] ([[User talk:ZiaLater|talk]]) 17:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Option 4''' per ZiaLater's and DW's investigations. Website clearly publishes false and misleading info deliberately—not as an oversight—and cannot be trusted to tell the truth. [[User:Buidhe|b]][[User talk:Buidhe|uidh]][[Special:Contributions/Buidhe|e]] 00:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
*:Again, it seems to soon to call option 4. As showed by my comment above Panam Post is considered reliable in some fields and some of their original investigations have been showed to be relevant and confirmed by sources like AP. For what I've seen it is at worst option 2 for SOMETIMES mixing opinions and facts without a clear label, which just demands precaution.--[[User:ReyHahn|ReyHahn]] ([[User talk:ReyHahn|talk]]) 14:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
*:Up until now, nobody has provided a non-opinion article reporting false news. The publication could be easily labeled option 2, demanding precaution and saying that it can be partisan to (right) libertarian views.--[[User:ReyHahn|ReyHahn]] ([[User talk:ReyHahn|talk]]) 14:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
:::{{Ping|ReyHahn}} chill out. Respect [[WP:BLUDGEON]] as well as other people's opinions. It certainly *can* be option 4 and I would say that the stories already shared meet the standard for publishing false and misleading views but personally I don’t think they’re important enough to deprecate. I think thats something we should reserve for sources people are trying hard to use despite their unreliability, this source appears to neither notable or reliable. I certainly *could* have iVoted for option 4 though. [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 15:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
::::Understood, I decided to modify the wording on the opening of the comment.--[[User:ReyHahn|ReyHahn]] ([[User talk:ReyHahn|talk]]) 15:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
::::Also per my sources above, it appears to be certainly notable in South American news. Reliability is what we are trying to measure here.--[[User:ReyHahn|ReyHahn]] ([[User talk:ReyHahn|talk]]) 15:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

== Patric Cagle and Broken People YouTube sources, and groundlings.com ==

{{Article|Resting bitch face}}

{{Article|The Groundlings}}

Can we get opinions on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Resting_bitch_face&diff=958119777&oldid=958118216 this] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Groundlings&oldid=prev&diff=958120063 this]? [[User:Flyer22 Frozen|Flyer22 Frozen]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Frozen|talk]]) 01:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
* Under [[WP:ELPOINTS]], external links are generally not supposed to be used in the article body (outside of citations), and the groundlings.com links in these edits are not compliant with the guideline. The YouTube video from The Groundlings and Patric Cagle lacks independent sourcing, and should be excluded from the [[Resting bitch face]] article as [[WP:UNDUE|undue weight]]; its use in the article on [[The Groundlings]] might be okay as a [[WP:PRIMARY|primary source]], but should ideally be supported by an independent reliable source. On the other hand, the Broken People video was mentioned in the cited ''[https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/fashion/im-not-mad-thats-just-my-resting-b-face.html New York Times]'' {{rspe|The New York Times}} article ({{xt|1=If you’re up on your Internet memes, perhaps you’ve heard of its linguistic predecessor: “bitchy resting face,” which emerged from a parody [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3v98CPXNiSk Public Service Announcement]}}), which makes it an acceptable primary source in the [[Resting bitch face]] article. — '''''[[User:Newslinger|Newslinger]]''' [[User talk:Newslinger#top|talk]]'' 21:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

::[[User:Newslinger|Newslinger]], thanks for commenting. I was tempted to remove the external linking, but I decided not to revert again (partially or fully) without first bringing the matter here for other opinions. I feel similarly as you do on all of this.

::Pinging [[User:StylishFedora|StylishFedora]] so that StylishFedora sees this if StylishFedora hasn't already. [[User:Flyer22 Frozen|Flyer22 Frozen]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Frozen|talk]]) 00:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

::[[User:Newslinger|Newslinger]] and [[User:Flyer22 Frozen|Flyer22 Frozen]] -- The video "Resting Bitch Face" was clearly uploaded to YouTube on October 11, 2011, years before the creation of the Broken People video. That can't be in dispute. The woman in the video is the same Patric Cagle shown on the Groundlings website bio page. The man in the video is clearly the same Nate Clark as the one on his personal website and the Groundlings bio page. Would an image of the Groundlings theater program from the September 12, 2011 production (showing writing, acting, and directing credits) suffice as supporting evidence? (Confused.) — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:StylishFedora|StylishFedora]] ([[User talk:StylishFedora#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/StylishFedora|contribs]]) 17:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
::: Hi StylishFedora, was that performance covered in any [[WP:SECONDARY|secondary sources]]? Performances that are not mentioned in [[WP:RS|reliable]] secondary sources are usually excluded as [[WP:UNDUE|undue weight]] in articles unrelated to the performers, since they are not considered prominent enough to warrant a mention in the articles. — '''''[[User:Newslinger|Newslinger]]''' [[User talk:Newslinger#top|talk]]'' 22:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
:::: Hello, [[User:Newslinger|Newslinger]], and thanks for the reply and guidance. I've been unable to find a secondary source that references that performance directly, but there '''is''' an article in [[LA Weekly]]<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.laweekly.com/camp-sunday/ |title=Camp Sunday |author=Lovell Estell III |date=December 22, 2011 |access-date=May 26, 2020}}</ref> that references another performance (also documented on YouTube<ref name=YouTubeSignsFromGodVideo>{{cite news|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgQuSi5ROOU|title=Signs from God|publisher=Patric Cagle|date=January 21, 2012|access-date=May 26, 2020|url-status=live}}</ref>) including the ''same'' two actors in the ''same'' show. If I tie them together ''and'' include a photo of the printed program from the show, would that suffice? —-- [[User:StylishFedora|StylishFedora]] ([[User talk:StylishFedora|talk]]) 16:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
::::: Thanks for doing the research, but unfortunately, that's not quite enough to make the connection. The secondary source needs to explicitly mention [[resting bitch face]] in relation to one of the following: the [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3v98CPXNiSk "Bitchy Resting Face"] performance (preferred), [[The Groundlings]], or the comedians in the performance (Nate Clark and Patric Cagle). Combining two different sources that don't explicitly make this connection is a case of [[WP:SYN|synthesis]], which falls short of Wikipedia's requirements. — '''''[[User:Newslinger|Newslinger]]''' [[User talk:Newslinger#top|talk]]'' 20:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::: [[User:Newslinger|Newslinger]] Hm. The secondary source I'm trying to find certainly wouldn't reference the Bitchy Resting Face video, since the entire point of the original edit was to prove that the Broken People sketch was ''not'' the "original" Internet reference to the phrase as its editor claims, but rather the version written by Patric Cagle and posted to YouTube years before that one ever appeared. It's hard to understand how a video titled "Resting Bitch Face" -- clearly posted years earlier than the one referenced in the article which claims to be "the original" -- could not be a ''de facto'' refutation of the (internet) origin of the phrase, regardless of supporting secondary sources. (Doesn't the mere existence of the Resting Bitch Face video prove that point?) Is there a chance that the similarity of the titles (Bitchy Resting Face v. Resting Bitch Face) has caused some confusion here? -- [[User:StylishFedora|StylishFedora]] ([[User talk:StylishFedora|talk]]) 21:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

:::::: [[User:Newslinger|Newslinger]] & [[User:Flyer22 Frozen|Flyer22 Frozen]] - There's also an issue with the final sentence in the second paragraph of the Origin section of the [[Resting Bitch Face]] article, which is worded to imply that the term "Resting Bitch Face" is ''not'', in fact, the original phrase and / or that the Broken People video is the origin of the term, both of which are plainly proven false by the mere existence of October 11, 2011 YouTube video. [[User:StylishFedora|StylishFedora]] ([[User talk:StylishFedora|talk]]) 14:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::: Currently, the [[Resting bitch face]] article doesn't claim that the phrase originated in the Broken People sketch. It just claims that the sketch was uploaded in 2013. The first sentence of the "Origin" section also includes an assertion that {{xt|"the phrase dates back 'at least ten years'"}} before 2013. I'm not seeing any issues with the content in the article. The 2011 performance from [[The Groundlings]] doesn't meet the [[WP:DUE|due weight]] requirement to be included into the article unless an reliable and independent secondary source is available that describes it in relation to "resting bitch face". — '''''[[User:Newslinger|Newslinger]]''' [[User talk:Newslinger#top|talk]]'' 03:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::: [[User:Newslinger|Newslinger]] I disagree. Because the sentence that begins, "It has since gone on..." is in the same paragraph (and immediately follows) the "Bitchy Resting Face" reference, and because that sentence ends, "to become more commonly known," the implication is that the "It" of that sentence refers to the Broken People video as the origin of the phrase, which is refuted even by the NYT article, if not by the existence of the Patric Cagle video. The phrase was ''always'' "resting bitch face" so it did not "become more commonly known" as that. [[User:StylishFedora|StylishFedora]] ([[User talk:StylishFedora|talk]]) 19:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::: I've [[Special:Diff/959664973|changed]] {{!xt|"It"}} to {{tq|"The facial expression"}} for precision. Although we're not able to use the 2011 video, this clears up the ambiguity. — '''''[[User:Newslinger|Newslinger]]''' [[User talk:Newslinger#top|talk]]'' 23:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::: With respect, I disagree that changing the pronoun is enough. The very fact that the reference to the Broken People video is placed in the Origin section (instead of in the "Spread in wider culture" section) implies to the reader that the Broken People video '''is''' the origin. I think a fair argument can be made that the NY Times article which states the phrase was at least ten years old is more than enough evidence to specifically ''not'' include a reference to the Broken People video in the Origin section. Regardless, I removed the "become more commonly known" bit and now I think it's much clearer. Thanks for your help on this. [[User:StylishFedora|StylishFedora]] ([[User talk:StylishFedora|talk]]) 15:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
{{od}}
I see your point. I've renamed the {{!xt|"Origin"}} section to {{xt|"History"}}, since the content does not clearly expain what the origin of the term is. I hope you find this satisfactory. — '''''[[User:Newslinger|Newslinger]]''' [[User talk:Newslinger#top|talk]]'' 19:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

{{tref}}

== Is NBC a reliable sources for the Wikipedia The Epoch Times (ET) article? ==
{{atop|1=The consensus is that yes, NBC is a generally reliable source for the Epoch Times article, meanwhile some editors feel that the CRC is unreliable. '''[[User:Starship.paint|starship]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|.paint]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|talk]])''' 02:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)}}
{{pagelinks|The Epoch Times}}
* [https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/trump-qanon-impending-judgment-day-behind-facebook-fueled-rise-epoch-n1044121 NBC report A]
* [https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/23/facebook-bans-ads-from-the-epoch-times-after-huge-pro-trump-buy.html report B]

I am a newcomer in English Wikipedia and only discussed on the ET talk page twice. Nevertheless, I believe my question in the subject line is valid, as the ET article referenced these two NBC reports at least 10 times. Yesterday when I made the 2nd comment on ET talk page, Admin Doug Weller advised: "if you are so sure about this, take it to WP:RSN". Following this advice, I am here now.

In the two NBC reports, NBC claimed that the fund ET placed in pro-Trump ads in the last year was more than any other organization outside Trump’s re-election campaign and more than what most of the Democratic presidential candidates spent on their campaigns in the same time. This claim is quite misleading.

According to CRC's report [https://capitalresearch.org/article/nbc-news-fails-crc-fact-check-the-epoch-times-is-no-pro-trump-dark-money-operation/ NBC News Fails CRC Fact Check]: The Epoch Times Is No Pro-Trump Dark Money Operation, “It is true that the Epoch Times reporting is generally favorable to Trump, and that they used their coverage of the administration in many of their ads to drive subscriptions. However, this is commonplace for news outlets looking to draw subscribers, and no less than The New York Times has done the same.”

[[WP:REPUTABLE]] stated “Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. “ NBC seems to be not a third-party in terms of assessing or reporting about ET, on consideration of the following two factors:

1. Being obsessed with the conspiracy theory that Trump works for Russia, in recent years NBC was caught for reporting fake news many times in this regard. Here are 2 examples: [https://thefederalist.com/2020/05/11/chuck-todd-faceplants-with-deceptive-video-of-william-barr/ A], and [https://www.dailywire.com/news/maddow-blames-her-audience-her-fake-news-media-aaron-bandler B].

For over 3 years, ET has been reporting Spygate where the pro-Hillary US Intelligence Community (IC) set up traps to spy and to destroy their enemy Trump and his supporters. Many events unfolded in 2019 and 2020, such as DOJ’s [https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrE182mr75ecWYAzVrrFAx.;_ylu=X3oDMTByMjB0aG5zBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzYw--/RV=2/RE=1589583910/RO=10/RU=https%3a%2f%2fwww.npr.org%2f2020%2f03%2f31%2f824510255%2fjustice-department-ig-finds-widespread-problems-with-fbis-fisa-applications/RK=2/RS=4hvEjn0TbRJJif8o_hGzD62B5b8- IG report on FBI`s FISA abuse], [https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/05/08/new_red_flags_emerge_from_fbis_handling_of_flynn_case_123520.html the declassified FBI document showing the plot to trap General Flynn], indicate The Epoch Times’ reports on Spygate theory in the past 3 years seem to be accurate. Recently many other media echoed ET’s Spygate report. [https://news.yahoo.com/obamagate-not-conspiracy-theory-214627867.html Here is one recent Yahoo news]

Reporting facts is a media’s duty, which should not be classified as being pro-Trump. NBC and ET have been reporting two competing theories and therefore being competitors to each other. It seems that by associating ET’s Facebook ad for increasing subscription with Trump’s re-election campaign, these NBC reports made use of the anti-Trump sentiment to NBC advantage for beating down NBC’s competitor ET.

2. Both media’s relationship with the Chinese Communist Party is opposite
[https://www.nbcuniversal.com/business/universal-beijing-resort NBC Universe has a joint venture in Beijing with CCP], while ET early journalists in China were persecuted by CCP and last year [https://www.theepochtimes.com/masked-intruders-set-fire-to-hong-kong-epoch-times-printing-press_3150829.html CCP riots in Hong Kong tried to burn down ET’s printing house]
NBC’s economic ties with CCP made its reports on ET appear not following COI.

On consideration of above factors, I believe NBC can hardly be counted as a third party on the subject of ET and to cite NBC for introducing ET could be against [[WP:COI]] and [[WP:REPUTABLE]], so I am raising the question for your review. [[user:诗琳童|Scarlett]] 04:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

*NBC is a reliable source, while the Epoch Times is a propaganda mouthpiece for far-right interests, from Donald Trump to Covid disinformation campaigns to Falun Gong advocating. [[User:Zaathras|Zaathras]] ([[User talk:Zaathras|talk]]) 03:30, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

*NBC News is a high-quality reliable source. It has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. [[User:Snooganssnoogans|Snooganssnoogans]] ([[User talk:Snooganssnoogans|talk]]) 15:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

* NBC News is a source of the highest quality, and I've never heard any general criticism over its fact checking or journalistic integrity. I would count it as the highest level of reliability among news sources. --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron]][[User talk:Jayron32|''32'']] 15:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

* As other editors highlight above, NBC News is generally considered a high-quality source. The CNC ([[Capital Research Center]]), on the other hand, which has produced movies like ''[[No Safe Spaces]]'' under its movie production extension "Dangerous Documentaries", is a right-wing political organization. Its defense of Falun Gong propaganda arms is not a huge surprise. [[User:Bloodofox|:bloodofox:]] ([[User talk:Bloodofox|talk]]) 16:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

* NBC is a highly reliable source, Capital Research Center (CRC) is a highly unreliable source. Any time you have to use a highly unreliable against a highly reliable source you should probably just walk away. [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 16:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

* NBC is indeed a reliable news source, while the Epoch Times is not. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 18:19, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
*NBC is one of very few sources that we can pretty much make a blanket determination of its reliability. Capital Research, however, is laughably unreliable and far right garbage. The opinion of CR would be like considering the opinion of Redditors at r/conspiracy on The New York Times to be valuable or legitimate. [[User:Praxidicae|Praxidicae]] ([[User talk:Praxidicae|talk]]) 18:30, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
*NBC and ET aren't publishing {{tq|two competing theories}}. NBC is reporting the truth, while ET is off the rails on their pro-Trump conspiracy theories. – [[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]] ([[User talk:Muboshgu#top|talk]]) 18:34, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
*The [[WP:COI]] guidelines being cited are not guidelines for sources to include or exclude; they are guidelines for which editors should or should not be editing given articles. The topic starter here may wish to read it, for instances where it may be of relevance. --[[User:NatGertler|Nat Gertler]] ([[User talk:NatGertler|talk]]) 16:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
*NBC News is a high-quality, reputable source. EP or CRC are the opposite. "Spygate" is fringe conspiracy crap. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]][[User talk:Neutrality|talk]] 13:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
{{abottom}}

== The Post Millennial for article [[Supervised injection site]] ==

I am not seeing much prior discussions on this source. I am considering using [https://thepostmillennial.com/safe-consumption-sites-not-as-effective-as-predicted this source] for the article [[Supervised injection site]]. They do have [https://thepostmillennial.com/page/ethical-journalism-policy-and-mission-statement editorial policy] posted. [[User:Graywalls|Graywalls]] ([[User talk:Graywalls|talk]]) 04:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
:I would say that most likely they follow into the "should be be attributed" category, as they have a pretty strong right-leaning bias, and despite what they may say about their "rigorous multi-level review process" they still have published misleading or outright false stories that fit their preferred narrative without proper vetting. They may correct them after the fact [https://factcheck.afp.com/rainbow-poppies-not-mandatory-remembrance-day-manitoba-school when called out on it by prominent fact checkers], but, combined with the heavily loaded language in which much of their reporting is written, it does not instill much faith in their reliability, at least not to the point where potentially contentious material could be stated in Wikipedia's voice without attribution. [[User:AmbivalentUnequivocality|AmbivalentUnequivocality]] ([[User talk:AmbivalentUnequivocality|talk]]) 06:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
:There's no evidence that ''The Post Millennial'' has the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy required for reliable sources here, particularly given that supervised injection sites are an issue ''at least'' bordering [[WP:MEDRS]]. If this study is actually as "bombshell" as claimed, there should be some mainstream and medical sources reporting on the issue. If not... well, maybe it isn't. [[User:NorthBySouthBaranof|NorthBySouthBaranof]] ([[User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof|talk]]) 06:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
::I agree with NorthBySouthBaranof that there should be better sources who have picked up such a supposedly groundbreaking study. –[[User:Roscelese|Roscelese]] ([[User talk:Roscelese|talk]] ⋅ [[Special:Contributions/Roscelese|contribs]]) 15:13, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm concerned that this and the related [[Needle exchange programme]] seem to be riven with poor sources on both sides - blogspot pages, sloppy journalism, primary sources from advocacy groups, claims presented as undisputed fact, etc. They could definitely use attention from folks with [[WP:MEDRS]] expertise. [[User:NorthBySouthBaranof|NorthBySouthBaranof]] ([[User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof|talk]]) 06:53, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

The Post Millennial is a generally unreliable source with a reputation for advocacy and spreading misinformation. Its not appropriate to use on any article except perhaps its own even when attributed. This is a bottom of the barrel source, especially when it comes to socially contentious topics like the one here. [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 17:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
:*{{re|Horse Eye Jack}}, do you have anything backing up the claim about its reputation for "advocacy and spreading misinformation"? That's a pretty contentious claim. [[User:Graywalls|Graywalls]] ([[User talk:Graywalls|talk]]) 20:50, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
:*General comment: The Post Millennial is a relatively new outlet, it has a right-leaning bias, and it produces both news and opinion journalism. There's definitely some variability with respect to the editorial rigour in their articles. With those caveats in mind, they are an increasingly influential and professionalizing outlet, and I would not agree that they "have a reputation for...spreading information." All outlets occasionally err and issue corrections (yes, even left-leaning ones!) and there's nothing remarkable about that. So treat with a bit of caution (e.g. if they use loaded adjectives, bear in mind that it may be coloured by an ideological bias, but the facts may still be true), and consider in-line attribution as needed.
:*In this context: go ahead and use it. The article is just a lengthy summary of a report, which obviously exists, and which can be cross-referenced if there are any doubts. While a right-leaning political bias may affect the framing of the article, the facts appear correct.[[User:TheBlueCanoe|'''TheBlueCanoe''']] 19:45, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

*'''Doesn't look reliable'''. As other editors have noted above, the site appears to be little more than a small, right-wing tabloid. For example, [https://thepostmillennial.com/category/culture/ the site's "culture" column] consists of little more than attacks on "SJWs" and feminists, about how America's churches "provide the most essential service of all", attacks on the ACLU, defenses of single-use plastic, etc. Articles in the "news" columns are similarly couched with right-wing talking points, and [https://thepostmillennial.com/category/coronavirus/ the "Coronovarius" column] consists almost entirely of flattering reports of "anti-shutdown protestors" and negative coverage of politicians enacting these policies (with, of course, glowing coverage of Trump).

:The site also appears to play quite loose with its coverage when it doesn't align with the narrative they present. For example, [https://thepostmillennial.com/waffle-house-shootout-over-face-masks-leads-to-attempted-murder-charge this header refers to a straightforward assault or "shooting" as a "shootout"], which misleads casual readers. There was no exchange of gunfire (OED: ''Shoot-out'': "A sustained exchange of shooting, a gun-fight.").

:In short, the site appears to be essentially a tiny [[Breitbart]], with a similar rejection of objectivity. I'm sure a closer look will reveal further issues. Whatever the case, I recommend finding a more objective source. [[User:Bloodofox|:bloodofox:]] ([[User talk:Bloodofox|talk]]) 20:23, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

*'''Unreliable''' (though it may be useful for Canadian political news, since some articles indicate that they have good access to party officials). Consider checking out [[The Post Millennial]] and [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_278#Hotair_and_thepostmillennial|past]] [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_289#The_Post_Millennial_for_Bo_Winegard|discussions]] on RSN regarding the source. A major issue is poor division between opinion and news ([https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/the-post-millennial-journalism-conservative-advocacy-1.5191593 CBC 2019]). Even for uncontroversial facts, I would prefer any more reliable source. This source has come up in BLP talk on a few occasions, and it has generally been deemed not up to snuff for that purpose (<[[Talk:Meredith_Russo#Regarding_the_Post_Millennial_article|1]]><[[Talk:Alec_Holowka/Archive_1#Russia_Today_and_The_Post_Millennial|2]]>). [[User:Jlevi|Jlevi]] ([[User talk:Jlevi|talk]]) 20:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

*'''comment''' I'm seeing on [https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-post-millennial/ here] it's mostly factual, with a bit of right bias, however I am not sure if mediabiasfactcheck.com is considered a respected authority on wikipedia for source bias. [[User:Graywalls|Graywalls]] ([[User talk:Graywalls|talk]]) 20:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
:: MBFC is sometimes useful to see if they've linked anything reliable, but [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_248#Should_we_use_mediabiasfactcheck.com_to_determine_what_sources_are_reliable?|past RSN]] conversations indicate with strong consensus that the site itself shouldn't be used directly. [[User:Jlevi|Jlevi]] ([[User talk:Jlevi|talk]]) 21:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Generally unreliable''' per Jlevi and Bloodfox, who have shown misleading information and poor distinction between factual reporting and opinion. Since they are mostly aggregators, news should be cited to the original outlet. Attributed opinions are unlikely to be due weight. The CBC article says "The Post Millennial's ethics policy appears to have been largely plagiarized from other media sources. Approximately 75 per cent of the language in the policy is identical to declarations of principles from The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Globe and Mail and Torstar publications." (!) That's blatant copyvio, so [[WP:ELNEVER]] may also come into consideration. [[User:Buidhe|b]][[User talk:Buidhe|uidh]][[Special:Contributions/Buidhe|e]] 23:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
*Probably '''avoid''' using it in the particular case mentioned above for the reasons NorthBySouthBaranof and Roscelese give: if the study in question is significant, better sources will cover it, and (especially as this is a MED-adjacent topic) biased sources are not ideal. As to the general case (of whether they should be used ''anywhere''), they're certainly a '''biased''' source in my experience seeing other TPM articles I'd seen in the process of Wikipedia articles, and now seeing specific examples provided above, and plagiarizing their ethics policy(!) and being called out for inaccurate reporting elsewhere suggests they're also an '''unreliable''' source. (One might make the usual proviso that they could be reliable for statements about their own current staff, beliefs, etc, although as the ''Daily Mail'' RfC further up this page indicates, trusting an unreliable source to be reliable even about themselves can be risky.) [[User:-sche|-sche]] ([[User talk:-sche|talk]]) 16:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Generally unreliable'''; see [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2020/04/03/how-coronavirus-disinformation-gets-past-social-media-moderators/ here], [https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-peter-mackay-issues-libel-notice-over-the-post-millennial-article-on/ here], and [https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/the-post-millennial-journalism-conservative-advocacy-1.5191593 here]. It's comparable to Breitbart in that it makes no distinction between opinion and news, was founded to stridently advance a particular political agenda, and has a history of playing fast-and-loose with the fact as part of that goal. Perhaps most notably, while they have an ethics policy, they plagiarized much of it from the Washington Post (see the second link.) --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 15:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
:: Though I agree with questioning TPM's reliability in general, I would like to note that the second source you mention (regarding the libel notice) may not be entirely useful for this discussion. I'm not familiar enough with Canadian politics to make a strong statement, but that piece is framed in terms of ''allegations'' and a lot of he-said-she-said. I don't think the piece ever makes a statement in the publication's voice. That may change if we see a a result from the court/libel case. [[User:Jlevi|Jlevi]] ([[User talk:Jlevi|talk]]) 15:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

== Plainsite.org on [[Tesla, Inc.]] and [[Elon Musk]] ==

In relation to Tesla, plainsite.org is currently cited in a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_lawsuits_and_controversies_of_Tesla,_Inc.&diff=prev&oldid=957506035 couple] of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TSLAQ&type=revision&diff=952411038&oldid=952017847 places]. Yesterday I removed a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tesla%2C_Inc.&type=revision&diff=957129694&oldid=957075050 third plainsite.org citation] related to Tesla. I did so for two reasons. Firstly, a few days ago the person behind plainsite.org [https://web.archive.org/web/20200522145159/https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/49sdnba14/california-northern-district-court/greenspan-v-qazi-et-al/ filed a lawsuit] against Tesla. Secondly, in the filings of that lawsuit they [https://web.archive.org/web/20200522145159/https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/download.html?id=290085684&a=14&z=e7d42c76 divulge their personal, financial investments against Tesla]. (Investing against a company means [[short (finance)|short selling]] of that company's stock or as in this case, the purchase (from an entity unrelated to the company) of [[put options]] that will pay out handsomely if the company goes bankrupt.) Per their filing, the plainsite.org owner has made an investment that will as a maximum pay out $200,000 if Tesla goes bankrupt (or the stock becomes essentially worthless) by June 19 of this year. Among the investments listed in their filing is an investment against Tesla on March 8, 2019, so on that date they created a personal, financial interest against Tesla. On the Tesla article, I removed the reference to plainsite.org (and the content that it alone supported) because I consider it self-evident that we cannot cite material from a website operated by a person who has started a legal conflict with Tesla and who is actively investing against the company. In addition to Tesla, the lawsuit list as defendants also [[Elon Musk]], a company ''Smick Enterprises Inc.'' as well as an apparently non-notable, named individual. As such I think a general decision on the scope of plainsite.org citations is necessary. For this discussion I am paging {{u|QRep2020}}, an anti-Tesla-focused SPA who happens to have introduced all three references to plainsite.org. [[User:Lklundin|Lklundin]] ([[User talk:Lklundin|talk]]) 13:23, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
:How is this user QRep2020 not a COI account? Seems to have flown under the radar despite already being blocked. A true advocacy/COI SPA. [[User:DIYeditor|—DIYeditor]] ([[User talk:DIYeditor|talk]]) 13:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
:: I included Plainsite.org because I could not find any other website on the Internet that is keeping an living count of lawsuits where Tesla is a party. I frankly agree Plainsite is a bit too involved - though Aaron Greenspan has denied being a part of TSLAQ - but until there's another website that is providing that sort of detailed <s>important</s> information, I thought the point was important enough to surface. Feel free to prove me wrong as I didn't spend hours researching. [[User:QRep2020|QRep2020]] ([[User talk:QRep2020|talk]]) 17:18, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
::: As if short-sellers are known for their reliability and honesty. -- [[User:GreenC|'''Green''']][[User talk:GreenC|'''C''']] 19:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
::::Any evidence that this has been true on a large scale? Conversely, why would I trust someone promoting a stock? Don't they have the same COI as a short seller? [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 21:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::Nobody involved in short selling, holding or promoting a stock should be editing the relevant article directly in my opinion. Isn't that textbook COI? [[User:DIYeditor|—DIYeditor]] ([[User talk:DIYeditor|talk]]) 01:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::*How is any of this relevant to the current discussion? What reason do we have to believe someone from Plainsite is editing entries on Wikipedia? [[User:QRep2020|QRep2020]] ([[User talk:QRep2020|talk]]) 01:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::First, my comment was directed at the claim that short sellers in general are unreliable or dishonest. I didn't take that comment to be Wikipedia specific and my answer certainly wasn't meant to be. As for Wikipedia specifically, are you suggesting one of the editors here has a COI or just that Plainsite has the COI? What level of fiscal involvement becomes a COI issue? If I own 100 shares of Grumman should I be barred from editing the Grumman article? [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 01:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::Yes, my understanding is that you should not be editing [[Grumman]]. I'm a little surprised you need to ask this but maybe there is something I am woefully misunderstanding about [[WP:COI]]? [[User:DIYeditor|—DIYeditor]] ([[User talk:DIYeditor|talk]]) 02:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::How did you derive that from [[WP:COI]]?
:::::::::{{tq|''Any external relationship—personal, religious, political, academic, legal, or financial (including holding a cryptocurrency)—can trigger a COI. How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense. For example, an article about a band should not be written by the band's manager, and a biography should not be an autobiography or written by the subject's spouse. There can be a COI when writing on behalf of a competitor or opponent of the page subject, just as there is when writing on behalf of the page subject.''}}
::::::::On one hand I could take it to mean Democrats are not allowed to write about Republicans as they have an interest in making Republicans look bad. Republicans are not allowed to write about Republicans as they have an interest in making Republicans look good. So only independents can write about Republicans? That might fall into the common sense end of things. Back to Grumman, if I were a major shareholder then I would have a clear COI. As a minor shareholder of a major (and technically no longer existing) company how much impact could my edits have on the stock price? I mean if everything I write is from RS and has WEIGHT then how could it be the sort of cutting edge news that would move the markets? WP:COI gives examples of company owners but not typical shareholders. I would agree that Greenspan from Plainsite would have a COI with regards to Tesla based on disclosed investments but I don't believe Greenspan in an involved editor here. Absent insider knowledge how could I with some tiny fraction of Grumman shares impact the stock price by editing the Grumman article? [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 02:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::I'm going to assume you are <s>trolling</s> or something. Despite being linked to the correct spelling of Grumman you are still typing Grumann and as you say it doesn't even exist anymore. {{tq|or financial (including holding a cryptocurrency)}}. At this point I am extremely skeptical of your handling of any of this and I think we should look further into it to see if any funny business is going on. [[User:DIYeditor|—DIYeditor]] ([[User talk:DIYeditor|talk]]) 02:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::I've corrected the spelling error from Grumann to Grumman. Grumman is no longer a company. It merged with Northrup. Thus there are no shares of Grumman to speak of. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 03:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::{{tq|This includes being an owner, employee, contractor, investor or other stakeholder.}} Couldn't be more clear. Please explain how this could possibly elude you? [[User:DIYeditor|—DIYeditor]] ([[User talk:DIYeditor|talk]]) 02:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::I don't agree that owning some shares in a company makes you a "Paid Editor". That is the section you are quoting. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 03:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::::Despite how you may wish to interpret the section heading that introductory sentence states plainly that it is about a financial conflict of interest and what this includes. [[User:DIYeditor|—DIYeditor]] ([[User talk:DIYeditor|talk]]) 03:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::::So then how is owning a few shares of Grumman (spelled correctly this time) a bigger COI vs editing an article about a political candidate I want to see succeed or fail? Per [[WP:EXTERNALREL]], {{tq|"''How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense."''}}. If I own one share of Grumman how much incentive do I have to try to sneak some market moving information into the article? Again, "governed by common sense". [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 03:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::::::This is a discussion for either [[WP:COI/N]] or [[Wikipedia Talk:COI]]. [[User:DIYeditor|—DIYeditor]] ([[User talk:DIYeditor|talk]]) 03:27, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
:I think it's a reliable repository for the relevant lawsuits. That is, if a RS mentions X vs Y lawsuit and that lawsuit is available on Plainsite then I would say we can reliability assume the copy is reliable (not a altered or doctored). Additionally if a RS links to information on Plainsite I would consider it reliable for inclusion here (assuming WEIGHT). Essentially we should treat Plainsite as we would the content of a personal blog.
:Lklundin, DIYeditor, it is not appropriate to start this off with a discrediting statement about QRep2020. Certainly there is no evidence they have a COI with Tesla. As for disliking Tesla, well that is clear but how many editors here dislike the left or right yet are actively editing those topics. If there is evidence they are editing problematically then take it to ANI. It should not be a topic here. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 21:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
::I reject the claim that {{u|QRep2020}} is being inappropriately discredited here. The editor should be informed when edits that they (alone) have made are being discussed here. The SPA tag exists exactly to inform others about such an editor. That QRep2020 appears to edit disruptively and make advocacy out of COI is explained [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATesla%2C_Inc.&type=revision&diff=958945872&oldid=958767376 here]. [[User:Lklundin|Lklundin]] ([[User talk:Lklundin|talk]]) 12:26, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
:Adding to my about comments about Plainsite, it has been used as a reference by news outlets. [[https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-tesla-model-3-safety-nhtsa-2019-8]][[https://techcrunch.com/2019/08/07/u-s-regulators-take-aim-at-tesla-over-model-3-safety-claims/?renderMode=ie11]][[https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/23/tesla-solarcity-claims-detailed-in-newly-unsealed-court-docs.html]][[https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-repeatedly-insults-lawyer-during-bizarre-deposition-2019-10]][[https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/28/musk-deposition-stockholders-v-tesla-solarcity.html]][[https://www.autospies.com/news/Elon-Musk-Warns-That-Residual-Values-For-ICE-Vehicles-Will-Plummet-In-The-Next-Few-Years-101474/]][[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-01-22/the-tesla-tslaq-skeptics-who-bet-against-elon-musk]][[https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2019/09/24/teslas-solar-city-acquisition-was-a-bailout-in.html]][[https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/19/tesla-and-elon-musk-lawsuits-overview.html]][[https://www.forbes.com/sites/alanohnsman/2019/08/23/tesla-and-walmart-signal-detente-after-retailer-sues-over-solar-panel-fires/#7ea7a10e618c]][[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2019/11/10/trouble-tesla-fires-lawsuits-could-thwart-elon-musks-big-bet/]][[https://www.thedrive.com/tech/29089/tesla-enters-whistleblower-hell]][[https://www.cars.com/articles/the-week-in-tesla-news-self-driving-price-hike-model-3-crash-tests-getaway-tesla-and-more-407528/]][[https://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/mobility/2019/08/12/self-driving-cars-no-rules-from-washington/1891200001/]][[https://www.thedrive.com/tech/27696/elon-musk-settles-with-sec-agrees-to-limit-disclosures-again]][[https://www.newsweek.com/video-tesla-explodes-tow-truck-1453745]][[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-01/solar-real-estate-is-hiding-in-plain-site-on-europe-s-rooftops]][[https://www.politico.com/newsletters/morning-transportation/2019/08/08/the-wait-continues-for-amtrak-nominees-466514]][[https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/12/doctor-once-hired-by-clinic-that-sees-tesla-workers-just-lost-his-license/]] In most of these cases Plainsite is acknowledged as a transparency site that filed for fredom of information requests or simply collected and published the relevant legal documents. In almost no cases save for a comparison of the number of active legal cases pending against various car companies, is Plainsite credited with some level of data transformation. Again, I think we can assume the information is truthful but should assume the information has zero WEIGHT. It would only be included in cases like CNBC citing Plainsite as the source for depositions etc. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 01:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
::I wonder if we can sidestep the issue at hand for now. I came across a "Google Dataset Search" entry for Tesla lawsuits that references Plainsite as the source. Although the information was assembled by Plainsite it looks like the entry does not list Plainsite as one of the databases. Maybe this would work instead of a link to Plainsite since Plainsite is under scrutiny. Are there any policies on Wikipedia about data sets and sources? https://datasetsearch.research.google.com/search?query=%22tesla%20lawsuits%22&docid=5q3qE%2FgkHRIQhrg7AAAAAA%3D%3D [[User:QRep2020|QRep2020]] ([[User talk:QRep2020|talk]]) 14:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
:::I don't think that really changes things in my view. There are two questions that we have to ask before information from Plainsite could be used in any article. The first, is if the material is reliable. In basically all cases it's reliable as evidence that "Plainsite said X". Per WP:RS it can't be treated as reliable for general statements of fact. I think it can be reliable as a source for "copy of lawsuit, deposition materials etc related to legal case X". This is how it has been cited by a number of RSs. We should not use it as a source for Plainsite generated claims including statistics (example ''X had 50 lawsuits in 2019''). However if say NBC News says ''"X had 50 lawsuits in 2019 according to Plainsite''" that would be considered RS since a RS is vouching for the material. All of this only addresses the reliability of the material. The other question is WEIGHT/DUE. Even if we had a letter from the all mighty saying Plainsite was 100% true there is still the question of weight. In this case we really need 3rd party RSs to cite the information to show it has weight in context of the bigger topic. I don't see that the Google search does that. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 15:26, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
::::Thank you for explaining. The matter at hand really is then whether Plainsite is a reliable "repository" of lawsuits. If it is a reliable repository, then an editor can cite it in a Wikipedia article and count the amount of lawsuit references under the guidelines allowed for calculation by [[Wikipedia:No original research]] for inclusion of a statement of the references tally. Plainsite might be biased but biased sources are allowed under [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources]] and even with that it is not as if Plainsite is generating factual statements. If something as controversial and profiteering as Wikileaks is allowed to be a [[Iraq War documents leak|repository source on a Wikipedia article]] then Plainsite should be as well. [[User:QRep2020|QRep2020]] ([[User talk:QRep2020|talk]]) 16:39, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::We might be in agreement but I'm not certain. Per OR and RS we shouldn't have a sentence claiming Tesla is involved with X no. of lawsuits because Plainsite lists X or says so. However, if a RS says in his deposition Tesla CFO said X [cite per RS that links to Plainsite] then I don't see a reason not to have both the cite to the RS as well as linking directly to the deposition. If the Wikipedia article is going to attribute the claim it should go to the RS unless they attribute the specific claim to Plainsite. So if RS says "Tesla did X per Plainsite" then it would be OK for the article to say "legal something site Plainsite said Tesla did X"[citation to RS]. Note that the details of any such edit are subject to local consensus. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 16:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::I don't think we are unfortunately. How about linking to a new or updated Wikipedia list article that lists the approximately 700 lawsuits and employs an External Links section to link to the docket list on Plainsite vis-a-vis a source link in References section? I do not want to go so far as to suggest precluding any reference to Plainsite because regardless of perspective Plainsite did do work to assemble the list and I bet it is against some Wikipedia policy to "snatch and run" with the producibles of other sites' efforts. [[User:QRep2020|QRep2020]] ([[User talk:QRep2020|talk]]) 19:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::This is really an article level discussion but what you need is a RS that draws attention to the number of lawsuits. If Forbes has an article that notes the number of lawsuits or compares the number of cases vs other automakers then we have some weight for article inclusion. This isn't a question of where the list comes from, rather if the information is DUE for inclusion. If Tesla had more pending lawsuits than all other car companies combined it would be a shocking fact but it wouldn't be DUE unless a RS discussed it (even that doesn't guarantee inclusion). Think of this as Wikipedia informational due process. Sometimes it seems like good information is being excluded but that's just how things work around here. We are meant to be summarizing what reliable sources say about the subject. Consider that our intended audience is [[WP:10YT|a decade in the future]]. If the number of lawsuits is considered important it will come out. Perhaps not as soon as we would wish but it will come out. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 19:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

::While it should be clear that we cannot use plainsite.org as a reference for Tesla (and Elon Musk), it is different if a RS cites plainsite in connection with one of these entities. Wikipedia has created for itself the process here for (re)evaluating whether a source is reliable. The typical, reliable news media cannot be expected to retroactively assess whether a source they cite is still reliable in their view and will typically not on their own retract a story if a source they quote turn out to be something else than it was at first. So if for example CNBC e.g. a couple of months ago cited plainsite.org in relation to Tesla (or Elon Musk), would we then cite the CNBC source with or without attribution (knowing that their source had the above mentioned problems)? [[User:Lklundin|Lklundin]] ([[User talk:Lklundin|talk]]) 15:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
:::Yes, I would be OK citing CNBC in that case. We would have to ask, how would/could the material sourced to Plainsite be compromised by the site owner's fiscal interest? Please note that a similar fiscal interest has or currently exists with sites like Electrek and Cleantechnica other than they profit with increases in Tesla stock vs drops. Back to Plainsite, the primary thing the website offers is a publicly accessible repository of court and government documents that would otherwise be difficult/expensive to access. Do we have any evidence at all that such records are false or altered? None that has been presented. If CNBC says, "Musk said X in his SolarCity deposition according to legal records requested by Plainsite" where is the concern? I can see some concern if CNBC says Plainsite says "Tesla has 50 lawsuits pending vs 10 for GM". Still, given Plainsite's involvement with Tesla and TSLAQ I would have to assume CNBC would understand that Plainsite isn't an unbiased source yet chose to cite them anyway. So while a case could be made that a stat purely generated by Plainsite may be questionable we should still treat it as reliable if a reliable source does the same. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 16:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
::::I agree. If a RS cites plainsite.org on Tesla (or Elon Musk), then we should be able to use that with attribution. [[User:Lklundin|Lklundin]] ([[User talk:Lklundin|talk]]) 11:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

== Can YouTube video (having more than 100K views) be used as references for notability ==

I want to know that if a view having more than 100K views (example for a song). Can anyone use it as reference to that song in that singer's biography '''Discography''' section. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:TheChunky|TheChunky]] ([[User talk:TheChunky#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/TheChunky|contribs]]) 

:No, youtube numbers cited to youtube doesn't mean anything, [[WP:N]]-wise. If ''[[Rolling Stone]]'' writes an article about the song, then it may be notable, and if ''that'' article bothers to mention the number of views on YT, it's fair to mention it in a potential WP-article. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 09:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
:Notability and popularity are not the same thing.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 11:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
:No, as discussed. Also consider looking at [[Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_on_discussion_pages#Google_test|Arguments to avoid: Google Test]] for a similar discussion on google hits. [[User:Jlevi|Jlevi]] ([[User talk:Jlevi|talk]]) 15:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
:[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TioINDSHcps This howling dog video] has 401,012 views, is the dog notable? Seriously, no, YouTube numbers are not the kind of sources Wikipedia uses. However, a video with 100k or a few million views could mean sources are out there.--[[User:Eostrix|Eostrix]] ([[User talk:Eostrix|talk]]) 16:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
:and to add, 100,000 is not even top 500.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 16:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
:: it's actually ''worse'' than the Google Test. Take a look at [ https://duckduckgo.com/?q=buy+youtube+views ]. You can buy fake YouTube views for $1 to $2 for a thousand views. Or you can accomplish the same thing without cheating by buying YouTube ads that lead to your videos. GEICO, TurboTax, Grammarly, and Wayfair have all received millions of legitimate views because they ran ads on other, more popular YouTube videos. The cost for this is roughly $200 per thousand views, so this method is pretty much used only when a reasonable percentage of those views turn into paying customers.
::Other online venues where there exists a thriving market for fake views/subscribers/likes/followers/positive reviews/etc., are Twitter, Facebook, and Reddit. See [ https://duckduckgo.com/?q=buy+reddit+upvotes ] and [ https://duckduckgo.com/?q=buy+facebook+likes ] --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 16:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
: I am stating my opinion but not the current practice: If it is from an official account (with Youtube Verification in some form), I think it is acceptable. [[User:Universehk|Universehk]] ([[User talk:Universehk|talk]]) 23:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
* Generally no. YouTube is a video hosting platform, and does not make the publisher any more or less reliable than if it had uploaded the video on its own website. If the YouTube channel is verified in some way to a source that would otherwise be considered reliable, then the video would be reliable and count toward notability regardless of the number of views (subject to the other conditions in the [[WP:GNG|general notability guideline]]). If the YouTube channel is verified to a self-published source, then the video would still be considered unreliable and not count toward notability. Most YouTube videos fall in the latter category. — '''''[[User:Newslinger|Newslinger]]''' [[User talk:Newslinger#top|talk]]'' 11:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
*I think the principle of [[WP:GHITS]] should come in here. In layman's terms: No, they should not because as people said above, number of views is completely meaningless. '''[[User:The C of E|The C of E God Save the Queen!]]''' ([[User talk:The C of E|talk]]) 11:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
*Nope as per everyone above, Also if the video is deleted the article is stuffed ... whereas if it's a news article then it wouldn't matter if the link died as we have [[Wayback Machine]]. IMHO Youtube should be avoided at all costs when it comes ro sourcing. –[[User:Davey2010|'''Davey''''''2010''']][[User talk:Davey2010|'''Talk''']] 11:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
*What Gråbergs Gråa Sång said. If an article in a [[WP:RS]] finds the number of YouTube views of a video notable enough for a mention, that article can be cited in Wikipedia for a mention of the video's YouTube views. Otherwise, no, don't cite the YouTube video itself unless the use complies with [[WP:ABOUTSELF]]. [[User talk:Feminist|feminist]] | wear a mask, protect everyone 02:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

== ConservativeHome ==

[[ConservativeHome]] is a conservative (suprising no one) UK political website / blog founded by [[Tim Montgomerie]] and currently owned by [[Lord Ashcroft]]. It has been {{duses|conservativehome.com|cited over 300 times and externally linked nearly 500 times}} on Wikipedia. To me Conservative Home looks like a self-published partisan blog like [[Guido Fawkes (website)|Guido Fawkes]] or [[The Skwawkbox]], and therefore should generally not be used as a source. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 19:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

* Shared blog at best - definitely not an RS - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 20:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

:Most of these links appear to be to articles about contributors saying that they contribute to the blog. That doesn't seem to be an rs problem. I don't even think it's a weight problem because people reading the biography articles may want to know where they can go to find their contributions. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 21:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
:: I don't doubt that some of them are about contributors to the blog, and they are usable per [[WP:ABOUTSELF]]. But I don't see how they could constitute a majority of uses at least from a brief look at the list. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 21:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
*Only useful for aboutself and (minimally) attributed opinion. Other uses should be axed. [[User:Buidhe|b]][[User talk:Buidhe|uidh]][[Special:Contributions/Buidhe|e]] 23:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Opinion, attribute for anything else'''. In [[https://www.conservativehome.com/about] their about] they do bill themselves as a news site with an editorial team (with six staff members listed). It not run by Montgomerie anymore (he does contribute). This isn't Guido Fawkes or Skwawkbox, more akin to [[LabourList]]. This is a partisan oriented news/opinion site, and for news there are more reliable and neutral sources.--[[User:Hippeus|Hippeus]] ([[User talk:Hippeus|talk]]) 08:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
:: [[The Canary (website)|The Canary]] also has a considerable number of staff, despite this they were judged to be generally unreliable (Not that this directly relates to CH). I think that CH is usable (minimally) for attributed opinions, but for general citations, I agree that better non partisan sources could be found. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 13:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
::: That's a valid comparison. Partisan opinion sites designed to preach to the faithful are not appropriate for use on Wikipedia, and shouldn't even be linked unless some reliable third party makes a case for the sigfnificance of any particular content. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' ([[user talk:JzG|help!]]) 10:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
* This site is opinion, and should be used sparingly, with attribution, and not at all unless some reliable independent third party source has established the significance of any particular article. Opinions are like arseholes: everybody has one. We should ''never'' go mining the internet for random opinions to make a point in an article. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' ([[user talk:JzG|help!]]) 10:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
*Forum/many-headed blog for the Conservative Party/Tory whips' offices. Not suitable for news as such. [[User:GPinkerton|GPinkerton]] ([[User talk:GPinkerton|talk]]) 22:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
*Self source only, too partisan to be reliable for factual information, imv [[User:Atlantic306|Atlantic306]] ([[User talk:Atlantic306|talk]]) 22:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

== [[Daily Mirror]] ==

I forgot to ask this at [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 294#Local papers]], but is https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/keith-lemons-new-show-horrifies-22005570 reliable? I wouldn't use it myself, though that's probably not based on policy but because my late father used to work for the paper until about two months before [[Robert Maxwell]]'s death and they weren't attempting to make it a reliable source then (the phrase "two and a half percent news content" was apparently bandied about a lot at the time). [[WP:RSP]] says there is no consensus amongst Wikipedians as to whether or not it is reliable.--[[User:Launchballer|Laun]][[User talk:Launchballer|chba]][[Special:Contribs/Launchballer|ller]] 15:39, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
:When did we last discuss this?[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 15:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
:It's fine for non-controversial stuff like direct quotes of what it itself has said, with direct attribution, and reporting of banal facts like sports scores and weather reports and the like. It's also notable that banal stuff like sports scores and weather reports are ''basically always'' available in better sources anyways, so it would be rare outside of direct, attributed quotations that it would be ''better'' than just using another source. --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron]][[User talk:Jayron32|''32'']] 17:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
:Least-worst of the British tabloids, though still not great and any other source (that isn't actually worse) is to be preferred. I'd rate local papers higher. First time I read the Daily Mirror, in 2002, I had the distinct thought "this is the stupidest thing I'll read today", and I was still on Usenet at the time. I'm not sure how good it is on pop culture coverage - if it makes stuff up. That story doesn't look ''made-up'' as such, though I'm not going to consider quoting a few people on Twitter evidence of ''notable'' widespread public horror and would be reluctant to file it in the 2.5% of news content - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 21:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

: Obviously its not the most insightful source, the are usually better quality sources but I am not sure if it has been shown to be actually unreliable.[[User:Bodney| ~ BOD ~ ]][[User talk:Bodney#top|TALK]] 22:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
::yeah, I haven't heard of it being caught actually ''lying'' much. (It's lost a few defamation cases.) But just because it covers something doesn't make that thing notable, I'd say - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 22:43, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
* Meh. It's less crappy than the Mail, but if the Mirror is the only source for something then we probably shouldn't include it anyway. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' ([[user talk:JzG|help!]]) 10:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

:I don't see the point of going through each possible source. Editors should always chose the best sources available and only enter information that is widely reported in relation to the subject. Generally that means not using tabloids except in certain circumstances. Where this type of source usually comes up is why some editor wants to put something into an article that they have found on their news feed and ''The Mirror'' or some other tabloid is the only remotely reliable source that has reported it. The problem is that if one source they find is blacklisted, they will find another one. But the same can be said of the broadsheets. If a story about a well-known subject is mentioned only in ''The Times'' or the ''Guardian'', then it lacks weight for inclusion. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 15:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
::True, that is the ideal, and it is was the practice we would not even need RSN. The issue is it is used, and often as the only source.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 15:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
:::I have put the Mirror in as a source for sport scores, I figure it's not gonna lie about those and it's not a usage that implies article notability. Though I'd ''rather'' have the BBC, Guardian or Tele - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 16:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
: I'd say ''Daily Mirror'' should be posted as generally unreliable like the ''Daily Express''. While it could be considered the "least worst" of the British tabloids, it's still important to point out that it is a tabloid, and by nature puts story in front of fact. I do agree with [[User:Jayron32]], in that it should be okay for direct quotes, but beyond that I think it is just as hard as with other tabloids to distinguish reliable information and should be avoided when possible. [[User:Maxmmyron|Maxmmyron]] ([[User talk:Maxmmyron|talk]]) 03:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
*Not completely unreliable, its usable for uncontroversial content such as sport facts, film, tv and music reviews, imv [[User:Atlantic306|Atlantic306]] ([[User talk:Atlantic306|talk]]) 22:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm tempted to convert this into an RfC. How do I do this?--[[User:Launchballer|Laun]][[User talk:Launchballer|chba]][[Special:Contribs/Launchballer|ller]] 02:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

== What if secondary sources conflict with and apparently misinterpret a primary source? ==

{{article links|Death of George Floyd}}

If a movie or book is a reliable source for a plot description, isn't a video also a reliable source? If this source clearly conflicts with what a few secondary sources are saying, what should we do? I have [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Death_of_George_Floyd&diff=959513814&oldid=959513752 left] a "dubious" tag because of this. I apologize for the video I link containing some extraneous commentary at beginning and end but it is the best and only complete copy of the video I have found. I link to the exact timestamps that are relevant here.

Primary source:
#{{Youtube|id=KwITYR8Ijuo|t=5m36s}} (5m36s) African-American man walks up and starts commenting.
#{{Youtube|id=KwITYR8Ijuo|t=6m05s}} (6m05s) What sounds like the same man tells him to get up and get in the car, that he can't win. Is plainly not the Asian officer standing there whose voice can be heard in the video. There is no way you could interpret this to be one of the cops if you listen to all he says.

Secondary sources:
#[http://archive.ph/UdNGN Agence France Presse]: {{purple|the officers taunted him to "get up and get in the car."}}
#[https://www.cbsnews.com/news/minneapolis-police-george-floyd-died-officer-kneeling-neck-arrest/ CBS News]: {{purple|An officer keeps insisting he get in the car}}
#[https://www.wvlt.tv/content/news/4-Minneapolis-officers--570782261.html WVLT-TV] {{purple|An officer can be seen insisting Floyd get in the car}}
#[https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/amberjamieson/black-man-died-police-custody-minneapolis Buzzfeed News]: {{purple|A person can be heard talking to Floyd, telling him to get up and get in the car, although it is unclear if it is an officer speaking.}} (found and added since I posted this comment)

Agence France Press??? They transcribed an English video?

This may not seem important but this has real world implications. People may be understandably irate if they are told police were taunting the victim and telling him to get up while holding him down. This is not what happened. A bystander was telling him to give up. [[User:DIYeditor|—DIYeditor]] ([[User talk:DIYeditor|talk]]) 06:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC) Updated 06:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

{{u|Starship.paint}} has excellently found the conflicting secondary source and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Death_of_George_Floyd&diff=959526349&oldid=959525934 updated] the text to reflect this conflict. This resolves the exigent issue. I still wonder what is the answer to this broader question of secondary sources conflicting with primary. My feeling is that RS experts are going to say the secondary source takes precedence but it makes me uneasy because of this case. [[User:DIYeditor|—DIYeditor]] ([[User talk:DIYeditor|talk]]) 06:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

:{{re|DIYeditor}} - I wouldn't question Agence France Presse just because they're originally from France. They're one of the '[https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13216597.2018.1444663 Big Three]' news agencies. That newspapers around the world cite Agence France Presse is a testament to its credibility. '''[[User:Starship.paint|starship]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|.paint]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|talk]])''' 06:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
::I would use [[WP:INTEXT]] attribution and otherwise leave it alone until/unless a new secondary source mentions an issue. AFP and CBS are reliable enough sources that you should defer to them over direct editorial interpretation of a YouTube video.{{pb}}For the general question, it depends on the quality of the secondary and primary sources. — [[User:MarkH21|MarkH21]][[User talk:MarkH21|talk]] 06:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
*Starship.paint's solution is the correct one. When a secondary source seems to conflict with a primary source, you really only have a few options. One (the ideal one) is to find more secondary sources - ideally later-published, higher-quality ones that spell out the contradiction directly and correct it, but ones that fit any of those criteria can be good ("we found twenty sources and this is the only one describing it this way" is a valid argument.) Another option is to consider whether the existing secondary source is low-quality or unreliable on the subject (obviously this is not an option when dealing with AFP, but often if a source is glaringly wrong it's a good reason to examine them more closely.) The third option is to omit saying anything at all based on limited coverage, at least until more sources appear - this is especially a good choice for [[WP:EXCEPTIONAL]] claims, which you might not want to cite to a single source even if it's high-quality, or for [[WP:BLP]] situations where a higher standard is required. [[WP:RECENTISM]] is often also a reasonable thing to invoke for temporary omission in situations where it seems like secondary sources are getting it wrong and you expect corrections to appear shortly; part of the reason for that policy is to resolve situations like this. What we cannot do, ever, is to use a primary source to directly correct a primary source, either explicitly ("X said Y, but they were wrong[cites to X and primary source]") or implicitly (X said Y.[cite to X] But actually, Z![cite to primary source]), since that's [[WP:OR]] / [[WP:SYNTH]]. If you can't find a secondary source correcting the one you feel is incorrect, the thing to do is argue for omission; if you can't successfully do that (because eg. multiple high-quality sources are getting it wrong and there's no corrections anywhere), sometimes you just have to accept that we're an encyclopedia and therefore have no choice but to follow what reliable sourcing says even when it leads off a cliff. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 14:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
*: +1 to Aquillion says. [[User:-sche|-sche]] ([[User talk:-sche|talk]]) 20:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

== The Huffington post ==

Is this true "HuffPo is not considered a RS in general and must not be used in the context wherever there are doubts about its articles, as in this BLP. Removing what was not a position of AI" as a user has suggested at [[Piers Robinson]]?[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 09:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
*To give actual context, Piers is a UK academic currently best well known for being part of the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media, including [[Vanessa Beeley]] and others that have alleged the [[Douma chemical attack]] was staged (see [http://syriapropagandamedia.org/update-on-the-opcws-investigation-of-the-douma-incident]), and that that the [[White Helmets (Syrian Civil War)|White Helmets]] were "actively involved in managing a massacre of civilians" (see [http://syriapropagandamedia.org/james-le-mesurier-a-reconstruction-of-his-business-activities-and-covert-role]) and has been criticised for this in ''[[The Times]]'' [https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/apologists-for-assad-working-in-british-universities-2f72hw29m] [https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/professors-shut-down-debate-over-assad-s-chemical-attacks-n899fjdkm] and the ''[[HuffPost]]'' [https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/the-useful-idiots_uk_5e2b107ac5b67d8874b0dd9d] [https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/uk-academics-pro-assad-conspiracy-theories-about-syria_uk_5aa51ea7e4b01b9b0a3c4b10], and has also been criticised for being a 9/11 skeptic in the latter, see [https://www.huffpost.com/entry/professor-piers-robinson-sheffield-university_n_5c0666a3e4b07aec5752630a]. All of the posts criticising Piers in the Huffpost are by the same author, Chris York, senior editor at HuffPost UK. {{u|Kashmiri}} thinks that the HuffPost is blanket unreliable and has been repeatedly removing the sources, citing them to be BLP violations. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 12:18, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
:* well, we yellow-rate it and suggest attribution. Also, be super-careful it's an actual news article and not a contributor piece - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 09:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
::* To clarify, I never said that HuffPo "is blanket unreliable"; I warned that we should not include controversial or defamatory information about living persons based on a HuffPost article – especially when the article author is a self-confessed "specialist in conspiracy theory debunking"[https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/christopher-york/], which simply means his writings are likely to be influenced by his personal point of view. BLPs are a tricky area and whenever there are sourcing doubts re. controversial information, it should rather be left out. — [[User:Kashmiri|kashmīrī]] [[User talk:Kashmiri|TALK]] 14:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
:: {{u|Kashmiri}} I think that's fair, and I apologise if you think I misrepresented your position. I agree that I would rather use another source rather than the Huffington Post, but due to a lack of reliable secondary sources we are left with relatively few options. How do you feel about citing the WGSPM documents cited in the HuffPost articles directly, alongside the articles themselves? I am uncomforable with citing the WGSPM or Robinsons's writing directly, as these are [[WP:PRIMARY]] sources and feels uncomfortably close to [[WP:OR]]. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 15:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
*There is no reason to not use HuffPost. It's a perfectly legitimate news outlet and their journalists go to all the same briefings the paper newspapers' do. It's neither a tabloid nor party political. [[User:GPinkerton|GPinkerton]] ([[User talk:GPinkerton|talk]]) 22:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
*The OP's initial statement makes it seem like HuffPo is not reliable. Wikipedia has reached no conclusion that it is or isn't reliable, as there's never been a broad RFC on the general reliability. It is ''treated'' as reliable by other scrupulously reliable sources which cite and quote it frequently, which is usually a hallmark of general reliability, but Wikipedia has not had the discussion ''per se''. I would treat it as generally reliable for its factual and investigative reporting, and as with any source, including the really reliable ones, published opinion pieces and unvetted guest contributions are not news anyways. --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron]][[User talk:Jayron32|''32'']] 04:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

== Is Janusz Korwin-Mikke a far-right politician? ==

Are the following sources reliable for the claiming that [[Janusz Korwin-Mikke]] is a far-right politician?
*{{cite journal |last1=Liphshiz |first1=Cnaan |title=Far-right Polish lawmaker: Natural selection via pogroms made Jews powerful |journal=The Times of Israel |date=4 Mar 2020 |url=https://www.timesofisrael.com/far-right-polish-lawmaker-natural-selection-via-pogroms-made-jews-powerful/ |accessdate=29 May 2020}}
*{{cite book |author1=Iga Mergler: "Polish millennials and new media environments: forming identities, constructing enemies, finding allies" |editor1-last=Cristiano |editor1-first=Anthony |editor2-last=Atay |editor2-first=Ahmet |title=Millennials and media ecology: culture, pedagogy, and politics |date=2020 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-0-367-20025-1 |url=https://books.google.no/books?id=xs2gDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA35&lpg=PA35&dq=Janusz+Korwin-Mikke+far+right&source=bl&ots=RAwhC9RWFt&sig=ACfU3U1zPed9xbQXDBlUSIMiooWbFG5j8w&hl=no&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiFhPC30M_pAhWPyqYKHTo1Ct4Q6AEwFnoECGQQAQ#v=onepage&q=Janusz%20Korwin-Mikke%20far%20right&f=false |accessdate=25 May 2020}}
*{{cite news |last1=Rankin |first1=Jennifer |title=Polish MEP punished for saying women are less intelligent than men |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/14/polish-mep-janusz-korwin-mikke-punished-saying-women-less-intelligent-men |accessdate=25 May 2020 |work=The Guardian |date=14 Mar 2017}}

I am aware that the first source may not be strong enough on its own, but I wonder if it will be appropriate to include also that source, provided the other two are reliable. Regards! --[[User:TU-nor|T*U]] ([[User talk:TU-nor|talk]]) 11:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
:Seems good to me.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 11:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
::{{ping|TU-nor|Slatersteven}} - are you sure the book source states that this man is far-right? I'm not seeing the quote. What I'm seeing from the book is that another man, Pawel Kukiz, is from a far-right party. '''[[User:Starship.paint|starship]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|.paint]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|talk]])''' 15:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
:::The book may not the Times Of Israel does.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 15:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
:::Here are some more https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/08/nigel-farage-ukip-europe-janusz-korwin-mikke, https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2019/1009/When-the-right-wing-is-still-too-socialist-Poland-s-far-right-unites, https://www.jpost.com/international/polish-mp-says-pogroms-were-good-for-jews-assisted-natural-selection-619640, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/10/tension-gay-rights-moves-fore-polish-election-191010102922825.html. Is that enough?[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 15:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
::::And there is https://books.google.no/books?id=CislDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA61&lpg=PA61&dq=Janusz+Korwin-Mikke+far-right&source=bl&ots=T3K_OvbXhh&sig=ACfU3U3b7IaPMjuTzPZSBjuYREh9bZUhJg&hl=no&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj7vYyardnpAhWQ16YKHaczAv8Q6AEwKnoECGIQAQ#v=onepage&q=Janusz%20Korwin-Mikke%20far-right&f=false, https://www.algemeiner.com/2020/03/09/far-right-polish-lawmaker-says-pogroms-were-good-for-jews-made-them-powerful/ and any number of more examples. But which are the best? --[[User:TU-nor|T*U]] ([[User talk:TU-nor|talk]]) 15:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

*{{re|TU-nor|Slatersteven}} - I'll just repeat many of what you already raised above, use the Associated Press [https://apnews.com/7b21d8c690b94980a70c1b043a681c1a], the Guardian [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/14/polish-mep-janusz-korwin-mikke-punished-saying-women-less-intelligent-men], the Christian Science Monitor [https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2019/1009/When-the-right-wing-is-still-too-socialist-Poland-s-far-right-unites], Buzzfeed News [https://www.buzzfeed.com/albertonardelli/a-far-right-member-of-the-european-parliament-is-being-inves] and that Taylor and Francis book [https://books.google.com/books?id=CislDwAAQBAJ], that should be indisputable given these sources. I'm not as familiar with the quality of the sources from the Middle East. Also, here is a Reuters source [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-poland-politics/polish-far-right-party-moves-into-third-place-survey-idUSKBN0F510620140630] that his party, New Right Congress, is far-right. '''[[User:Starship.paint|starship]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|.paint]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|talk]])''' 01:54, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
*{{ping|Slatersteven|Starship.paint}} Thanx both! --[[User:TU-nor|T*U]] ([[User talk:TU-nor|talk]]) 12:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
*ToI and [[Jewish Telegraphic Agency]] (where the story is syndicated from) are both very reliable in my experience. [[User:Buidhe|b]][[User talk:Buidhe|uidh]][[Special:Contributions/Buidhe|e]] 23:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

== [[Scriptural texts]] ([[WP:RSPSCRIPTURE]]) ==
{{mdf|Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#WP:RSPSCRIPTURE|Moved to the noticeboard, as this discussion has introduced new arguments not found in previous discussions. — '''''[[User:Newslinger|Newslinger]]''' [[User talk:Newslinger#top|talk]]'' 12:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)}}

About "''Content that interprets or summarizes scriptural passages or narratives should generally be cited to appropriate scholarly sources''". Several related articles like [[David]] or [[The Exodus]] mostly don't follow this approach in the "narrative" section, which seems to work fairly well. The Exodus takes a mostly [[MOS:PLOT]] approach, While David has a lot of cites, mostly primary outside "tricky" stuff.

So I suggest we soften the "summarizes" somewhat, something like "though a [[MOS:PLOTSOURCE]] approach can work well regarding some scriptural stories." [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 11:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
I've linked this discussion at Wikiprojects Christianity, Judaism, and Classical Greece and Rome.--[[User:Ermenrich|Ermenrich]] ([[User talk:Ermenrich|talk]]) 23:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

* I too feel that [[MOS:PLOTSOURCE]] applies. Meaning that there is a big difference between "summarizing", which basically does not call for any source apart from the primary source, and "interpreting" or "analyzing", which should be based only on sources, to avoid [[WP:OR|original research]]. [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser|talk]]) 13:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
*:{{u|Debresser}}, the problem there of course is that there are a lot of translations of the Bible and they are not all consistent, nor are they internally consistent within a given translation. Since Wikipedia isn't a Bible study I think we should avoid the "plot" approach. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' ([[user talk:JzG|help!]]) 20:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
*::That is of course correct, but that can be dealt with when it becomes a problem. There's still times when the PLOTSOURCE-approach works well, inconsistencies can be small and need not necessarily enter the "recap" section. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 21:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
::: [[user:JzG]]'s argument that the Bible is a translation and any translation is per definition an interpretation, is taking things too far. [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser|talk]]) 23:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
::::{{u|Debresser}}, no it's not. Translations can be (and have been) motivated by specific agendas. Some people assert that only the KJV is reliable. The NIV was based on a very thorough and scholarly review of the original sources but KJV believers spend endless hours arguing that the many differences are evidence for the superiority of the KJV. It's exactly what you'd expect from translations of centuries-old sources that were themselves written down long after the events they describe. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' ([[user talk:JzG|help!]]) 17:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::That strikes me of more of a problem with the [[King James Only movement]] than with using the Bible as a source for its own narrative content.--[[User:Ermenrich|Ermenrich]] ([[User talk:Ermenrich|talk]]) 18:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::{{u|Ermenrich}}, so how do you handle a dispute between a KJV editor and an NIV editor? Or any other two editors with differing editions? Which one do we favour as correct? See my problem here?
::::::It's not as if there is any shortage of independent scholarly analysis of every single word of the Bible. We can easily defer to a secondary source that analyses all the various translations and describes the consensus view. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' ([[user talk:JzG|help!]]) 18:49, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::{{U|JzG}}, to me that question is akin to "how would you solve a despite between an editor pushing a fundamentalist view of the Bible and one who isn't." The KJB was written 400 years ago, no (reasonable) scholar believes it is infallible and we should obviously use more up to date translations. Anyway, this question is not particularly useful in the abstract: what specific detail of e.g. the Exodus narrative is affected by it?--[[User:Ermenrich|Ermenrich]] ([[User talk:Ermenrich|talk]]) 18:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::{{u|Ermenrich}} Riddle me this: how did [[Haman]] meet his end? Hanging? Impalement? Crucifixion? Something else? On what was he punished - was it a beam, a stake, a tree (literal or otherwise), a gallows, a gibbet, or a cross (however constructed) that he prepared for Mordechai's execution? The complexity of this question is dwarfed by the question, for instance, of what Jesus is supposed to have carried towards his own execution, or of what is meant by the word "σταυρωθήτω!" Is it "he on rode ahangen" or " Impale him!" or "Let him be impaled!" or "He should be crucified!" or "Let "him" be crucified" or "Crucify him!"? All these English translations are in common circulation and none should be used without scholarly citation.[[User:GPinkerton|GPinkerton]] ([[User talk:GPinkerton|talk]]) 19:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::There's no disagreement on how Jesus died. Using [[The Dream of the Rood]] as a "common translation" is a [[strawman argument]]. As for Haman, if there really is disagreement, then it should obviously be discussed somewhere in the article (which it is). But that's not a normal problem, and simply listing various premodern translations is hardly going to make your point. As I say, modern, scholarly translations should be used.--[[User:Ermenrich|Ermenrich]] ([[User talk:Ermenrich|talk]]) 20:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::{{u|Ermenrich}} You obviously haven't read either Cook's ''Crucifixion in the Mediterranean World'' or Samuelsson's ''Crucifixion in Antiquity''! I don't know why you mention the ''Dream of the Rood'', I have not brought it up; the only pre-modern translation of Matt. 27:22 I have used is the 10th century Wessex Gospels. The rest are all contemporary, in-print translations. Look harder, and you'll see ... [[User:GPinkerton|GPinkerton]] ([[User talk:GPinkerton|talk]]) 22:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::::{{u|Ermenrich}}, the fundamental point is sound. Various translations are inconsistent, and ''we are not allowed'' to decide which one is right. We should always use secondary sources. Can you imagine that there is a single verse in the Bible that has not been analysed by at least a hundred scholarly secondary sources? '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' ([[user talk:JzG|help!]]) 22:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::::{{U|JzG}}, by that standard we wouldn't be allowed to summarize any work that has been translated into English based on the work itself if there were more than one translation. But I guess that is actually what you think about plot summaries in general, so props for consistency I guess. My own contention is that issues in translation are generally so small that they aren't likely to cause problems. If they do, then the issue be discussed elsewhere and then it isn't really a problem again.--[[User:Ermenrich|Ermenrich]] ([[User talk:Ermenrich|talk]]) 23:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::::::{{u|Ermenrich}} Now ''that'' is a strawman argument! This isn't about "any work that has been translated into English". It's about scripture, which according in each case to a vociferous minority, is not fiction and needs to be treated differently. [[User:GPinkerton|GPinkerton]] ([[User talk:GPinkerton|talk]]) 23:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::::::I seem to recall that Wikipedia is a secular encyclopedia, cf. for instance [[WP:RNPOV]]. There's no reason for us to treat the Bible differently than any other source. If you can make an argument about Bible translations, it should be applicable to any translation used.--[[User:Ermenrich|Ermenrich]] ([[User talk:Ermenrich|talk]]) 23:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::{{u|Ermenrich}} {{tq|I seem to recall that Wikipedia is a secular encyclopedia}} is exactly the reason [[WP:RSPSCRIPTURE]] exists. The majority of scripture is considered fiction by the majority of people and can therefore never be a reliable source, even for its own content. There is ample reason to treat the Bible exactly the same as other scripture. [[User:GPinkerton|GPinkerton]] ([[User talk:GPinkerton|talk]]) 23:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::Not according to [[MOS:PLOT]]. Applying it differently to narrative religious texts is a blatant double standard.—[[User:Ermenrich|Ermenrich]] ([[User talk:Ermenrich|talk]]) 12:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

*I think that the Bible ought to be a sufficient source for its own plot. Where there is dispute over wording or differences between versions this can be noted with reference to secondary literature.—[[User:Ermenrich|Ermenrich]] ([[User talk:Ermenrich|talk]]) —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 22:55, 26 May 2020
::{{u|Ermenrich}} It should be obvious by this stage that the Bible's whole "plot" is fundamentally contentious, ambiguous, and very far from agreed-upon, to say nothing of the wording, the entirety of which is constantly in dispute, or even the text itself, which varies enormously in length, arrangement, and subdivisions depending on who you ask or who happens to be editing Wikipedia. [[User:GPinkerton|GPinkerton]] ([[User talk:GPinkerton|talk]]) 22:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
*I think that the status quo wording is preferable, not just due to the issues of translation but also because these issues are compounded by differences in interpretation by different religious groups (not to mention the blurry line between pure plot elements and rules/theological principles that are based on the "plot") , as well as the inherent age and obscurity of many of these texts (an example off the top of my head, it's far from trivial to establish what's going on in Genesis 4:23–24 just by looking at the Hebrew Bible itself). That having been said, I don't think that we need to take an axe to existing high-traffic articles that have a PLOTSOURCE approach; IMO having the status quo and enforcing it leniently will make for less of a headache than loosening the classification and opening the door for editors to start arguing that their interpretations of the text need to be included. signed, [[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] [[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']] 01:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
*:Either way, there's nothing wrong with improving The Exodus plot with secondary sources, PLOTSOURCE encourages that. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 07:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Remember that though RSPSCRIPTURE started as BIBLE (I think), it's not just about the Bible. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 07:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

*I agree that nothing should change about policy. All summarizing is necessarily interpretative, and there is no benefit to Wikipedia editors adding to the huge volume of existing exegesis. Wikipedia is not a Sunday school, a madrassa, or rabbinical conference. There is plenty of secondary and tertiary material to cite, and nothing will be gained from resorting to original research on the content of ancient texts. Absolutely nothing should be referenced to scripture alone! [[User:GPinkerton|GPinkerton]] ([[User talk:GPinkerton|talk]]) 12:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
*:Nobody is discussing changing a policy. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 12:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
::: To the contrary, see below, that I propose to change this ''guideline'' (not policy) a bit. You yourself proposed an small addition above. [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser|talk]]) 12:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
::::''Explanatory supplement'' to a guideline, even more not-policy ;-) [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 13:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
:: {{U|Rosguill}} I personally think that it is better to use more lenient wording, because in case of disputes or inconsistencies, secondary sources are anyways going to be necessary to resolve those disputes or inconsistencies. Keeping the more stringent approach in the guideline gives rise to the very real possibility of editors who wil insist on a stringent approach and start removing large pieces of material from the project. We can't count on editors to use a lenient approach, and I've seen policy/guidelines fanatics just too many times in my over 10 years here.
:: All that is needed is to remove the words "or summarizes" from the guideline. As I said, the difference between "summarizing" on the one hand and "interpreting" or "analyzing" on the other is huge, even when taking into account that any summary is to a certain degree an interpretation. There is definitely a tension between [[WP:RSPSCRIPTURE]] and [[MOS:PLOTSOURCE]], and this would be the easiest and best way to resolve it. [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser|talk]]) 12:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Why should editors not remove large amounts of material from the project if it doesn't meet policy? What's the value of keeping it? [[User:GPinkerton|GPinkerton]] ([[User talk:GPinkerton|talk]]) 14:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

:[[WP:PRESERVE]]? If you see [[The_Exodus#Biblical_narrative]] as problematic, it's preferable that you fix it instead of remove it, since it's quite probably well-covered in sources. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 16:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
: First of all, because saying the material "doesn't meet policy" is not correct, according to [[MOS:PLOTSOURCE]] (and [[WP:COMMONSENSE]]). Even if it were unsourced, there is no policy or guideline that says we can't have unsourced information. Only unsourced information that is challenged should be removed, and why would anyone challenge such information, which nobody is saying that is not true? In general, information has intrinsic value, and it hurts me to see you write words like "What's the value of keeping it?". [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser|talk]]) 17:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
::{{reply to|Debresser}} Information has absolutely no intrinsic value - what a bizarre thought! I challenge such information, and I remove it per [[WP:UNSOURCED]] and [[WP:EXTRAORDINARY]]. You say: " there is no policy or guideline that says we can't have unsourced information" but that's just not true. All information has to be verifiable. If it's unsourced, it's unverifiable and must be removed, per [[WP:V]].
:::Read [[WP:V]] again, unsourced=/=unverifiable: ''"All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed."'' Then PRESERVE mentions that removal can be a bad idea, compared to other solutions. The policies ''both'' apply, bizarre as it may seem. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 19:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
::{{reply to|Gråbergs Gråa Sång}} I see the existence of the entire article as problematic; the whole article is plot summary of [[Book of Exodus]]. I have proposed merging the two articles, since their subjects are identical . [[User:GPinkerton|GPinkerton]] ([[User talk:GPinkerton|talk]]) 18:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
:::I don't think that'll happen, but we'll see. And [[WP:PRESERVE]] will apply to other articles too, like [[Book of Exodus]], which is similarly sourced in the Summary section. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 19:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
::::{{reply to|Gråbergs Gråa Sång}} [[WP:PRESERVE]] does not trump [[WP:DON'T PRESERVE]], which certainly applies in the instance of the exegetical and duplicated [[The_Exodus#Biblical_narrative]] section. [[User:GPinkerton|GPinkerton]] ([[User talk:GPinkerton|talk]]) 19:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::IMO, [[WP:PRESERVE]] applies to the plotsections in the articles mentioned in this thread, since there are likely to be sources in abundance, and anyone can start using them. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 19:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::{{reply to|Gråbergs Gråa Sång}} The "plot" belongs in its proper article, the [[Book of Exodus]]. There is no call for a plot summary of ''Pride and Prejudice'' anywhere other than in the article ''[[Pride and Prejudice]]''; we don't need it, for instance, at [[Early modern Britain]] or [[British Empire]]. I don't see why the plot of the ''Book of Exodus'' is any different. [[User:GPinkerton|GPinkerton]] ([[User talk:GPinkerton|talk]]) 19:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::And to me it seems natural to describe the tale of the Exodus in [[The Exodus]]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Exodus/Archive_15#Missing?], as long as we have that article. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 19:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::{{reply to|Gråbergs Gråa Sång}} Plot summaries do not deserve their own articles. [[User:GPinkerton|GPinkerton]] ([[User talk:GPinkerton|talk]]) 20:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::{{U|GPinkerton}}, the article [[The Exodus]] covers far more than a "plot summary", it discusses the potential mythical and historical sources of the belief in the Exodus event as well as the development of that belief until the compilation of the Pentateuch, and its cultural significance.--[[User:Ermenrich|Ermenrich]] ([[User talk:Ermenrich|talk]]) 20:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::{{reply to|Ermenrich}} Quite. All topics properly covered under ''[[Book of Exodus]]'' (history of its composition, legacy and behaviour of its adherents, &c.). [[User:GPinkerton|GPinkerton]] ([[User talk:GPinkerton|talk]]) 21:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::I would have said something like what Ermenrich said, if I had been awake. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 06:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::::As stated elsewhere, not at all. The Exodus takes place over four books of the Bible, it isn’t all contained in the book of Exodus.—[[User:Ermenrich|Ermenrich]] ([[User talk:Ermenrich|talk]]) 22:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::::{{reply to|Ermenrich}} As mentioned elsewhere, that is entirely untrue. The Exodus is the departure of the Jews from Egypt, and that happens in ''Exodus''. [[User:GPinkerton|GPinkerton]] ([[User talk:GPinkerton|talk]]) 22:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I think that this above back and forth between Ermenrich and GPinkerton demonstrates the pitfalls of having editors interpret even the plot of religious texts without recourse to secondary sources. signed, [[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] [[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']] 22:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::::::{{U|Rosguill}}, It most certainly does not, it illustrates the pitfalls of an editor not actually looking at the articles they are discussing. See [https://books.google.com/books?id=4DVHJRFW3mYC&pg=PA59&dq=%22The+exodus+saga+in+the+bible%22&hl=en#v=onepage&q=%22The%20exodus%20saga%20in%20the%20bible%22&f=false] {{tq|The Exodus sage in the Bible incorporates events in Egypt after the death of Joseph through the Israelite departure, '''the wilderness wanderings, and the Sinai revelations, up to be not including the conquest of Canaan.''' The account, largely in narrative form, '''spreads over four books of the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible.'''}}--[[User:Ermenrich|Ermenrich]] ([[User talk:Ermenrich|talk]]) 23:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::::::I don't think so Rosguill, this branch of the discussion is very Exodus-specific (my fault, perhaps). [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 06:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Or see more authoritative definitions:
:::::::::::::::{{talk quote block|The Jewish liberation from slavery in Egypt. The story of the Exodus is contained in a series of narratives in the book of Exodus. It became the epitome of God's power to rescue his people.}} - ''The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions'' (2000)
:::::::::::::::{{talk quote block|The biblical traditions concerning the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt are mostly preserved in the second book of the Hebrew scriptures.}} - ''The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt'' (2001)
:::::::::::::::{{talk quote block|The Exodus, the escape of the Hebrews from slavery in Egypt under the leadership of Moses, is the central event of the Hebrew Bible.}} - ''The Oxford Companion to the Bible'' (1993)
:::::::::::::::{{talk quote block|Israel's departure from Egypt.}} - ''Oxford Dictionary of the Bible (2 ed.)'' (2010)
:::::::::::::::You can see plainly that the sources treat the Exodus as the events of ''Exodus''. This illustrates the pitfalls of falling into pits. [[User:GPinkerton|GPinkerton]] ([[User talk:GPinkerton|talk]]) 00:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
::I'm a newcomer to this discussion but I write primarily in the field of religion, which has at times included areas of the Bible, so I have an interest. I support {{u|Gråbergs Gråa Sång}}'s suggestion as both practical and realistic. Comparing different translations demonstrates no substantive shift in meaning in 99% of cases, so that's not a real obstacle. There are some real disagreements, but in most Bible articles, those disagreements are not pertinent to the topic, and when they are, they are worthy of articles all by themselves. Those should be mentioned and linked. "Interpretation" includes application and recommendations--"values attached meaning"--and everyone agrees there is no place for that on WP, but a plot summary does not need to be an interpretation. It can and should be simply a summary. I vote in favor of {{u|Gråbergs Gråa Sång}} suggestion, since it basically just acknowledges the reality that this is already being done with some success. [[User:Jenhawk777|Jenhawk777]] ([[User talk:Jenhawk777|talk]]) 17:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
::: @GPinkerton Now you are just confusing "unverifiable" with "not sourced". The first means that it ''can not'' be verified. The second means that it ''can'' be verified, but a source is not present. Completely different things. [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser|talk]]) 23:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
::::{{reply to|Debresser}} No, the latter means it ''could'' be verified ''if'' there was a source. If there there is not, it is not verifiable. We are not speaking of [[Verificationism]], but verifiability in Wikipedia. Unsourced=unverifiable=completely the same things. [[User:GPinkerton|GPinkerton]] ([[User talk:GPinkerton|talk]]) 02:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
::::: That is precisely my point. Who says there ''is'' no source?? There is first of all a primary source, which is the Bible itself. And there do exist many secondary sources as well for the Biblical narratives, just that we don't need to add them per [[MOS:PLOTSOURCE]]. [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser|talk]]) 07:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::{{reply to|Debresser}} ''Content that interprets or summarizes scriptural passages or narratives should generally be cited to appropriate scholarly sources''. It is not appropriate to use scripture as a primary source for anything, still less itself. [[MOS:PLOTSOURCE]] does not obviate the inability of scripture to be a reliable source of anything, and [[MOS:REALWORLD]] calls for the treatment of such narratives to be independent of the in-universe narrative. I argue [[MOS:PLOTSOURCE]] is designed for Wikipedia articles that deal with actual narrative works; it might be appropriate at ''[[Book of Exodus]]'' to add material cited to ''Exodus'' itself, but it is not appropriate anywhere else. It is not appropriate to use scripture as an unqualified source of information on any article not dealing with the scripture itself. [[User:GPinkerton|GPinkerton]] ([[User talk:GPinkerton|talk]]) 16:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
{{od}}
{{u|GPinkerton}}, I think it's worse than that. PLOTSOURCE is a [[WP:LOCALCONSENSUS]] allowing the cliques of genre fans to engage in what amounts to critical review, using Wikipedia as a publishing venue. It gives carte blanche to film fans to, for example, include intricate trivial plot details and showcase their diligent fandom. I am sure that the intentions are generally pure, but the result is great swathes of content that relies solely on individual Wikipedians' observations of primary material - often visual, not based on text that you can check - and that is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. OK, it's a rather fundamentalist view, but I have seen too many blatantly interpretive "plot summaries" to be at all sanguine about this. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' ([[user talk:JzG|help!]]) 18:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
:I agree, plot summaries are fine for universally acknowledged fiction, but summarizing scripture remains the distinct practice of exegesis, which does not match Wikipedia's aims of reflecting scholarly (and not rabbinical or exegetical) literature. [[User:GPinkerton|GPinkerton]] ([[User talk:GPinkerton|talk]]) 19:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

:What makes PLOTSOURCE a [[WP:LOCALCONSENSUS]]? [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 20:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Personally I do not think plotsource can be used when there is not only more than 3 but more then 100 versions. It seems just a recipe for edit wars over whether or not witches should live or silly text like "according to the NIJV Hop is the greatest, but according to the RNIV its Hope, whilst the ININV says "and hope if the glowiest".[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 12:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. I think this discussion is getting held up in the weeds. On the one hand some editors would like to do away with [[MOS:PLOT]] altogether and are arguing on those grounds. On the other, editors are arguing that different translations of the Bible are different - which is true to an extent. But it's not as though we don't possess original texts of the Bible in languages other than English. A number of the issues that have been raised so far deal with issues that arise from translating from the [[Septuagint]] or [[Vulgate]] rather than the original Hebrew/Aramaic of the Old Testament or Greek of the New Testament. Such bldifferences can easily be mentioned and dealt with. Obviously every text or language has ambiguities, and every translation is different, but this is not generally a problem when, for instance, you're summarizing [[War and Peace]] based on translation. Whether in the [[Book of Exodus]] the Hebrews are said to build "treasure cities" (KJV) "supply cities" (NRSV) or "store cities" ([[Jan Assmann]]) is not really a major issue for summarizing what happens. Nor is the different ways that a verb meaning "to execute" is translated, whether it be "impale" "crucify" or "hang": they all have the result the person in question is to be killed. When something rises to the level of being a major dispute between translations, then of course scholarly sources need to be used to comment. But such cases are extremely rare. I have yet to see a single convincing example of where the "translation problem" makes a major difference for summarizing the plot of a narrative Biblical book.--[[User:Ermenrich|Ermenrich]] ([[User talk:Ermenrich|talk]]) 15:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
:::Except that (unlike a novel) everyones translation is the authoritative version. Nor is it simple a case of "house, home or building". It it witch or poisoner? Nor is the Christian bible exactly a faithful translation of the Hebrew text (and that is the original version of the old testament).[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 15:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
::::Whether a particular group considers "their" translation authoritative is irrelevant. Scholars look at the originals, and Wikipedia summarizes scholarly knowledge. If there's a major difference (poisoner or witch) it can very easily be noted. Most such differences are not large, however, and we should show an obvious preference to modern, scholarly translations over older translations that are 1) less accurate and 2) do not reflect contemporary language and usage.
::::Anyway, I think I've made my position pretty clear. I'm going to bow out of this discussion rather than repeat myself.--[[User:Ermenrich|Ermenrich]] ([[User talk:Ermenrich|talk]]) 15:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
::::: If I read you right, we should identify and resolve the inconsistencies by [[WP:OR|our own analysis]]? I hope I am misunderstanding you there. It is really pretty simple. In all of literature there is no work that has a greater volume of secondary analytical sources. Not even Shakespeare comes close. Using primary sources is unnecessary. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' ([[user talk:JzG|help!]]) 16:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::If by "our own analysis" you mean "we should use a modern translation and note discrepancies between major '''modern''' translations if there are any with recourse to secondary literature," then yes, that's what I'm saying.--[[User:Ermenrich|Ermenrich]] ([[User talk:Ermenrich|talk]]) 16:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Guy's point is excellent, the Bible is the most examines commented on and analysed book in human history. I doubt there is one word that has not been mulled over in countless RS. Why do we need to even use it, what is the text that is being argued over here?[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 16:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
:I believe the discussion was started because [[The Exodus]] currently bases most of its plot summary on the last four biblical books of the Pentateuch themselves.--[[User:Ermenrich|Ermenrich]] ([[User talk:Ermenrich|talk]]) 16:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

:The text of [[WP:RSPSCRIPTURE]], see beginning of thread. And though I only used biblical examples, I didn't foresee the discussion becoming this bible-centric. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 16:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
:So why not use secondary RS instead?[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 16:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
::I can only speak for myself: 1) most secondary sources do not summarize the content of all four books in more than a cursory way. At best they mention specific episodes and analyze them 2) the NRIV Bible was on hand and I naturally assumed it could be used the same way as I could the [[Aeneid]] according to [[MOS:PLOT]].--[[User:Ermenrich|Ermenrich]] ([[User talk:Ermenrich|talk]]) 16:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

::Nothing stops that, certainly not [[MOS:PLOTSOURCE]], and it is welcome where it happens. But it didn't occur for the editors of the plot-sections [[David]], [[Solomon]], [[The Exodus]], [[Book of Exodus]], [[Book of Genesis]], [[Gylfaginning]] etc to do so, I'm guessing because the "better primary than nothing" mindset is out there. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 17:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
:::I seem to recall reading then NIRV makes a number of changes to the Hebrew text.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 17:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
::::Im sure that it does, but these are mostly syntactic as I recall. At any rate, what significant changes does it make to the Exodus narrative beyond details? We’re summarizing, not quoting after all.—[[User:Ermenrich|Ermenrich]] ([[User talk:Ermenrich|talk]]) 17:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::Because the whole reason why a (say) film plot is RS for its plot is because Col. Robert Neville, M.D is a US army doctor Vs mutants led by Anthony Zerbe (in its original form), but you could not use that as a source for the plot of the novel (even though there are many similarities). So we should also use the original (and only the original) of (say) the OT.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 18:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::The idea that some Hebrew text or English translation based on it is somehow more reliable than one based on Greek or Latin is some very special special pleading! Texts considered holy are very often mainly translated and edited by religious minorities (all religions are minorities) and their translations are inherently POV as a result. There is no possibility of neutrality in deriving Wikipedia's NPOV from scripture without the mediation of reliable scholarly sources (i.e. ones not written by the religions themselves centuries ago). Scriptural translations, however new, cannot be neutral or reliable, and that is not their intended purpose. [[User:GPinkerton|GPinkerton]] ([[User talk:GPinkerton|talk]]) 18:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::That is kind of my point, there is not single authoritative version.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 18:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

* I agree with [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]], [[User:Ermenrich|Ermenrich]] and others, a simple summary of the "plot" of a biblical story line can be sourced to a modern translation of the text itself, if anyone wants to add a secondary source they can do so but it should not be a requirement.[[User:Smeat75|Smeat75]] ([[User talk:Smeat75|talk]]) 19:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

* Coming over from WikiProject:CGR, I agee that in principle, the Bible itself is an adequate source for its own contents, '''provided''' that the ''interpretation'' of those contents should be sourced to reliable independent sources. Even though many passages in every book of the Bible have been commented on or disputed, the general narrative itself is usually straightforward. Where disputes arise as to the meaning of an unclear passage, or something that could be translated with two or more plausible meanings, or either literally or metaphorically, then of course additional sources are needed. But simply reporting a straightforward summary of any book should be non-controversial, and the Bible shouldn't differ in that respect from ''Pride and Prejudice'' or ''Winnie-the-Pooh''. Which, I might add, might be good for calming down after disputes like this. Hunny, anyone? [[User:P Aculeius|P Aculeius]] ([[User talk:P Aculeius|talk]]) 21:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
::{{reply to|P Aculeius}} My contention would be that scriptures differ from the examples you mention by their inability to be read without making a symbolic or interpretative judgements. For instance ''[[Numbers 31]]'' might be summarized thus: "Moses orders the genocide of the Midianites, the Eleazar and the Israelites obey and secure their sexual gratification by the concubinage of the remaining Midianite children, and then Moses organizes the division and ritual purification of the Midianites' property among himself and his warlords at Moab." That's what the text says happened. But doubtless this is not how Biblical exegesis frames the matter (i.e., the typical victim-blaming is usually employed in theological commentary). A straightforward summary, but perhaps not an uncontroversial one. [[User:GPinkerton|GPinkerton]] ([[User talk:GPinkerton|talk]]) 22:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
:::"Numbers" 31 is a perfectly good source for the fact that it ''says'' something. What it ''means'', or ''why'' it says it, requires an independent source. But the fact that it ''says'' it doesn't need another source. [[User:P Aculeius|P Aculeius]] ([[User talk:P Aculeius|talk]]) 22:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
:::That is far from a neutral summary of the contents of Numbers 31 [[User:GPinkerton|GPinkerton]]. Using the term "genocide", not in the text, is an interpretation which would certainly require a secondary source as would "secure their sexual gratification by the concubinage of the remaining Midianite children" which is also an interpretation, not what the text says, similarly using the term "warlords".[[User:Smeat75|Smeat75]] ([[User talk:Smeat75|talk]]) 10:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
::::{{reply to|Smeat75}} It is neutral. The words genocide, concubinage, and warlord are not in the text, but we don't summarize narratives by rearranging the original words but describing the events. Using terms like "warlord" summarizes the content of the text's ''"officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle"'', while "genocide" is the term used to describe the deliberate massacre of all the male Midianites, all the adult female Midianites, and the confiscation of their possessions, all of which Numbers 31 says Moses organized using the more wordy rhetoric of ''"Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him"''. Moses orders virgins to be spared ''"But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive"'' adding that they are ''"for yourselves"''. I don't really know how describing this process as genocide and concubinage can be controversial at all! It does, however, demonstrate that without secondary sources summarizing scriptural events will not be to everyone's satisfaction. [[User:GPinkerton|GPinkerton]] ([[User talk:GPinkerton|talk]]) 18:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::No of course we don't use the exact words only in a different order but that is a very slanted summary of Numbers 31. A neutral summary would say something like "ordered them all killed" not genocide and "you can keep the virgin girls for yourselves" rather than "secure their sexual gratification by the concubinage of the remaining Midianite children". Certainly if anyone wanted to use such POV terms they would need to be referenced to a secondary reliable source but a neutral summary does not.[[User:Smeat75|Smeat75]] ([[User talk:Smeat75|talk]]) 19:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::I said that "Numbers" 31 is a satisfactory source for what it ''says'', but I didn't use GPinkerton's wording, which was irrelevant to the point I was making. Obviously it's a questionable description, since it employs anachronistic terms, and seems to be applying modern sensibilities to a description of events that may or may not have happened, thousands of years ago. Naturally any summary needs to be neutrally worded—which is not to say that it can't say anything positive or negative, just that as editors we can't add our own opinions to the way that material is presented by the source. That's what independent sources are for. But it has no bearing on whether the a writing is an adequate source for its own contents. [[User:P Aculeius|P Aculeius]] ([[User talk:P Aculeius|talk]]) 20:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

*Honestly, my recollection of [[MOS:PLOTSOURCE]] is that a huge part of the reason for it is because so many works lack secondary sources on their plots - if we were to remove it we would have very little to say about many works at all. Additionally, the reading and interpretation of the plot of most works (''especially'' ones that have few secondary sources) is generally uncontroversial. Both of these rationales are as wrong as it's possible to be in the case of scripture. [[MOS:PLOTSOURCE]] even says {{tq|Sometimes a work will be summarized by secondary sources, which can be used for sourcing. Otherwise, using brief quotation citations from the primary work can be helpful to source key or complex plot points.}} Obviously that "sometimes" applies here and the "otherwise" does not, which means PLOTSOURCE does not apply to scripture; but if there's confusion, perhaps PLOTSOURCE should be rewritten to more clearly state that if secondary sourcing exists we are required to use it and not primary sourcing. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 14:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
*In my opinion, referencing a Biblical verse generally leaves less room for distortion than referencing a secondary source. While everyone has an agenda, it is much harder to fit an agenda into a word-for-word translation than into a freerunning discussion of the Bible as well as whatever other subjects one wants to discuss. Also, the reader can easily look up a Biblical source themselves, while an academic secondary source is more difficult to verify and its reliability much more difficult to verify. If someone will object that Biblical translations are often by biased religious groups while acceptable secondary sources are by academics, the response is that there also exist Biblical translations by academics. If there is a specific point in the Biblical text that is disputed (like "genocide" in the example above), then that's the moment to bring a secondary source which summarizes the controversy while giving each side its proper weight. [[User:Ar2332|Ar2332]] ([[User talk:Ar2332|talk]]) 19:52, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
:*Absolutely not. That argument would apply to all primary vs. secondary sources; you are essentially arguing that a primary source is always better than a secondary one, which is exactly the opposite of policy. We can argue whether it is acceptable to use primary scriptural sources ''in the absence of a secondary source'', or whether citations to primary sources need to be removed on sight rather than waiting form someone to do the legwork of replacing them; but it is non-negotiable that a (reliable, high-quality) secondary source is absolutely required in any situation where "analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic" text is required,. which is the vast majority of what we do. It is vital that secondary sources will ''always'' completely replace any editors's personal statement or interpretation of a primacy source, and it is policy and that we cannot cite entire sections solely to primary sources (certainly [[WP:NOR]] is a stronger policy than [[MOS:PLOTSOURCE]].) It is easy to say "everyone has an agenda so let's just use the primary source", but what you're ignoring is that when an editor performs [[WP:OR]] using a primary biblical source (something that I would argue is almost inescapable when citing one), we are reflecting their personal agenda as a random anonymous editor; whereas secondary sources have reputations and weight that can be used to evaluate them. Our articles should reflect the writings, interpretations, and focuses of reliable, established scholars of biblical text (or the equivalent in terms of reputation and reliability.) They should not reflect the personal musings, interpretations, focuses, or readings that anonymous editors bring to the primary text. That means that as a matter of policy we should always strive to minimize the extent to which we cite religious texts as primary sources. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 21:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
:::Sorry, but that's a complete misstatement of policy. Primary sources must be used with caution, but they are not inherently unreliable, nor should they ever be removed "on sight". In the case of what a work of literature (not limiting that to fiction, which is what PLOT and PLOTSUMMARY explicitly apply to; while the Bible may not rise to the level of a formal ''history'', and relates many events that are not of a historical nature and not susceptible of proof, it certainly isn't "fiction"—but this is beside the point I'm making here), the work itself is ''necessarily'' the most authoritative source for its ''contents''. Where translations differ in some meaningful respect, or different manuscripts give different versions, then of course additional sources are needed—''additional'', shedding light on what the original text says. In the case of an example cited above, "Numbers" 31, it would be absurd to depend entirely on secondary sources for the ''content'', without citing to the source in which it occurs—particularly as "Numbers" 31 is likely to be the only account of those precise events that secondary sources have to analyze—although of course they may be able to compare what is said with other passages and other events for which additional material is available.
:::It is '''not''' "original research" to report what is ''said'' by a primary source, as long as that account is explicitly attributed to it, reasonably accurate, neutral, and verifiable. If anybody can read "Numbers" 31 and see that it says what it is cited for, then there is no problem. And of course if what it says doesn't match what an editor writes about it, or the wording of the article isn't appropriate, that should be addressed by revising or rewording the article, not by removing the source: secondary sources are just as susceptible to being mischaracterized in an article as primary sources. Note, I am not contending that secondary sources are unimportant. They are essential for the interpretation of the material contained in primary sources. But we do not remove primary sources because the secondary sources for interpreting them are lacking, nor simply because secondary sources have been cited. It isn't always necessary to have primary sources, but there's nothing whatever wrong with using them, provided they're used appropriately for the ''content'' of what they say. [[User:P Aculeius|P Aculeius]] ([[User talk:P Aculeius|talk]]) 00:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
: {{U|GPinkerton}} said above "summarizing scripture remains the distinct practice of exegesis". A statement I completely disagree with. Summarizing is not the same as exegesis. A good summary will try not to interpret at all. It is precisely because of this distinction that I am of the opinion that the words "or summarizes" should be removed from [[WP:RSPSCRIPTURE]]. [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser|talk]]) 09:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
*I agree with Guy that PLOTSOURCE is a bad idea in general, although perhaps unavoidable if there are few sources discussing the plot (although arguably the solution is that marginally notable films and so forth should just be deleted). Without enforcing secondary source requirements it is very easy for editors to do as GPinkerton is demonstrating. For scripture it's especially unjustifiable because there are so many sources discussing it. We should try to use the most reliable sources to avoid cherry-picking the sources that might be pushing a certain agenda with their interpretation. ''[[The Oxford Companion to the Bible]]'' and ''[[The Cambridge Companion to the Bible]]'' seem like good places to start. [[User:Buidhe|b]][[User talk:Buidhe|uidh]][[Special:Contributions/Buidhe|e]] 23:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Coming to this discussion, I have to admit I'm not quite clear what the central point of this dispute actually is. Are we talking about providing a summary of the book of the Bible in the article? I don't see why [[WP:PLOT]] doesn't apply: what any article wants is a concise summary of the written text, with enough detail so a reader can identify which book of the Bible it is, not some paraphrase. (And if the summary is hung up on differences in translation, I suspect that is a warning that the summary is going into too much detail.) Is it about how to use statements from the Bible in other articles? Is there any reason not to treat it as we do any other primary source? We cite it for basic facts (e.g. David was king of Judah & Israel, with chapter & verse), then turn to secondary sources to explicate the text, if it is unclear. If there are significant differences in translations of the passage, & if it matters to the article, IMHO we provide the word in question (from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek) & again turn to secondary sources to explicate the text. Just because the Bible is a religious text shouldn't mean we handle citing it as a source any differently than, say, ''The Iliad'' or Pliny's ''Historia Naturalis''.{{pb}}But these are obvious solutions to this problem; having written this, I feel like I'm lecturing experts in a subject about which I audited a single class. Since there are a number of intelligent editors here I respect, I must be missing what the point of this discussion truly is. -- [[User:Llywrch|llywrch]] ([[User talk:Llywrch|talk]]) 21:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
:I found everything you've said perfectly common sense too, {{U|Llywrch}}, but as currently written [[WP:RSPSCRIPTURE]] states that {{tq|Scriptural texts, like the Bible and the Quran, are primary sources only suitable for attributed, relevant quotes and in compliance with other Wikipedia content policies and guidelines. Content that interprets or summarizes scriptural passages or narratives should generally be cited to appropriate scholarly sources (for example, in the academic field of religious studies) and attributed when appropriate.}} I guess some edits take this to mean that a summary of the content of say [[The Exodus]] from the Bible is in violation of this guideline. I haven't really understood most of the arguments put forth in favor of limiting summaries of biblical narratives in this way, which mostly hinge on (honestly, extremely detail-oriented) differences in different translation and the fact that various groups hold only their translation to be correct. It could indeed be that there's some degree of talking past each other here.--[[User:Ermenrich|Ermenrich]] ([[User talk:Ermenrich|talk]]) 21:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

== RfC Revisiting Hackaday ==
{{anchor|rfc_F84D093}}
{{rfc|sci|media|rfcid=548402A}}
Hackaday is currently listed in the [[WP:SOURCEGUIDE]] as "no consensus" per the [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_281#Hackaday|previous discussion]]. In the previous discussion, the editorial policies was not discussed. These policies are posted on their website at https://hackaday.com/policies/

<blockquote>When you contribute content to Hackaday, you retain ownership of the copyright, and you also grant permission to us to display and distribute it. In addition, you are responsible for the content of that material.
Hackaday has no responsibility for the content of any messages or information posted by readers. We, in our sole discretion, may or may not review, edit, or delete from the service any material which we deem to be illegal, offensive or otherwise inappropriate.
The tenor of the projects we feature on the service regularly use items in ways they were not originally intended (hack) and readers must understand the implications of this. Hackaday makes no guarantees or warranties as to the accuracy or completeness of content or the result of accessing and using information on our site. We shall not be liable to anyone for any damages resulting from information found on the service, even if damages are the result of inaccuracy, error, omission, or any other cause.
The opinions expressed by our editors and contributors are their own and not those of Hackaday.
We reserve the right to unpublish or refuse to unpublish anything for any reason or for no reason whatsoever.</blockquote>

With this new information taken in to account, I'd like to reconvene discussion on use of Hackaday as sources. Essentially, the only editorial oversight seems to be that they only choose to host or not host submitted contents. I argue that this source should be considered unreliable for factual accuracy, fair due weight presentation and notability building purposes just like HuffPost and Forbes contributor articles are treated in [[WP:RSP]]. [[User:Graywalls|Graywalls]] ([[User talk:Graywalls|talk]]) 14:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I am the Editor in Chief of Hackaday. First off, thank you for considering our site as a reliable source. We do indeed have an editorial practice that oversees all articles published. All contributors are paid for their work and have contracts making them part of our writing team. We follow editing practices that ensure every article is edited and fact checked by one of the editors (there is no circumstance under which anyone publishes their own work without an editor reviewing it, including me). You can review the [https://hackaday.com/about/|list of our current contributors and editors] on the about page. We do not accept content from outside of our writing team, and we do not publish sponsored content. The policies page that Graywalls linked to is quite old, having been published in 2014. It doesn't reflect our current system which has been in place since 2015, and needs to be updated. [[User:Szczys|Szczys]] ([[User talk:Szczys|talk]]) 01:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
*If so than all pre-2015 content is likely unusable. [[User:Buidhe|b]][[User talk:Buidhe|uidh]][[Special:Contributions/Buidhe|e]] 23:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
*I hold the position that Hackaday contents should be treated as [[WP:SPS]] and doesn't rise much above [[WP:BLOGS]] with very limited use in factual information (what are the qualifications of the editors?) and unusable for supporting notability of other organizations. The editorial policy explained by the involved staff member here is quite meaningless without the editorial policy clearly being published on the website itself. [[User:Graywalls|Graywalls]] ([[User talk:Graywalls|talk]]) 20:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

===Hackaday RfC===
* Option 1: May be useful for satisfying verifiability, but should not be used for purpose of determining notability.
* Option 2: generally reliable.
* Option 3: It's a blog. Generally unreliable for factual reporting and should be treated as any other [[WP:BLOGS]]
* Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated

====Hackaday RfC response====

* '''RS Depends on context''' - seems fine on actual articles and technical content. Really this needs to note subsections [https://hackaday.com/about/ about], -- the article space is separate from the blog area. Just like cspan or cnn here the webzine section has editorial control and paid writers, a mix of created content and curated collection; the blog section does not. Cheers [[User:Markbassett|Markbassett]] ([[User talk:Markbassett|talk]]) 07:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
* '''Reliable''' regarding the article space. The writers are experts in their fields, they have a technical background and they do not seem to feature articles that are outside the scope of the expertise of the writers. I agree with [[User:Markbassett]]. [[User:Dwaro|Dwaro]] ([[User talk:Dwaro|talk]]) 10:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

== RfC: Sputnik ==
{{RSN RfC status|1591371060}}
{{rfc|media|pol|prop|rfcid=ED9E04B}}
Which of the following best describes the [[WP:RS|reliability]] of [[Sputnik (news agency)]]? {{duses|Sputniknews.com}} has been cited over 2,000 times on Wikipedia.
*'''Option 1:''' Generally [[WP:RS|reliable]] for factual reporting
*'''Option 2:''' Unclear or additional considerations apply
*'''Option 3:''' Generally [[WP:QUESTIONABLE|unreliable]] for factual reporting
*'''Option 4:''' Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be [[WP:DEPS|deprecated]] as in the [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 220#Daily Mail RfC|2017 RfC]] of the ''[[Daily Mail]]'' [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 15:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

===Responses (Sputnik) ===
* '''Option 4''' - Sputnik is literally RT's even less reliable sibling - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 15:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
* '''Option 4''' Sputnik News is currently described at the RS/P as "There is clear consensus that Sputnik News is generally unreliable. Sputnik is considered a Russian propaganda outlet that engages in bias and disinformation, with some editors considering it less reliable than Breitbart News. Some editors consider Sputnik a reliable source for official Russian government statements and positions." after the result of the RT RfC, I think this is a no brainer. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 15:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Option 4:''' As with RT its not bias, its lies.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 15:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
* '''Option 4''' Pure propaganda, not reliable for Russian official statements given the purely pro-government slant. [[User:GPinkerton|GPinkerton]] ([[User talk:GPinkerton|talk]]) 18:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
* '''Option 4''' Propaganda outlet. ([[User:Hohum|Hohum]] [[User talk:Hohum|@]]) 20:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Option 4''', its RT with less of a veneer of respectability. [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 22:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Option 4''' Exists purely as a propaganda outlet, actively and intentionally publishes false and fabricated information. [[User:AmbivalentUnequivocality|AmbivalentUnequivocality]] ([[User talk:AmbivalentUnequivocality|talk]]) 00:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Option 4'''. Nothing but propaganda. [[User:Bloodofox|:bloodofox:]] ([[User talk:Bloodofox|talk]]) 01:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Option 4'''. Let's formally deprecate and blacklist. This is a clear state-sponsored propaganda outlet with some straight-up ''[[dezinformatsiya]]'' mixed in. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]][[User talk:Neutrality|talk]] 01:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Option 4''', a propaganda arm of the Russian government which fabricates stories to further the interests of the Russian administration, certainly not reliable as a source for factual information. [[User:Tayi Arajakate|'''Tayi Arajakate''']] [[User talk:Tayi Arajakate|'''Talk''']] 02:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Option 3.999''', unreliable for everything, with the exception of statements by the Russian government.--[[User:Bob not snob|Bob not snob]] ([[User talk:Bob not snob|talk]]) 08:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Option 4''' with exception for official Russian govt position. [[User:Buidhe|b]][[User talk:Buidhe|uidh]][[Special:Contributions/Buidhe|e]] 23:42, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
* '''Option 4'''. Canonically unreliable. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' ([[user talk:JzG|help!]]) 10:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
* '''Option 4''': most fact checkers have a piece or two on false reporting published by Sputnik [https://toolbox.google.com/factcheck/explorer/search/sputnik;hl=en;gl=?authuser=1&pageId=none].--[[User:ReyHahn|ReyHahn]] ([[User talk:ReyHahn|talk]]) 15:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

===Discussion (Sputnik) ===
*

== Whitelist for batakindonews.blogspot.com ==

Can an admin/bureaucrat put this site: [https://batakindonews.blogspot.com/ batakindonews.blogspot.com] into some kind of whitelist for websites? This website is controlled by a guy who can't buy real website, but his news is filled with first-hand interview with the corresponding subject.--[[User:Jeromi Mikhael|Jeromi Mikhael]] ([[User talk:Jeromi Mikhael|talk]]) 16:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

:Per [[WP:BLOGS]], very unlikely, and that goes even more if you want to use it in [[WP:BLP]]s. Do you argue that the blogger is an ''"established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.[8]"''? Seems to me that you have to find other sources. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 16:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
::{{ping|Gråbergs Gråa Sång}} Nope. Won't use it for BLPs. Besides, the real difference between a blogspot and a news website is that someone has to pay for it, which kinda states that a reliable sources requires someone investing money in it. There were no assesment that says that this website was written by an expert, but most of it was written by first hand interviews. I think [[WP:NEWSBLOG]] is more proper.--[[User:Jeromi Mikhael|Jeromi Mikhael]] ([[User talk:Jeromi Mikhael|talk]]) 01:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
:::No, the difference between a blogspot and a news website is not "that someone has to pay for it", but rather that news websites have fact checking and editorial oversight, among other things. If you are saying this is a [[WP:NEWSBLOG]], what news organization is it the blog for? Because NEWSBLOG refers exclusively to blogs that are maintained and hosted by actual news organizations, not simply blogs that say they are news. [[User:AmbivalentUnequivocality|AmbivalentUnequivocality]] ([[User talk:AmbivalentUnequivocality|talk]]) 05:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
:::: {{ping|AmbivalentUnequivocality}} Sorry....but the main (and only author) of the blog is a reporter named Leonardo TSS (Leonardo Tolstoy Simajuntak), is a reporter from the [[KabarIndonesia]] online newspaper, based in the Netherlands. Here is the [https://batakindonews.blogspot.com/2015/03/koran-juga-sudah-ada-yang-online-harian.html accreditation certificate]. His blogspot may be an extension of the KabarIndonesia newspaper, but I'm just assuming here.--[[User:Jeromi Mikhael|Jeromi Mikhael]] ([[User talk:Jeromi Mikhael|talk]]) 07:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::: KabarIndonesia is maintained by the Yayasan Peduli Indonesia, and is listed as a ''[[stichting]]'' in the Netherlands [https://www.kabarindonesia.com/penulisreg.php]. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Jeromi Mikhael|Jeromi Mikhael]] ([[User talk:Jeromi Mikhael#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jeromi Mikhael|contribs]]) 07:05, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::: Just thinking here. How does an "interview" could be fact checked? For example, [https://batakindonews.blogspot.com/2016/05/msm-sinaga-militer-pertama-menjadi.html this article] only contains the indirect speech version of the interview. No personal opinion, etc, were added. Sorry if I'm wrong. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Jeromi Mikhael|Jeromi Mikhael]] ([[User talk:Jeromi Mikhael#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jeromi Mikhael|contribs]]) 07:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

== Using for [[Forbes.com]] for [[Kanye West]]'s networth ==

Opinions are needed on the following: [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Using for Forbes.com for Kanye West's networth]]. A permalink for it is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=959622005#Using_for_Forbes.com_for_Kanye_West's_networth here]. [[User:Flyer22 Frozen|Flyer22 Frozen]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Frozen|talk]]) 18:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
:see [[WP:FORBES]]. Staff written articles are fine. CONTRIBUTOR articles are seldom considered reliable and treated similarly to other self published sources. [[User:Graywalls|Graywalls]] ([[User talk:Graywalls|talk]]) 01:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
::[[User:Graywalls|Graywalls]], it would be best to comment on this at the WP:BLP noticeboard, where it's clear that I'm aware of WP:FORBES. My concerns are what I stated there, and that includes [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=959850003&oldid=959837689 my comment] there on an edit you made. As seen there, other have also expressed concerns. This section here was simply meant to be an alert to the centralized discussion; I was employing [[WP:TALKCENT]]. [[User:Flyer22 Frozen|Flyer22 Frozen]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Frozen|talk]]) 22:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

== Criteria for inclusion on the perennial sources list ==

[[Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Adding_notability_to_the_inclusion_criteria|There is currently a discussion]] about adding a notability criteria for inclusion on the perennial sources list, alongside stricter criteria for RfC's. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 23:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

== RfC on wording in [[Wikipedia:Deprecated sources]] ==

There is a [[WP:RFC|request for comment]] on the first sentence of {{slink|Wikipedia:Deprecated sources|Acceptable uses of deprecated sources}}. If you are interested, please participate at {{slink|WT:DEPS|RfC: Acceptable uses of deprecated sources}}. — '''''[[User:Newslinger|Newslinger]]''' [[User talk:Newslinger#top|talk]]'' 13:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

== RfC: Sina.com ==
{{RSN RfC status|1591508880}}
{{rfc|media|pol|rfcid=5B329B3}}

Which of the following describes [[WP:RS|reliability]] the news outlet [[Sina.com]]? [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 05:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

* Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
* Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
* Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
* Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail

[[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 05:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

=== Survey (Sina) ===
*'''Option 3 or 4''', no editorial independence, no reputation for fact checking, and no reputation for reliability. Per "Independent commercial news portals or news sites such as Sina or Tencent do not have the autonomy to produce original news content, and instead can only reprint news articles from state-run news outlets (Esarey and Qiang, 2011; Stockmann, 2011).”[https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/6147/5195] and [https://southerncourier.co.za/afp/62578/china-orders-media-giant-sina-to-improve-censorship]. [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 05:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''None, no assessment required''': Sina doesn’t create original news content and only posts articles from other sources. Therefore the reliability of an article posted on Sina is purely based on its origin news source, with Sina playing no greater role than a search engine. — [[User:MarkH21|MarkH21]][[User talk:MarkH21|talk]] 19:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''None'''. Sina is only a news aggregation website, so no effort should be made. That is all. [[User:Wo.luren|Wo.luren]] ([[User talk:Wo.luren|talk]]) 06:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
*'''None''': News sources of nearly all levels of quality and fact-checking can be found on Sina. The reliability of the sources should be based on the groups they are created by, not just simply the aggregation site that they are being hosted on. For example, something like [http://product.astro.sina.com.cn/?top=1008 "Foresee the Next Ten Years' Luck"] written by Xiamen Astrological Culture is definitely not an [[WP:RS]], while other articles being hosted on the site like [https://finance.sina.com.cn/chanjing/cyxw/2020-06-02/doc-iircuyvi6298248.shtml "Capital 'Fake Marriage' Agency Business Set to Price Dump"], written by Economic View, part of [[China News Service]] are much better sources. [[User:Khu'hamgaba Kitap|'''Kʜᴜ'ʜᴀᴍɢᴀʙᴀ]] [[User talk:Khu'hamgaba Kitap|'''K''''''ɪᴛᴀᴘ''' ''(parlez ici)'']] 15:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
*'''Not applicable''': Per KK, and the [https://southerncourier.co.za/afp/62578/china-orders-media-giant-sina-to-improve-censorship second link] HEJ provides is irrelevant to this "survey". CaradhrasAiguo ([[User talk:CaradhrasAiguo|leave language]]) 19:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

=== Discussion (Sina) ===
Relevant discussions can be found at [[Talk:Fan Bingbing#Sina.com]] and [[Talk:The New York Times controversies#Unreliable sources]]. [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 05:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

*I’m a little confused, shouldn’t the reliability be based on the underlying news source? E.g. a [[Xinhua]] article posted on Sina.com should just reflect the reliability of Xinhua. If that’s what this is about, then there’s no real point of assessing Sina.com separately. The source article is usually clearly marked.{{pb}}Or are we assessing something else? — [[User:MarkH21|MarkH21]][[User talk:MarkH21|talk]] 07:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
**I you happen to run across a link to a reliable source on Sina (or The Daily Mail or Infowars for that matter) you can use that source just as if you found it through Google. Nobody will know your secret. This noticeboard section is only for cases where someone tries to use Sina as a source. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 09:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
***{{ping|Guy Macon}} I agree. Does Sina post any of its own content? I thought it was a news portal. — [[User:MarkH21|MarkH21]][[User talk:MarkH21|talk]] 09:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
**** Its used on dozens of BLP pages where the underlying source (Chinese state media) would be inappropriate, in this case here we have {{Ping|CaradhrasAiguo}} who has asserted that they both publish original news stories and are generally reliable. Sina is used as a source 15 times on Fan Bingbing, the BLP page this discussion started on. [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 16:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
*****{{ping|Horse Eye Jack}} Looking at the Sina sources in [[Fan Bingbing]], they also say which Chinese newspapers the articles were taken from. I don’t think there’s any need to assess Sina itself since all of their content is taken from elsewhere. The reliability of an article posted is based solely on the origin of the article, not on Sina.{{pb}}In other words, this RfC is pointless unless someone gives an example of a Sina-original news article. — [[User:MarkH21|MarkH21]][[User talk:MarkH21|talk]] 19:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
******That is exactly the claim I’m reacting to, {{Ping|CaradhrasAiguo}} says "''[[Sina News]]'' reliability should not be impugned”[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_New_York_Times_controversies&diff=959870541&oldid=959869263] and claims to have refuted the [[First Monday (journal)]] article "I was not citing the reprimands to support the argument for reliability, merely as evidence to bolster the fact they do not 100% "reproduce content from official news organizations”.”[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fan_Bingbing&diff=959880498&oldid=959879669]. It would be helpful if they would come here to explain their argument. [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 19:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
:{{small|I've removed "RfC:" from the section heading, as this discussion was not submitted as a [[WP:RFC|request for comment]] (RfC). If you would like to turn this discussion into an RfC, please follow the instructions at [[WP:RFCST]]. — '''''[[User:Newslinger|Newslinger]]''' [[User talk:Newslinger#top|talk]]'' 09:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)}}
::Sorry this is my first time making one of these, does this work? [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 17:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
:::{{small|Looks good. I've added another RfC category and the [[Template:Rsnr|tracking tag]]. — '''''[[User:Newslinger|Newslinger]]''' [[User talk:Newslinger#top|talk]]'' 00:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)}}

== Using interviews as Population censuses ==

I want to put a {{Better source needed}} template temporary after this source here: [https://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-khan-abdul-gaffar-khan-s-great-granddaughter-seeks-citizenship-for-phastoons-in-india-2584887] my question here is can we use interviews as reliable sources for ethnolinguistic population counts. The interviewee (a famous person) claims that there are 3.2M [[Pashtuns]] in India. While the official government language census speaks of 21.800 Pashto speakers in India here [https://censusindia.gov.in/2011Census/Language-2011/Statement-1.pdf]. But anyways is an interview of a famous (organizational) person in general considered as reliable for population ethnolinguistic counts? [[User:Casperti|Casperti]] ([[User talk:Casperti|talk]]) 22:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

:This is another attempt of User:Casperti to [[WP:FORUMSHOP]] after being opposed [[Talk:Pashtuns#Infobox|here]]; additionally, User:Casperti is misrepresenting the source here. The claim is being made by the president of the [[All India Pakhtoon Jirga-e-Hind]], an organization representing Pashtuns in India. The number of Pashto-speakers does not equal the number of Pashtuns, as Pashtuns in India speak a number of languages. [[User:Anupam|Anupam]][[User talk:Anupam|Talk]] 01:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

::::another attempt?? Instead of making accusations again Could you please give me the explicit evidence for that? Beside [[Talk:Pashtuns#infobox]] you have already the comments of user Mar4d that does not support this source + you have created the wikipage of that organization which shows actually the POV in your case. In any case I am just asking whether it is even allowed. If it is not allowed then I take it back and do not have a problem with it. [[User:Casperti|Casperti]] ([[User talk:Casperti|talk]]) 02:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
:No.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 14:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
*Reliable source only for their opinion, not for facts. Should not be used in infobox and probably not WP:DUE. [[User:Buidhe|b]][[User talk:Buidhe|uidh]][[Special:Contributions/Buidhe|e]] 23:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

== [https://www.counterpointresearch.com/ Counterpoint Research] ==

Would a statistics site like Counterpoint Research be reliable to support stats? I read somewhere that Statista is unreliable, so I want to make sure.

Example URL: https://www.counterpointresearch.com/india-smartphone-share/

[[User:RedBulbBlueBlood9911|RedBulbBlueBlood9911]]|[[User talk:RedBulbBlueBlood9911|'''Talk''']] 07:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

== More nobility fansites ==

Adding to {{section link|Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 295|RfC: Three genealogy sites}}, there are some more sites that appear to be nobility fansites rather than reliable references.

* {{duses|almanachdegotha.org}} - virtually unreadable, no About page that I can find, no evidence of an editorial board.
* {{duses|chivalricorders.org}} - now defunct but archives also show no obvious evidence of reliability.
* {{duses|www.angelfire.com/realm/gotha}} - Angelfire-hosted "Online Gotha", appears to be a one-man project.
* {{duses|jacobite.ca}} - another one-man project, Jacobite fansite run by an enthusiastic amateur but no editorial board and no relevant academic status.
* {{duses|englishmonarchs.co.uk}} (added 22:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)}

There's another one which looks on the face of it to be reliable:
* {{duses|almanach.be}}
It ''looks'' OK, but I am a bit suspicious. Thoughts? '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' ([[user talk:JzG|help!]]) 09:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
* <s>'''Support deprecation''' at least of chivalricorders.org, www.angelfire.com/realm/gotha and duses|jacobite.ca. Not sure about the other two. Almanach de Gotha was the Royalist genealogist handbook in the 19th century, I don't know how reliable its modern revival is.[[User:Smeat75|Smeat75]] ([[User talk:Smeat75|talk]]) 13:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)</s>
:: Indeed it was. And Online Gotha has nothign to do with it. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' ([[user talk:JzG|help!]]) 22:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
: I am sure these have cropped up before and found wanting.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 13:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
: '''Depreciate all''' I agree with Newslinger that these sites (perhaps aside from the Angelfire one due to usage and Almanachdegotha.org as it does appear to officially represent the modern publication, even if in its modern form it isn't all that notable) aren't worth adding to the Perennial Sources List, as they are used only around 100 times. Guy, I don't see why you find reliable about the .be one, there's no indication it is definitely the online verison of the ''[[Almanach de Bruxelles]]'', which I can find essentially no reference to on google outside the initial 1916 NYT story, so I'm not sure that the original publication is even notable. The online version is totally inaccessible without a subscription, hasn't updated the copyright on the website since 2012 and looks exactly like all the other nobility websites, there's no reason to think that it is reliable merely because it charges a subscription and has an unsubstantiated connection. I would say that the original Almanach de Gotha published up through 1944 is reliable, though I have no opinion about the revival from 1998 onwards, though it appears not to be all that popular, as the official twitter account has less than 1,500 followers. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 22:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
:: I had more followers than that on my original Twitter account! Online Gotha is not affiliated with the revived Almanac de Gotha, as far as I can tell. It's a fansite. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' ([[user talk:JzG|help!]]) 22:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
::: I'm not so sure, it says on the website "Welcome... to the Official Website of the Almanach de Saxe Gotha the Online Royal Genealogical Reference Handbook Der Saxe Gotha Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels" And it also claims on its website to be © 1995-2020, 1995 being the same year that the rights were sold. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 23:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
:::: Hang on, {{duses|gotha1763.com}} also claims to be the official website for the book, and has a much sleeker website, yet appears to have nearly the exact same follower account and automated messaging on twitter as the .org site, [https://www.gotha1763.com/societe-des-amis It also claims] to have some kind of relationship with the King of Spain and Prince of Monaco, the Prince of Belgium and the Duke of Somerset? What? [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 23:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
:::::Almanachdegotha.org (Almanach de Saxe Gotha) is run by a, err let me be kind and say a special individual, who claimed to have re-established the Holy Roman Empire. The website trades on the respected name of the Almanach de Gotha and I see it has now added another respected publication, the Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels, to its handle, so it cons people. The genealogies were copied from the Online Gotha, the other texts from Wikipedia, so the genealogies are probably reliable at least.... The website Gotha1763.com is the website for the Almanach de Gotha books, so does not list its genealogies online. - [[User:DWC LR|dwc lr]] ([[User talk:DWC LR|talk]]) 14:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
::::::: {{Ping|DWC LR}}, fair enough for .org, but how do you know Gotha1763.com is legit? Its website is admittedly much better looking, but [https://twitter.com/gotha1763 its official twitter account], looks almost exactly the same as [https://twitter.com/almanachgotha the .org one] and I can't find any proof of its legitimacy. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 17:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
::::::::{{Ping|Hemiauchenia}} I’ve consulted their books, but their website has no use as a source because they don’t list their genealogies online (like some of the websites listed at the top), they are only available in the books which can be brought via their website direct, the publisher or book stores. It looks like .org just copy and pastes the tweets days later, .com always tweets first. The .org person is loopy so I’m not surprised. - [[User:DWC LR|dwc lr]] ([[User talk:DWC LR|talk]]) 07:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
*'''Deprecate all''' per the reasons given by nom.[[User:Smeat75|Smeat75]] ([[User talk:Smeat75|talk]]) 00:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
=== Burke's Peerage ===
*{{duses|burkespeerage.com}}
The [[Burke's Peerage]] website (which appears to be official) is cited over 500 times on Wikipedia, and the Book Volumes appear to be cited several thousand times. Burke's Peerage is obviously a much more notable and storied institution than the self published fansites, so I think it's worthy of its own separate subsection. My questions are: Is the website a reliable source, and does it have a separate reliability to the historical book volumes? [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 01:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
* '''Reliable''' for genealogy, most of the rest is supplied by the subject so I don't have a strong view. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' ([[user talk:JzG|help!]]) 15:58, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

=== Debrett's ===
*{{duses|debretts.com}}
Debretts.com is currently cited over 1,700 times, seemingly also primarily for biographical information, and, of course, for etiquette. Many of the links appear to be dead, several example archives of People of Today from 2012 can be seen [https://web.archive.org/web/20120913161838/http://www.debretts.com/people/biographies/browse/o/23024/Hugh%20Stephen%20Roden+ORDE.aspx here], [https://web.archive.org/web/20120913163624/http://www.debretts.com/people/biographies/browse/m/21529/Patrick+MERCER.aspx here] and [https://archive.is/20150223124824/http://www.debretts.com/people-of-today/profile/23502/Keir-STARMER Keir Starmer]. [[Debrett's]] is obviously a storied institution as well, being the longtime publisher of Debrett's Peerage, which again appears to be cited several thousand times. My main concern is that for the biographical information, particularly the (seemingly defunct as of 2017) "People of Today", it appears to be a [[Who's Who (UK)|Who's Who]] sort of thing where the information is simply solicited from the person without any fact checking, which would make it a self published source (see [https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/home/debretts-people-here-today-gone-tomorrow/137111.article this letter to Architects' Journal]). Debrett's is best known as an authority on etiquette, so I would tentatively consider them reliable in this area. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 01:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
* '''Mixed'''. Peerage is as reliable as you get for the kinds of things it publishes, but last time I looked ''people of today'' is basically pay to play. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' ([[user talk:JzG|help!]]) 16:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
:: The letter to [[Architects' Journal]] suggests that (at least in 2004) the entries for People of Today were solicited by Debrett's, and that the author did not have to pay to be included (but was strongly encouraged to buy the book), which in my eyes makes it at least a better source than [[Marquis Who's Who]] (admittedly an extremely low bar), which does engage in the pay to play behaviour you describe . I would concur that both Burke's and Debrett's Peerages are reliable sources for genealogy. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 17:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

== Request for comment: Carfolio.com ==

As a previous attempt to post a discussion on this page didn't work. I'm opening a request for comment on the reliability of carfolio.com.

This RfC asks:

* Should this [https://www.carfolio.com/ website] be considered a reliable source when sourcing information related to automobiles?

* If the answer to the above question is yes then on what grounds should this website be considered as reliable?

[[User:U1Quattro|U1 quattro]] [[User talk:U1Quattro|''TALK'']] 10:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
:'''Definitely less reliable than the manufacturer websites''' - I would go with the manufacturer websites instead of this website. There is just no editorial policy or anything suggesting that they are more reliable than car manufacturers, which would get sued if they lied about specs. Besides, their licence reads ''© Carfolio.com - all specifications presented on this site, their display and formatting belong to Carfolio.com. Unauthorised republishing prohibited.'' which seems to suggest that they own the data (which I think is not legal). And last but not the least, they seem to think that there are two [[Suzuki]]s and one is an Indian company (which gives an idea about how accurate their info is). [[User:RedBulbBlueBlood9911|RedBulbBlueBlood9911]]|[[User talk:RedBulbBlueBlood9911|'''Talk''']] 11:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
: '''Not Reliable''': I broadly agree with RedBulbBlueBlood9911's assessment of the site.One qualification is they do seem to have some editorial process, as at [https://www.carfolio.com/help/] under the heading "Add information" they state that "no submissions will be accepted without a veryfiable [sic] source". But, as they do not actually cite the sources on each page (as far as I can see), its impossible to determine what is cited and assess the merits of this editorial process. So essentially this makes them a tertiary source that actually obscures the sources they are based on. I would think accepting a source like this as reliable reduces the verifiability of WP, as you are essentially accepting the word of carfolio's unnamed editorial team that some unknown source is actually backing up their site. Also, I'm not a lawyer but their legal stance (in full here [https://www.carfolio.com/legal/]) towards the data on the site seems unenforceable and inconsistent with the idea that their data is fully sourced. [[User:Prova_MO|Prova MO]] [[User talk:Prova_MO|(talk)]] 19:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

== Toki Pona ==

Can anyone weigh in on the reliability of some of the sourcing for this article, [[Toki Pona]]?
* A reddit thread [https://www.reddit.com/r/tokipona/]
* Wikibooks [https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Updated_jan_Pije%27s_lessons/Lesson_8_Negation,_Yes_-_No_Questions]
* A blog [http://tpnimi.blogspot.com/2010/09/parts-of-speech.html]
* A google site [https://sites.google.com/view/sitelenemoji]
* Google play documents [https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.ourdhi.sitelenemoji]

As an uninvolved editor I reverted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toki_Pona&type=revision&diff=958322167&oldid=956573419 an edit] a week or so ago, that was cited to [https://sites.google.com/view/sitelenemoji this google site]. The editor has now reverted and left me [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHeironymous_Rowe&type=revision&diff=960205745&oldid=955680985 this message] at my talk. I'm pretty sure all of the items I listed above fail WP:RELIABLE and/or WP:SECONDARY (and that was just a quick glance at the references for that page, there are undoubtedly more), but I'd appreciate some input. Also, {{ping|Devbali02}} [[User:Heironymous Rowe|'''He''']][[User talk:Heironymous Rowe|'''iro''']] 18:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

:Related: [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1037#Disruptive editing: repeated addition of badly sourced information by Devbali02]] --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 22:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
:In the email message[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHeironymous_Rowe&type=revision&diff=960205745&oldid=955680985] {{userlinks|Devbali02}} claimes "The website in question, https://sites.google.com/view/sitelenemoji, is the official website of sitelen Emoji." The page is referenced at https://github.com/holtzermann17/toki-pona-emoji/issues/3 and references https://www.reddit.com/r/sitelenEmoji and https://www.facebook.com/groups/486127038880577/ so I think we can treat them all as [[WP:PRIMARY]] sources for Sitelen Emoji. The question in my mind is this: is there any [[WP:WEIGHT]] evidence that justifies making any mention of Sitelen Emoji anywhere on Wikipedia?

:Also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Emoji_Set_of_Sitelen_Emoji_as_of_April_2020.jpg

:Finally, this edit[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toki_Pona&diff=prev&oldid=955525508] makes my think we are either dealing with a COI editor or a misleading username. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 23:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
:::I think there is a lot of [[WP:OR]], [[WP:COI]], and [[WP:SELFPROMO]] at that article, on top of the [[WP:PRIMARY]] vs [[WP:SECONDARY]] issue. But I do not know enough about the subject, and do not have time to comb through that article to figure it all out. My list above was literally from a quick glance at a few of the references. It needs a thorough going over though. [[User:Heironymous Rowe|'''He''']][[User talk:Heironymous Rowe|'''iro''']] 23:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

* Response to the claims that this is a COI: I don't have my name mentioned in the most recent edit. It is important to understand here that Sitelen Emoji is not "an organization." It is neither a company, nor a non profit, nothing. It is simply a writing system for toki pona. Yes, I am involved in it, and have made certain tools for it. But as was mentioned in the edit, sitelen emoji is simply a set of emojis chosen by the community. '''I do not own sitelen emoji.''' If you want, another person knowledgeable about sitelen emoji can make this edit. But since your allegations may have resulted from confusion as to what edit you are reversing and what sitelen emoji is. You should look at the text in the edit for what it is. I have also posted this on another user's talk page, where this discussion is ongoing. [[User:Devbali02|Bali]] ([[User talk:Devbali02|talk]]) 10:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
{{od}}
[[User:Devbali02|Bali]], you admit being the same "Dev Bali" who (in your own words) "compiled earlier attempts to create one Sitelen Emoji" and "made an android keyboard that makes using the script like pinyin for Toki Pona". '''You have a clear [[conflict of interest]] (COI) regarding Sitelen Emoji and Toki Pona.'''

Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the '''[[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest|conflict of interest guideline]]''' and [[Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations|FAQ for organizations]] for more information. Plase obey the following rules.ou:

*'''avoid editing or creating''' articles about Sitelen Emoji and Toki Pona;
* '''propose changes''' on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{tl|request edit}} template);
* '''disclose''' your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI]]);
*'''avoid linking''' to your Sitelen Emoji website;
*'''do your best''' to comply with Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Core content policies|content policies]].
--[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 15:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

== Press Releases ==

Can press releases be considered realiable sources?
In the article [[VITAL (machine learning software)|VITAL]] the press releases below are used 9 times as inline references:
[http://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2014/05/13/635881/10081467/en/Deep-Knowledge-Venture-s-Appoints-Intelligent-Investment-Analysis-Software-VITAL-as-Board-Member.html GlobalNewsWire]; [https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20150211006103/en/Deep-Knowledge-Ventures-Insilico-Medicine-Enter-Convertible Businesswire]; [http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-12/brf-dkv121515.php EurekaAlert]; [https://www.thecorporatecounsel.net/nonMember/docs/05_14_AgingAnalytics.pdf The Corporate Counsel]. If NO, can secondary sources based on the same press release be considered reliable? See the links to Busines Insider, Vice, Fortune, Multitudes in the article.
Thank you for your advise.
--[[User:Postconfused|Postconfused]] ([[User talk:Postconfused|talk]]) 13:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
:For attributed claims, yes. And for nothing else.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 13:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

:They're primary sources. If you have long slabs of article sourced only to press releases, they should probably be removed - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 13:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
::To clarify - the problem is usually not an RS one - it's [[WP:UNDUE]], it doesn't connote notability, it's promotional, etc. In harsh sourcing environments, e.g. cryptocurrencies, the press releases and their claims should generally just be removed. In less harsh environments they might be useful; they're definite evidence the company said the things in the press release. But they don't connote notability of the fact, or that it should be included.
::Secondary sources closely based on the press release are considered [[churnalism]], and are functionally not much better than a press release - an article backed only by a wave of churnalism is likely to die at AFD, for not meeting [[WP:NCORP]].
::The article [[VITAL (machine learning software)]] has proper RSes that talk about the thing independently; it might be an idea to cut it more strictly to those. But that's an UNDUE thing, not an RS thing - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 13:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
::::Thank you [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]]. Unfortunately, the article did not die at AfD. No consensus(!?), despite the fact that the [[Columbia Business Law Review]] [https://journals.library.columbia.edu/index.php/CBLR/article/view/5118 Corporate Management in the Age of AI] and [https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/02/17/yuval-noah-harari-gives-the-really-big-picture the New Yorker] clearly stated that such press release was incorrect and exaggerated and "it was a lure for gullible outlets". Now I am going to rewrite the article but I wonder if the press releases and related churnalism can be removed. Once again, thank you for your advise![[User:Postconfused|Postconfused]] ([[User talk:Postconfused|talk]]) 14:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
:Press releases have zero usability for establishing notability. They're useful mostly for expanding and supporting factual claims for which a reliable source has already mentioned. "if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources." from [[WP:SPS]]. Moreover, we don't include anything on the face of earth that's verifiable [[WP:ONUS]] [[User:Graywalls|Graywalls]] ([[User talk:Graywalls|talk]]) 18:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
As someone who largely works on scientific articles, I would say that citing a press release that accompanies a scientific paper is essentially pointless and only the paper itself should generally be cited, as the press release generally adds nothing that isn't in the paper. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 17:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
:Seconded - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 18:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
:: [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] thanks for your comment. Would you consider the following three peer reviewed journals in the [[VITAL_(machine_learning_software)|same article]] reliable? [[Multitudes]], Critical Times (Duke Press) and the Journal of East China University of Political Science and Law (ref, [[VITAL_(machine_learning_software)#cite_note-Lin_2018-13|13]], [[VITAL_(machine_learning_software)#cite_note-Kyrou2015-17|17]], [[VITAL_(machine_learning_software)#cite_note-Colberg2019-18|18]])? They just quote the press releases or the above chournalism. --[[User:Postconfused|Postconfused]] ([[User talk:Postconfused|talk]]) 05:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

== Vector Marketing ==

Looking for opinions: is [https://www.consumeraffairs.com/news03/save.html this article] considered a reliable source for sourcing a lawsuit against Vector Marketing, specifically for the claim below?

<blockquote>In 2003, a recruit who was successful in a lawsuit against Vector for failing to adhere to labor laws in New York, co-founded a group, Students Against Vector Exploitation (SAVE).</blockquote>

The source in question is authored by the group whose co-founder initiated the lawsuit. This seems to fail [[WP:RELIABLE]] and/or [[WP:SECONDARY]].

[http://thebottomline.as.ucsb.edu/2011/04/beware-of-campus-scams This] is the existing source on the page for the lawsuit claim above, which bears no mention of a lawsuit. Because of this, the existing source was replaced with a "citation needed" tag and another editor reverted that edit claiming the source is verifiable. After starting a discussion on the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vector_Marketing talk page], the only source that was found to backup the lawsuit claim is the above article in question. Looking to get additional opinions from other editors.

As a side note, sourcing seems to be an ongoing issue on this page and could use some extra set of eyes. For example the [http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-09/did-i-participate-pyramid-scheme Popsci] source was previously discussed [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_193#Primary_source_being_used_as_a_secondary_source here] and subsequently removed from the page, yet it is currently on the page. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Ayepaolo|Ayepaolo]] ([[User talk:Ayepaolo#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Ayepaolo|contribs]]) 19:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
:{{small|{{bcc|Ayepaolo}}I've removed "RfC:" from the section heading, as this discussion was not submitted as a [[WP:RFC|request for comment]] (RfC). If you would like to turn this discussion into an RfC, please follow the instructions at [[WP:RFCST]], and use a [[WP:RFCBRIEF|brief and neutral statement]] as the first signed comment in the discussion. — '''''[[User:Newslinger|Newslinger]]''' [[User talk:Newslinger#top|talk]]'' 07:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC)}}

== Hong Kong Free Press ==

Could [[Hong Kong Free Press]] had requested for this source [https://hongkongfp.com/] and [https://hongkongfp.com/2020/06/01/breaking-hong-kong-police-ban-annual-tiananmen-vigil-for-first-time-in-30-years-citing-covid-19-measures/] for democracy protests and [[Tiananmen massacre]] vigil ban in Hong Kong, including China. --[[User:TheMuscovian|TheMuscovian]] ([[User talk:TheMuscovian|talk]]) 00:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
:{{ping|TheMuscovian}} Sorry, what is the question? — [[User:MarkH21|MarkH21]][[User talk:MarkH21|talk]] 01:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
::It means it reports and stories about [[Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests]], and some topics about [[COVID-19 pandemic]]. --[[User:TheMuscovian|TheMuscovian]] ([[User talk:TheMuscovian|talk]]) 01:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
:::I still don’t understand. Are you asking whether the Hong Kong Free Press is a reliable source for those topics? — [[User:MarkH21|MarkH21]][[User talk:MarkH21|talk]] 01:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Hackaday

2020-06-03T10:05:05Z

Dwaro: /* Hackaday Prize */ new section

User:Dwaro

2020-06-03T09:57:46Z

Dwaro: copy barnstar to userpage

Hackaday Prize

2020-06-02T15:47:47Z

Dwaro: create redirect page

#REDIRECT [[Hackaday#Hackaday Prize]]

Hackaday

2020-06-02T14:33:44Z

Dwaro: fix Tindie acquisition

{{short description|A blog publishing several articles each day about hardware and software hacks}}
{{Infobox website
| name = Hackaday
| logo = Hackaday_logo.png
| screenshot =
| caption =
| url = {{URL|hackaday.com}}
| commercial = Yes
| type = [[Blog|Weblog]]
| language = English
| registration = Optional
| owner = Supplyframe Inc.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://hackaday.com/2013/07/25/hello-from-supplyframe/ |title=Hello from SupplyFrame – your new evil overlords! |publisher=Hackaday.com |accessdate=23 June 2014}}</ref>
| editor = Mike Szczys<ref>{{Cite web|title=Mike Szczys's Profile|url=https://hackaday.io/mike|access-date=2020-06-02|website=hackaday.io|language=en}}</ref>
| launch_date = September 2004<ref name="launch"></ref>
| current_status = Online
| revenue =
| alexa =
}}
'''''Hackaday''''' is a hardware [[Hacker|hacking]] website.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Here's a USB flash drive that could fry your laptop|url=https://www.computerworld.com/article/2896525/heres-a-usb-flash-drive-that-could-fry-your-laptop.html|last=Constantin|first=Lucian|date=2015-03-13|website=Computerworld|language=en|access-date=2020-06-01}}</ref> It was founded in 2004 as a [[Online magazine|web magazine]].

==History==
Hackaday was founded in 2004 as a web magazine for [[Engadget]] devoted to publishing and archiving "the best hacks, mods and DIY (do it yourself) projects from around web".<ref name="launch">{{cite web|author=Phillip Torrone|title=Introducing Hack A Day, the gadget hack archive|url=https://www.engadget.com/2004/10/07/introducing-hack-a-day-the-gadget-hack-archive/|work=Engadget|accessdate=15 November 2011|date=October 2004}}</ref> Hackaday has since split from Engadget and its former parent company [[Weblogs, Inc.]].<ref>{{Cite web|title=A Letter From Jason Calacanis, The Owner Of Hack A Day|url=https://hackaday.com/2010/07/12/a-letter-from-jason-calicanis-the-owner-of-hack-a-day/|last=By|date=2010-07-12|website=Hackaday|language=en-US|access-date=2020-06-01}}</ref> In 2007 ''[[Computerworld]]'' magazine ranked Hackaday #10 on their list of the top 15 geek blog sites.<ref name=CW>{{cite web|last=Computerworld staff|title=Top 15 geek blog sites|url=http://www.computerworld.com/article/2545070/data-center/top-15-geek-blog-sites.html|work=Computerworld|accessdate=29 August 2017|date=1 May 2007}}</ref>

Hackaday.io started as a project hosting site in 2014<ref>{{Cite web|title=Project Community Profile: Hackaday.io {{!}} Make:|url=https://makezine.com/2020/05/09/project-community-profile-hackaday-io/|date=2020-05-09|website=[[Make (magazine)|Make]]: DIY Projects and Ideas for Makers|language=en|access-date=2020-06-01}}</ref> under the name of Hackaday Projects<ref>{{cite web|url=http://hackaday.com/2014/02/18/hackaday-launches-our-own-hosting-site/|title=Introducing: Hackaday Projects| work=Hackaday|accessdate=23 June 2014}}</ref> to provide a hosting space for documenting hardware and software projects. It has now grown into a social network of 100,000 members<ref>{{cite web|url=http://hackaday.com/2015/10/29/hackaday-io-just-passed-100000-members/|title=HACKADAY.IO JUST PASSED 100,000 MEMBERS|work=Hackaday|accessdate=3 Dec 2015}}</ref>

In 2015, Hackaday their owner Supplyframe acquired hardware marketplace Tindie.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Hackaday Acquires DIY Hardware Marketplace Tindie|url=https://social.techcrunch.com/2015/08/06/hackaday-acquires-diy-hardware-marketplace-tindie/|website=TechCrunch|language=en-US|access-date=2020-06-01}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=By|date=2015-08-05|title=Tindie Becomes A Part Of The Hackaday Family|url=https://hackaday.com/2015/08/05/tindie-becomes-a-part-of-the-hackaday-family/|access-date=2020-06-02|website=Hackaday|language=en-US}}</ref>

=== Hackaday Prize ===
The Hackaday Prize was founded in 2014.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Hackaday Prize Is Looking for Products—and Profitability|url=https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/geek-life/hands-on/hackaday-prize-is-going-for-products|last=Schneider|first=David|date=|website=IEEE Spectrum: Technology, Engineering, and Science News|language=en|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=2020-06-01}}</ref>

* In 2014 it was awarded to someone who developed a [[satellite ground station]].<ref>{{Cite web|title=The Hackaday Prize Awarded to Satellite Ground Station Project|url=https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/aerospace/satellites/the-hackaday-prize-awarded-to-satellite-ground-station-project|website=IEEE Spectrum: Technology, Engineering, and Science News|language=en|access-date=2020-06-01}}</ref>
* The prize for "Best Product" was awarded to the Vinduino project in 2015.<ref>{{Cite web|title=An Engineer Shows How Data Can Trump Conventional Wisdom|url=https://www.electronicdesign.com/content/article/21801308/an-engineer-shows-how-data-can-trump-conventional-wisdom|last=|first=|date=|website=[[Electronic Design]]|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=2020-06-01}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=Water-Saving Agricultural System Wins Best Product|url=https://hackaday.com/2015/11/18/water-saving-agricultural-system-wins-best-product/|last=By|date=2015-11-18|website=Hackaday|language=en-US|access-date=2020-06-01}}</ref> Another winner was the inventor of an eye-driven wheelchair.<ref>{{Cite news|date=2015-11-18|title=Eye-driven wheelchair scoops US prize|language=en-GB|work=BBC News|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-somerset-34858765|access-date=2020-06-01}}</ref>
* The 2016 Hackaday Prize was awarded to Dtto, a modular [[open-source robotics]] platform.<ref>{{Cite web|last=By|date=2016-11-29|title=Awarding The 2016 Hackaday Prize|url=https://hackaday.com/2016/11/29/awarding-the-2016-hackaday-prize/|access-date=2020-06-02|website=Hackaday|language=en-US}}</ref>
* In 2017, Antonio Regueira was nominated with a robot arm, but he did not won the prize.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Premio a un robot correcaminos de dos alumnos de la Politécnica de Ferrol|url=https://www.lavozdegalicia.es/noticia/sociedad/2017/05/10/premio-robot-correcaminos-dos-alumnos-politecnica-ferrol/0003_201705G10P28993.htm|last=|first=|date=2017-05-10|website=[[La Voz de Galicia]]|language=es|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=2020-06-01}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=Project Giant Robot Arm|url=https://hackaday.com/2015/12/26/project-giant-robot-arm/|last=By|date=2015-12-26|website=Hackaday|language=en-US|access-date=2020-06-01}}</ref> It was awarded to an open source [[underwater glider]].<ref>{{Cite web|last=By|date=2017-11-12|title=Open Source Underwater Glider Wins 2017 Hackaday Prize|url=https://hackaday.com/2017/11/11/open-source-underwater-glider-wins-2017-hackaday-prize/|access-date=2020-06-02|website=Hackaday|language=en-US}}</ref>
* In 2018, the prize was awarded to Dexter, an open-source [[robotic arm]].<ref>{{Cite web|last=By|date=2018-11-04|title=Dexter Robotic Arm Wins The 2018 Hackaday Prize|url=https://hackaday.com/2018/11/03/dexter-robotic-arm-wins-the-2018-hackaday-prize/|access-date=2020-06-02|website=Hackaday|language=en-US}}</ref>
* In 2019 the prize was awarded to FieldKit, a modular [[sensor]] system.<ref>{{Cite web|last=By|date=2019-11-17|title=FieldKit Is The Grand Prize Winner Of The 2019 Hackaday Prize|url=https://hackaday.com/2019/11/16/fieldkit-is-the-grand-prize-winner-of-the-2019-hackaday-prize/|access-date=2020-06-02|website=Hackaday|language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|date=2020-01-11|title=Welcome to the new FieldKit|url=https://www.fieldkit.org/blog/welcome-to-the-new-fieldkit/|access-date=2020-06-02|website=FieldKit|language=en-US}}</ref>

==References==
{{Reflist|30em}}

==External links==
* {{Official website|hackaday.com}}
* [http://hackaday.io/ Hackaday.io], Hackaday's online community

{{italic title}}

[[Category:Online magazines published in the United States]]
[[Category:Magazines established in 2004]]
[[Category:Technology websites]]
[[Category:Magazines published in California]]

Icade

2020-06-02T12:19:41Z

Dwaro: copyedits, add wikilinks

{{Article for deletion/dated|page=Icade|timestamp=20200521233056|year=2020|month=May|day=21|substed=yes|help=off}}


{{about|the investment company|the iPad accessory|iCade|the Spanish schools|ICADE}}
{{Infobox company
| name = Icade
| logo = Icade logo.svg
| type = [[Public company|public]]
| traded_as = {{euronext|ICAD}} [[CAC Mid 60|CAC Mid 60 Component]]
| foundation = 1860 (SCIC) <ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.forbes.com/companies/icade/#767f7b38165f|title=Forbes 2000 list : Icade|accessdate=May 25, 2020}}</ref>F
| location = [[Paris]], [[France]]
| key_people = Olivier Wigniolle, CEO <ref name=ceo>[http://www.icade.fr/en/icade/direction/executive-committee/olivier-wigniolle, "Icade's page on Olivier Wigniolle". ''Icade.fr (EN)'']</ref>
| industry = [[Real-estate investment company]]
| assets = € 11.3 billion (on December 31, 2018)<ref name=financial>[http://www.icade.fr/en/content/download/17548/208726/version/2/file/PR_Icade-FY_2018-Financial_results.pdf, "Icade Annual Results (2018)"]</ref>
| revenue = € 1.77 billion (on December 31, 2018)<ref name=financial/>
| net_income = € 300.2 million (2019)
| homepage = [http://www.icade.fr/en/ Icade (EN)]
}}
[[File:ICADE SA logo.jpg|thumb|Previous logo]]
'''Icade''' is a [[Multinational corporation|multinational]] [[real estate investment trust]] (REIT) that is [[Headquarters|headquartered]] in [[Paris]], [[France]]. It invests in various types of properties including both public (health care) and private (residential, company properties). As a [[service provider]] it consults [[Real estate development|property developers]] and assists them with management. Icade gained SIIC (REIT outside France) eligibility in 2007 after combining many of its subsidiaries. It is one of France's largest property businesses.<ref name=telegraph/>

Icade and Silic [[Mergers and acquisitions|merged]] on 31 December 2013. Icade became the leading commercial real-estate company for offices and business parks in the [[Île-de-France|Ile-de-France]] region.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Enright, Theresa,|first=|url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/946160387|title=The making of grand Paris : metropolitan urbanism in the twenty-first century|publisher=|year=|isbn=978-0-262-03469-2|location=Cambridge, Massachusetts|pages=213, 214|oclc=946160387}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.lerevenu.com/bourse/valeurs-en-vue/olivier-wigniolle-faire-dicade-un-operateur-immobilier-integre-leader-en|title=Interview: "Making Icade an integrated real estate operator, leader in France"|date=June 6, 2016}}</ref> Since the combination the new company has divested a number of assets in order to finance new construction projects and acquire more assets outside of France.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.lesechos.fr/2017/07/immobilier-icade-rachete-anf-176722|title=Immobilier : Icade rachète ANF|date=July 24, 2017}}</ref>

Today, Icade handles property investment, development and services in many different domains: offices, business parks, shopping centres, healthcare facilities and public amenities.

Icade is the number one real-estate investment company in office space and business parks in the greater Paris region, the number one real-estate investment company in healthcare in France, and a key partner of major French cities. Many of the buildings in a region dubbed the Canary Wharf of France, belong to Icade.<ref name=telegraph>{{cite web|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/investing/shares/questor-share-tip-buy-icade-could-benefit-hard-brexit/|title=Questor: this French property firm could be a beneficiary of a 'hard Brexit'|date=July 18, 2018}}</ref>
== History ==

=== SCIC ===

SCIC was a housing construction project owner in France, and was particularly active in the [[Paris]] region. During the 1950s and 1960s, it worked with a number of architects architects to build housing at Sarcelles (France's first large-scale programme, with over 10,000 housing units), [[Créteil]] and Massy-Antony. <ref>{{cite web|url=https://corporate-executives.com/companies/icade/|title=Icade profile|accessdate=May 25, 2020}}</ref> By the late 1980s, SCIC owned over 200,000 units of rental accommodation, most of which was state-subsidised social housing. SCIC was also active in the healthcare sector, assisting in construction of hospitals across France (Évry, Caen, Strasbourg, etc.).

=== Creation of Icade ===

Icade was created in 1954 as Société Centrale Immobilière de la Caisse des dépôts by Caisse des dépôts as a subsidiary. It was not until the 1980s that it started investing in non residential/public properties. SCIC was renamed Icade SA in 2003, and its capital opened up to shareholders outside the Caisse des dépôts et consignations.

In 2005, Icade delivered its first commercial building produced using HQE environment-friendly quality processes.
Icade was successfully floated on the Paris Euronext stock exchange on 12 April 2006, under Étienne Bertier (CEO of Icade from October 2003 to August 2007). It had an ipo of about €2.64 billion.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.euronext.com/news/ipos/detail/details.jsp?docid=58593&lan=EN&cha=2050&displayMode=1|title=News|publisher=}}</ref>

====key dates====
2003: Transformation into Icade
2006: Initial public offering
2013: Merger-absorption of Silic by Icade <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.agefi.fr/corporate/actualites/quotidien/20111201/icade-negocie-rachat-part-groupama-dans-silic-96989|title = Icade négocie le rachat de la part de Groupama dans Silic|date=January 12, 2011}}</ref>

=== Since 2007 ===

In 2009, the French government considered Icade as a potential "asset in the strategic investment fund that will be key to reviving France's economy". However, this did not ultimately come to pass. In late 2009, Icade acquired Compagnie la Lucette from Morgan Stanley.<ref name="ad">[http://www.icade.fr/en/content/download/8197/85753/version/3/file/2013-02-20-Icade_PR_Annuels+Results_2012.pdf Icade Annual Results (2012)]</ref>

On November 13, 2009 Icade sold about 4745 housing units to a group of 25 social housing investors representing another company SNI. That move brought the number of residential units sold or committed for sale in late 2009 to early 2010 up to 29,452. The value of assets divested adds up to about €2 billion.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.euroinvestor.co.uk/news/story.aspx?id=10735795|title=Icade : Sale of Icade's housing division|work=EuroInvestor}}</ref>

In the summer of 2010 Icade reached an agreement with another company called MVRDV to develop part of France's first Eco-quarters, a residential complex made up of low energy buildings a first for France.<ref name=independent>[https://web.archive.org/web/20100807032238/https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/ecoquarters-the-new-trend-in-city-design-2041467.html "Eco-quarters the new trend in city design", ''The Independent (London) 02/08/2010'']</ref>

On February 17th, 2015, Chairman and CEO of Icade, Serge Grzybowski, resigns. Icade SA appoints Jean-Paul Faugere as Chairman of the Board of Icade and Nathalie Palladitcheff as Chief Executive Officer on a temporary basis <ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSFWN0VR02220150217|title=BRIEF-Chairman and CEO of Icade, Serge Grzybowski, resigns|date=February 17, 2015}}</ref>.

Major construction is currently underway to the West of Paris. <ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-eco/2019/01/03/97002-20190103FILWWW00207-immobilier-icade-cede-les-murs-de-son-siege.php|title=Immobilier: Icade cède les murs de son siege|date=January 3, 2019}}</ref>

===France's first low-energy, solar-powered buildings===
In 2010 Icade partnered with design company WVRDV to develop one of the first buildings in the eco-quarter of Paris.<ref name=independent/> The building, is located in the 13th arrondissement, and is one of the first low-energy buildings in France.

===Europe-Wide Reit===

In 2019 it established a major presence in Germany with the acquisition of 19 long term care homes. It is part of a plan to become the first ''Europe-wide reit''<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/trending/ljw_uih5xpixxwi1nbpmrw2|title=Icade reveals plans to establish first Europe-wide healthcare REIT |date=July 23, 2018}}</ref>

== Key figures ==
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! !! 31/12/2012 !! 31/12/2013
|-
| Net profit group share (million €) || 53 || 127
|-
| EPRA triple net NAV per share (€) || 80.7 || 77.3
|-
| Net worth (billion €) || 6.8 || 9.1
|-
| Employees || 1,721 || 1,479
|-
| Square metres owned by Icade || 2,436,759 || 3,085,000
|-
| Clinics owned by Icade || 55 || 59
|-
|}

== Activities ==

=== Property investment ===
Icade's assets include offices, shopping centres, business parks, healthcare facilities.
* Offices: In France, Icade handles office properties most of which are located in and around Paris.<ref name=ad/>
* Business parks: Icade's business parks are located in Paris, Saint-Denis, Aubervilliers, Rungis, Nanterre-Seine, Colombes...
* Icade owns two shopping centres: Le Millénaire in Aubervilliers (north-eastern Paris suburbs), opened in April 2011 (50%-owned by Klépierre) and "Le Parc de Fresnes".

The alternative assets portfolio (Icade Santé) : Icade owns 62 establishments as at 30/06/2014.

The non-strategic assets portfolio : Icade still owns a collection of shops mainly comprising a network of "Mr Bricolage" DIY Stores. The others non-strategic assets portfolio are warehouses, housing and assets in Germany (as at 30/06/2014).

== Notes ==
{{Reflist}}

== External links ==
{{commonscatinline}}
* {{Official|http://www.icade.fr/en }}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Icade}}
[[Category:Real estate companies of France]]
[[Category:Companies based in Paris]]
[[Category:Real estate companies established in 1954]]
[[Category:1954 establishments in France]]
{{CAC Mid 60}}

Hackaday

2020-06-02T12:05:35Z

Dwaro: add source for better venerability

{{short description|A blog publishing several articles each day about hardware and software hacks}}
{{Infobox website
| name = Hackaday
| logo = Hackaday_logo.png
| screenshot =
| caption =
| url = {{URL|hackaday.com}}
| commercial = Yes
| type = [[Blog|Weblog]]
| language = English
| registration = Optional
| owner = Supplyframe Inc.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://hackaday.com/2013/07/25/hello-from-supplyframe/ |title=Hello from SupplyFrame – your new evil overlords! |publisher=Hackaday.com |accessdate=23 June 2014}}</ref>
| editor = Mike Szczys<ref>{{Cite web|title=Mike Szczys's Profile|url=https://hackaday.io/mike|access-date=2020-06-02|website=hackaday.io|language=en}}</ref>
| launch_date = September 2004<ref name="launch"></ref>
| current_status = Online
| revenue =
| alexa =
}}
'''''Hackaday''''' is a hardware [[Hacker|hacking]] website.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Here's a USB flash drive that could fry your laptop|url=https://www.computerworld.com/article/2896525/heres-a-usb-flash-drive-that-could-fry-your-laptop.html|last=Constantin|first=Lucian|date=2015-03-13|website=Computerworld|language=en|access-date=2020-06-01}}</ref> It was founded in 2004 as a [[Online magazine|web magazine]].

==History==
Hackaday was founded in 2004 as a web magazine for [[Engadget]] devoted to publishing and archiving "the best hacks, mods and DIY (do it yourself) projects from around web".<ref name="launch">{{cite web|author=Phillip Torrone|title=Introducing Hack A Day, the gadget hack archive|url=https://www.engadget.com/2004/10/07/introducing-hack-a-day-the-gadget-hack-archive/|work=Engadget|accessdate=15 November 2011|date=October 2004}}</ref> Hackaday has since split from Engadget and its former parent company [[Weblogs, Inc.]].<ref>{{Cite web|title=A Letter From Jason Calacanis, The Owner Of Hack A Day|url=https://hackaday.com/2010/07/12/a-letter-from-jason-calicanis-the-owner-of-hack-a-day/|last=By|date=2010-07-12|website=Hackaday|language=en-US|access-date=2020-06-01}}</ref> In 2007 ''[[Computerworld]]'' magazine ranked Hackaday #10 on their list of the top 15 geek blog sites.<ref name=CW>{{cite web|last=Computerworld staff|title=Top 15 geek blog sites|url=http://www.computerworld.com/article/2545070/data-center/top-15-geek-blog-sites.html|work=Computerworld|accessdate=29 August 2017|date=1 May 2007}}</ref>

Hackaday.io started as a project hosting site in 2014<ref>{{Cite web|title=Project Community Profile: Hackaday.io {{!}} Make:|url=https://makezine.com/2020/05/09/project-community-profile-hackaday-io/|date=2020-05-09|website=[[Make (magazine)|Make]]: DIY Projects and Ideas for Makers|language=en|access-date=2020-06-01}}</ref> under the name of Hackaday Projects<ref>{{cite web|url=http://hackaday.com/2014/02/18/hackaday-launches-our-own-hosting-site/|title=Introducing: Hackaday Projects| work=Hackaday|accessdate=23 June 2014}}</ref> to provide a hosting space for documenting hardware and software projects. It has now grown into a social network of 100,000 members<ref>{{cite web|url=http://hackaday.com/2015/10/29/hackaday-io-just-passed-100000-members/|title=HACKADAY.IO JUST PASSED 100,000 MEMBERS|work=Hackaday|accessdate=3 Dec 2015}}</ref>

In 2015, Hackaday acquired hardware marketplace Tindie.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Hackaday Acquires DIY Hardware Marketplace Tindie|url=https://social.techcrunch.com/2015/08/06/hackaday-acquires-diy-hardware-marketplace-tindie/|website=TechCrunch|language=en-US|access-date=2020-06-01}}</ref>

=== Hackaday Prize ===
The Hackaday Prize was founded in 2014.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Hackaday Prize Is Looking for Products—and Profitability|url=https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/geek-life/hands-on/hackaday-prize-is-going-for-products|last=Schneider|first=David|date=|website=IEEE Spectrum: Technology, Engineering, and Science News|language=en|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=2020-06-01}}</ref>

* In 2014 it was awarded to someone who developed a [[satellite ground station]].<ref>{{Cite web|title=The Hackaday Prize Awarded to Satellite Ground Station Project|url=https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/aerospace/satellites/the-hackaday-prize-awarded-to-satellite-ground-station-project|website=IEEE Spectrum: Technology, Engineering, and Science News|language=en|access-date=2020-06-01}}</ref>
* The prize for "Best Product" was awarded to the Vinduino project in 2015.<ref>{{Cite web|title=An Engineer Shows How Data Can Trump Conventional Wisdom|url=https://www.electronicdesign.com/content/article/21801308/an-engineer-shows-how-data-can-trump-conventional-wisdom|last=|first=|date=|website=[[Electronic Design]]|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=2020-06-01}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=Water-Saving Agricultural System Wins Best Product|url=https://hackaday.com/2015/11/18/water-saving-agricultural-system-wins-best-product/|last=By|date=2015-11-18|website=Hackaday|language=en-US|access-date=2020-06-01}}</ref> Another winner was the inventor of an eye-driven wheelchair.<ref>{{Cite news|date=2015-11-18|title=Eye-driven wheelchair scoops US prize|language=en-GB|work=BBC News|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-somerset-34858765|access-date=2020-06-01}}</ref>
* The 2016 Hackaday Prize was awarded to Dtto, a modular [[open-source robotics]] platform.<ref>{{Cite web|last=By|date=2016-11-29|title=Awarding The 2016 Hackaday Prize|url=https://hackaday.com/2016/11/29/awarding-the-2016-hackaday-prize/|access-date=2020-06-02|website=Hackaday|language=en-US}}</ref>
* In 2017, Antonio Regueira was nominated with a robot arm, but he did not won the prize.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Premio a un robot correcaminos de dos alumnos de la Politécnica de Ferrol|url=https://www.lavozdegalicia.es/noticia/sociedad/2017/05/10/premio-robot-correcaminos-dos-alumnos-politecnica-ferrol/0003_201705G10P28993.htm|last=|first=|date=2017-05-10|website=[[La Voz de Galicia]]|language=es|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=2020-06-01}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=Project Giant Robot Arm|url=https://hackaday.com/2015/12/26/project-giant-robot-arm/|last=By|date=2015-12-26|website=Hackaday|language=en-US|access-date=2020-06-01}}</ref> It was awarded to an open source [[underwater glider]].<ref>{{Cite web|last=By|date=2017-11-12|title=Open Source Underwater Glider Wins 2017 Hackaday Prize|url=https://hackaday.com/2017/11/11/open-source-underwater-glider-wins-2017-hackaday-prize/|access-date=2020-06-02|website=Hackaday|language=en-US}}</ref>
* In 2018, the prize was awarded to Dexter, an open-source [[robotic arm]].<ref>{{Cite web|last=By|date=2018-11-04|title=Dexter Robotic Arm Wins The 2018 Hackaday Prize|url=https://hackaday.com/2018/11/03/dexter-robotic-arm-wins-the-2018-hackaday-prize/|access-date=2020-06-02|website=Hackaday|language=en-US}}</ref>
* In 2019 the prize was awarded to FieldKit, a modular [[sensor]] system.<ref>{{Cite web|last=By|date=2019-11-17|title=FieldKit Is The Grand Prize Winner Of The 2019 Hackaday Prize|url=https://hackaday.com/2019/11/16/fieldkit-is-the-grand-prize-winner-of-the-2019-hackaday-prize/|access-date=2020-06-02|website=Hackaday|language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|date=2020-01-11|title=Welcome to the new FieldKit|url=https://www.fieldkit.org/blog/welcome-to-the-new-fieldkit/|access-date=2020-06-02|website=FieldKit|language=en-US}}</ref>

==References==
{{Reflist|30em}}

==External links==
* {{Official website|hackaday.com}}
* [http://hackaday.io/ Hackaday.io], Hackaday's online community

{{italic title}}

[[Category:Online magazines published in the United States]]
[[Category:Magazines established in 2004]]
[[Category:Technology websites]]
[[Category:Magazines published in California]]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Icade

2020-06-02T11:56:21Z

Dwaro: add comment

===[[:Icade]]===
{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|O}}

<noinclude>{{AFD help}}</noinclude>
:{{la|Icade}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Icade|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 May 29#{{anchorencode:Icade}}|View log]]</noinclude>{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Icade Stats])
:({{Find sources AFD|Icade}})
Poorly sourced, and the few sources that are used are mainly primary, dependent sources. There's a promotional tone, and a questionable [[WP:NCORP]] [[User:Graywalls|Graywalls]] ([[User talk:Graywalls|talk]]) 23:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
:Note: This discussion has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Business|list of Business-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Graywalls|Graywalls]] ([[User talk:Graywalls|talk]]) 23:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
:Note: This discussion has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Companies|list of Companies-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Graywalls|Graywalls]] ([[User talk:Graywalls|talk]]) 23:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
:Note: This discussion has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Finance|list of Finance-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Graywalls|Graywalls]] ([[User talk:Graywalls|talk]]) 23:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
:Note: This discussion has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/France|list of France-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Graywalls|Graywalls]] ([[User talk:Graywalls|talk]]) 23:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
*'''Speedy Keep''' - a simple google search shows that references and a number of independent sources exist. it ranks among the largest publicly traded property developers in France. [http://cbonds.com/organisations/emitent/46439] it has a number of firsts ''For the first time in France, Origine aims to achieve a very high environmental performance combining four certifications (HQE 2016 with an Excellent rating, BREEAM with an Excellent rating, LEED with a Gold rating and WELL with a Silver rating), as well as two quality labels (Biodiversity and E+C-), a first in France. The project includes the installation of 2,800 solar panels.''[https://vinci-construction.com/en/news/vinci-starts-construction-works-origine-building-complex-nanterre-western-suburbs-paris/754/] [https://www.worldconstructionnetwork.com/news/vinci-begins-construction-on-mixed-use-project-in-paris]. ''Icade is the number one real-estate investment company in office space and business parks in the greater Paris region, the number one real-estate investment company in healthcare in France'' . before nominating an article for [[AFD]] it should at least be vetted for cleanup/fixing; that's first and foremost. I also don't consider saying ''among the first'' to be promoting the company. [[User:Grmike|Grmike]] ([[User talk:Grmike|talk]]) 17:59, 22 May 2020 (UTC)grmike
**'''comment''' icade is a former member of the [https://www.forbes.com/companies/icade/#79767fca165f forbes 2000 list]. and longstanding member of the [[SBF 120]]. ''Such companies will need offices and some of the best in Paris are owned by Icade, one of France’s largest property business.'' [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/investing/shares/questor-share-tip-buy-icade-could-benefit-hard-brexit/]. Icade owns many of the buildings that make up the '''canary wharf of paris''' the daily telegraph [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/investing/shares/questor-share-tip-buy-icade-could-benefit-hard-brexit/]. moved into Germany in 2019 with major acquisitions [https://irei.com/news/icade-makes-first-acquisition-germany-e266m/], It establishes Europe's '''first''' ''europe-wide healthcare REIT'' [https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/trending/ljw_uih5xpixxwi1nbpmrw2], first low energy solar powered buildings in France [https://web.archive.org/web/20100807032238/https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/ecoquarters-the-new-trend-in-city-design-2041467.html independent.co.uk][[User:Grmike|Grmike]] ([[User talk:Grmike|talk]]) 18:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)grmike
*:: I must wonder if you have bothered to read, and cared what [[WP:CORPDEPTH]], and [[WP:ORGIND]] has to say. I'm not going to pick through each of the source, but skimming through, the sources you linked are not something that pass the criteria. It's irrelevant how in depth the source is if it's [[WP:CHURNALISM]] or not fully independent. [[User:Graywalls|Graywalls]] ([[User talk:Graywalls|talk]]) 10:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
*::: they say if a source ''only talks about ranks/awards'' then it '''may''' be considered a trivial source. I don't believe that the sources are guilty of that. if a company does rank high that in itself '''can be notable''' [[Forbes Global 2000]] takes the company's size in addition to other factors into consideration. being on that list ''can be used to establish notability''.[[User:Grmike|Grmike]] ([[User talk:Grmike|talk]]) 23:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)grmike
*::::'''comment''' - the company is a beneficiary of a number of awards. [https://www.icade.fr/en/csr/csr-ratings-awards] ''in the top 5% of the highest scoring listed companies in the real estate investment segment (world).''[[User:Grmike|Grmike]] ([[User talk:Grmike|talk]]) 18:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)grmike
*::::'''comment''' - Icade is notable enough to be on the German wiki [https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icade], French wiki [https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icade], Italian wiki [https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icade], and others. 26 different users contributed to its content. [[User:Grmike|Grmike]] ([[User talk:Grmike|talk]]) 19:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)grmike
*::::'''comment''' - icade is an engineering company, a property development company and a property manager. it is notable in 3 fields, it is not only a [[REIT]].[[User:Grmike|Grmike]] ([[User talk:Grmike|talk]]) 20:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)grmike

*:::::'''addressing the series of comments above''' The notability standards that apply to organizations and companies are among the highest in evaluating notability for the reasons explained in [[WP:NCORP]]. NCORP is the criteria of the English language Wikipedia and it isn't necessarily comparable with other language versions nor is there a reciprocity rule that allows presence in other language Wikipedia to be used as a presumption of notability. There's no doubt that sources present in German and Italian versions are meaningless for establishing notability here. The order of establishment, the absolute size, the relative size within arbitrarily subdivided sector asserted by Wikipedia editors don't affect the notability. It requires multiple, [[WP:CORPDEPTH|deep]], totally independent secondary coverage in [[WP:AUD|widely circulated]] general interest publication to anchor down the notability foundation which the sources currently present do not support. Presence of [[WP:OSE|other stuff]] that fails notability don't provide justification for articles nominated for deletion. [[User:Graywalls|Graywalls]] ([[User talk:Graywalls|talk]]) 00:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
*::::::'''comment''' - you can leave that to the voters to decide thank you. the nom says no legit source used - it didn't take me long to find more than a couple independent sources. please check if the subject can be helped before nominating. [[User:Grmike|Grmike]] ([[User talk:Grmike|talk]]) 16:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)grmike
*:::::::'''comment''' - the nominator is guilty of [[Wikipedia:Overzealous deletion#Lack_of_familiarity_with_the_subject]] and [[Wikipedia:Overzealous_deletion#Article_quality]] [[User:Grmike|Grmike]] ([[User talk:Grmike|talk]]) 22:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)grmike
*::::::::Ironic but you might want to take a read of [[WP:BLUD]] yourself. [[User:HighKing| HighKing]][[User talk:HighKing|++ ]] 20:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
* '''Keep''' The notability is based on the existence of sources, not the current state of sourcing in the article. I don't believe that there aren't any sources that prove that one of the 60th largest companies in France is notable. I agree with [[User:grmike]]. [[User:Dwaro|Dwaro]] ([[User talk:Dwaro|talk]]) 11:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
**More correctly, the notability is based on the existence of multiple sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability as per [[WP:NCORP]] and [[WP:GNG]]. If you're so sure that sources exist, can you link to any at all? [[User:HighKing| HighKing]][[User talk:HighKing|++ ]] 20:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
*<s>'''Delete'''</s> Changed to '''Keep''', I'm happy that there are (at least) two references that meet the criteria for notability. Good work by Dwaro and Qwertz1894 in particular. <s>This is not the first time I've come across a quoted company where I am unable to locate any analyst reports or other references that meet the criteria for establishing notability and probably won't be the last. References are a mixture of interviews with execs or entirely based on company announcements. Topic fails GNG/NCORP. [[User:HighKing| HighKing]][[User talk:HighKing|++ ]] 20:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)</s> [[User:HighKing| HighKing]][[User talk:HighKing|++ ]] 11:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
**'''comment''' maybe that's because they're in French and you are not looking hard enough. try translating the pages.[[User:Grmike|Grmike]] ([[User talk:Grmike|talk]]) 03:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)grmike
***Nope, and if you were a regular at AfD you'd know that. I usually get good translations from Google, I don't shrug and say "It's all Greek to me", I put in the leg work. Also, you do realise that you don't need to keep appending "grmike" to all your posts after you put in the 4 ~'s? [[User:HighKing| HighKing]][[User talk:HighKing|++ ]] 11:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Hi guys, coming from the German Wiki where we have clear quantifiable hurdles for notability criteria such as number of employees, revenue and stock listing (all of which are fulfilled by the company), I find it quite strange that the notability is being discussed here. If you only rely on significant media coverage, you might want to take some of these into account: [https://www.businessimmo.com/contents/117543/icade-dispose-de-700-meur-de-tresorerie-et-1-7-mdeur-de-lignes-de-credit-non-tirees][https://www.businessimmo.com/contents/118172/covid-19-icade-renforce-ses-actions-daccompagnement-de-ses-locataires-et-de-solidarite][https://propertyeu.info/Nieuws/Icade-sells-49-of-Paris-Tour-Equo-to-Korean-investors-for-365m/9da3712a-989a-407f-b726-f88ced351a2b][https://propertyeu.info/Nieuws/Icade-s-healthcare-fund-enters-Germany-with-266m-deal/01c8707f-6dd1-4b2f-8f85-48ab6c9f6bef][https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20180628005936/en/Approval-Merger-ANF-Immobilier-Icade-ANF-Immobilier]. These articles are mainly behind paywalls which sadly is a main problem with proofing notability solely by media´s reception. Opposed to HighKing I do see some media articles in the initial Wiki article which are neither sole interviews nor company announcements ([https://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-eco/2019/01/03/97002-20190103FILWWW00207-immobilier-icade-cede-les-murs-de-son-siege.php][https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/trending/ljw_uih5xpixxwi1nbpmrw2][https://www.telegraph.co.uk/investing/shares/questor-share-tip-buy-icade-could-benefit-hard-brexit/]). Why are these sources being ignored? Best regards.--[[User:Qwertz1894|Qwertz1894]] ([[User talk:Qwertz1894|talk]]) —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 15:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC) 
:PS: I very much doubt that Le Figaro or The Telegraph are non-independent publishers let alone an example for churnalism.--[[User:Qwertz1894|Qwertz1894]] ([[User talk:Qwertz1894|talk]]) 15:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
:**{{re|Qwertz1894}}, # of employees, stock listing and revenue are not part of the criteria for the en.wikipedia, the English language Wikipedia and some of the sources you provided, such as the announcement of the sale of corporate headquarters is arguably routine coverage. The SPGlobal one would be what would be DEPENDENT secondary. Businesswire is PRESS RELEASE distribution, thus not independent secondary. The telegraph one, I'm not so certain. Perhaps {{re|HighKing}} could comment on that article. [[User:Graywalls|Graywalls]] ([[User talk:Graywalls|talk]]) 16:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
:**'''Comment''' The criteria for notability on the English language Wikipedia is different than German Wiki so the notability criteria there has no bearing on the criteria here. You should also take a read of [[WP:ORGIND]] in particular to understand the interpretation of "Independent" - it doesn't just mean that the "publisher" is independent from the topic company (if I had 2c for every time I've seen this ...) but that the content of the reference must include "Independent Content" i.e. ''must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are '''clearly attributable''' to a source '''unaffiliated''' to the subject.'' You've mentioned some references where you question why I rejected them based on our policies and guidelines. [https://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-eco/2019/01/03/97002-20190103FILWWW00207-immobilier-icade-cede-les-murs-de-son-siege.php This from LeFigaro] is based on a company announcement (says it in the lede) with no indications of any independent content. [https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/trending/ljw_uih5xpixxwi1nbpmrw2 This from S&P Global] is headlined "Icade reveals plans..." and again, no indications of any independent content. [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/investing/shares/questor-share-tip-buy-icade-could-benefit-hard-brexit/ This from The Telegraph] is based on information provided by Alex Illingworth, co-manager of the Mid Wynd investment trust [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/investing/shares/questor-share-tip-hold-dart-group-icade-loknstore/ which is a shareholder] [https://www.artemisfunds.com/-/media/files/resaved.ashx?la=en in Icade] so not unaffiliated nor Independent. Looking at the new references you've provided, every single one is based on company announcements and none meet the criteria on the English language Wikipedia for establishing notability as they all fail [[WP:ORGIND]]. [[User:HighKing| HighKing]][[User talk:HighKing|++ ]] 16:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
:***'''Comment''' I know, I have read [[WP:ORG]] and I know that you have to comply with it. I only see a problem in defining routine coverage. If one needs several media articles with a profound analysis of the company and its financial and organizational structure, you can start to delete a great portion of all Wiki articles about mid cap or even large cap companies. That definition also rules out references like this [https://www.sueddeutsche.de/wirtschaft/mk-kliniken-altenheime-verkauft-1.4696445] (which only talks about Icade in one short paragraph but its still more than one "single-sentence mention"). What would be non-routine coverage?--[[User:Qwertz1894|Qwertz1894]] ([[User talk:Qwertz1894|talk]]) 17:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
:****:'''Comment''' you are exactly right. and '''''whole sections are being deleted as a result of bludgeoning the subjects'''''. if a REIT makes the Forbes 2000 list, runs vast portions of downtown Paris, starts Europe's first healthcare reit, is one of the 60 biggest companies in france, and builds the first fully solar powered eco building in paris, it is nowhere near non-notable. impossible ![[User:Grmike|Grmike]] ([[User talk:Grmike|talk]]) 03:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC)grmike
:****'''Comment''' {{u|Qwertz1894}}, the best references are those where an article discusses the company in depth, with analysis/commentary/etc clearly provided by the journalist and not simply regurgitating company announcements (churnalism). Analyst reports are acceptable for example. Lots of companies have articles written about them because they make announcements or their executives are interviewed and these are not acceptable. I agree with you that a great portion of all Wiki articles about companies/organizations fail the requirements - the evidence from AfD is that 80% or more articles (on companies/organizations/etc) end up being deleted which goes to prove ... something, I don't know, but in my opinion it shows about how most companies use PR a lot and how most newspapers/magazines are more interested in filling up column inches that providing independent commentary and analysis. The bar is set intentionally high because to not do so, we end up with companies trying to use Wikipedia as a platform for promotion or credibility which is not its role. If a company is truly notable, somebody, somewhere, will write about it and provide their own analysis/opinion/etc. [[User:HighKing| HighKing]][[User talk:HighKing|++ ]] 18:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
:*****'''comment''' - I completely disagree with highking. I doubt very much that Wikipedia was created on these kinds of principles. purging Wikipedia of subjects that are undoubtedly notable is not in keeping with ''assume good faith''. highking is fresh off of [[WP:BLUD]] another [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mr._Greek AFD]. as long as he's not called out for it he will get away with it again.[[User:Grmike|Grmike]] ([[User talk:Grmike|talk]]) 03:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)grmike
:******Two points. First, I realise that you are a little sore because one of your articles (the Mr. Greek one above) was deleted and that the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review#Mr. Greek|deletion review]] isn't going your way. I've created many articles myself and I understand the utter frustration involved if someone questions notability and the article is subsequently deleted. Hopefully you won't be put off from creating many more articles and if you ever want me to check any references you might have questions about, fire ahead on my Talk page, glad to help if I can. The Deletion Review shows that many editors have endorsed not only the decision to delete but also the analysis of the sources. It is also noteworthy that one editor pointed out that your accusations of BLUD are completely off the mark and went further to point out that the only example of BLUD on show is your conduct, not mine. Second point, this AfD process is concerned with Icade. Let's stick to this topic. If you've any issues with guidelines or policies, you can open a question on that Talk page. If you want to express your displeasure at my (and others) interpretation of our policies/guidelines, this isn't the place to do it. [[User:HighKing| HighKing]][[User talk:HighKing|++ ]] 14:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
:*****'''Comment''' - Icade is '''three times bigger''' than [[Crombie REIT]]. in fact it is even larger than its parent company. it is '''nonsensical''' to even consider this for deletion.[[User:Grmike|Grmike]] ([[User talk:Grmike|talk]]) 03:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)grmike
<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;">'''{{resize|91%|[[Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}''' 
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ''[[User:JavaHurricane| Java]][[User talk:JavaHurricane|Hurricane]]'' 09:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)<noinclude>[[Category:Relisted AfD debates|Icade]]</noinclude></div>
:::::*'''Comment''' I still found some sources which should comply with the rules: [https://www.persee.fr/doc/ecofi_0987-3368_1993_hos_3_1_1924] Publishing by two independent researchers about the history of [[Caisse des dépôts et consignations|CDC]]s real estate business (especially SCIC / Icade); [https://politiquedulogement.com/dictionnaire-du-logement/s/les-societes-immobilieres-de-la-caisse-des-depots/] by Jean-Pierre Schaefer (worked for the CDC in the past but also lectures at [https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_national_de_la_fonction_publique_territoriale CNFPT]); [https://www.lesechos.fr/2003/09/le-groupe-scic-filiale-de-la-caisse-des-depots-se-rebaptise-icade-671487] and [https://www.lemonde.fr/archives/article/1969/10/17/la-societe-immobiliere-de-la-caisse-des-depots-a-construit-deux-cent-mille-logements-en-15-ans_2416035_1819218.html] could be seen as routine coverage but still complies with all aspects of [[WP:GNG]]; [https://www.liberation.fr/societe/2001/02/14/a-la-caisse-des-depots-proprietaires-pour-pas-cher_354644] [[WP:ILLCON]] but still fulfilling [[WP:SIRS]]; [https://www.senat.fr/questions/base/2009/qSEQ09010409S.html] published by the [[Senate (France)|Senate]].--[[User:Qwertz1894|Qwertz1894]] ([[User talk:Qwertz1894|talk]]) 14:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::*'''Comment''' [https://www.persee.fr/doc/ecofi_0987-3368_1993_hos_3_1_1924 This document] published in 1993 for the Revue D'Economie Financiere is co-authored by Bruno George who worked for CDC (Icade's parent company) - fails ORGIND. [https://politiquedulogement.com/dictionnaire-du-logement/s/les-societes-immobilieres-de-la-caisse-des-depots/ This profile piece] is written by Jean-Pierre Schaefer who worked in CDC (Icade's parent company) - fails ORGIND. [https://www.lesechos.fr/2003/09/le-groupe-scic-filiale-de-la-caisse-des-depots-se-rebaptise-icade-671487 This from LesEchos] is entirely based on the company announcement of the name change to ICAD - fails ORGIND. [https://www.lemonde.fr/archives/article/1969/10/17/la-societe-immobiliere-de-la-caisse-des-depots-a-construit-deux-cent-mille-logements-en-15-ans_2416035_1819218.html This from LeMonde] dated in 1967 obviously deals with the parent company and not Icade which wasn't formed at that point in time - fails [[WP:CORPDEPTH]]. Finally [https://www.liberation.fr/societe/2001/02/14/a-la-caisse-des-depots-proprietaires-pour-pas-cher_354644 this from liberation.fr] discusses a possible scandal involving SCIC and doesn't mention Icade - fails CORPDEPTH. None of those references meet the criteria for establishing notability. [[User:HighKing| HighKing]][[User talk:HighKing|++ ]] 20:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::::*'''Comment''' Obviously I´m not a great supporter of a literal interpretation of [[WP:ORG]] or any other rule or guideline in Wikipedia. However, if you do that, George and Schaefer would still not collide with ORGIND. According to ORGIND ''active'' company personnel and other parties that have something, financially or otherwise, to gain or lose are NOT independent... George and Schaefer are not currently working for CDC or Icade and proofing a further financial connection might be near to impossible. It´s definetly worth discussing whether former employees of a state-owned enterprise have a great benefit out of such actions. Furthermore it is not necessary for an article to discuss "Icade" as long as they deal with "SCIC". SCIC was simply renamed Icade in 2003. It´s the same corporate entity.--[[User:Qwertz1894|Qwertz1894]] ([[User talk:Qwertz1894|talk]]) 23:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
::::::::*'''Comment''' My vote is still keep. I could find significant, independent and reliable coverage in the book "The Making of Grand Paris: Metropolitan Urbanism in the Twenty-First Century". [[User:Dwaro|Dwaro]] ([[User talk:Dwaro|talk]]) 13:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
::::::::*'''{{re|Dwaro}}''', please provide the ISBN and the range of pages that are extensively devoted to Icade so that [[WP:ORGDEPTH]] and independence and other matters can be verified. [[User:Graywalls|Graywalls]] ([[User talk:Graywalls|talk]]) 19:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::::*'''Comment''' - My vote is still '''speedy keep'''. [[User:Qwertz1894]] sums the argument up nicely. Rather than looking to improve an article on a very large business with a long standing history that has had a profound effect on Paris's modern architecture the nominator seems to be trying too hard to invalidate notability. where is the ''assume good faith'' ? I believe that rescuing articles should always be the top priority. if this isn't bludgeoning then what is ? [[User:Grmike|Grmike]] ([[User talk:Grmike|talk]]) 08:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)grmike
:::::::::::*{{u|Dwaro}}, {{u|Graywalls}}, ISBN-10: 0262034697, ISBN-13: 978-0262034692, published by The MIT Press. Pages 213 and 214 contain passages that mention Icade. Page 213 says that Icade is the leading commerical real estate company for offices and business parks in the Ile-de-France and a private subsidiary of the Caisse des Depots et Consignations and is the first French REIT to devlop a strategy and appoint management to deal specifically with Grand Paris. It mentions that the company has millions of square meters of holdings and investments and is a signatory to five CDTs. In my opinion, this reference meets the criteria for establishing notability. Based on this reference and [https://politiquedulogement.com/dictionnaire-du-logement/s/les-societes-immobilieres-de-la-caisse-des-depots/ this profile piece], I believe there are now sufficient references to support notability, I've changed my !vote to reflect this. [[User:HighKing| HighKing]][[User talk:HighKing|++ ]] 11:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::::: {{u|HighKing}} Great, forgot to post the ISBN myself, thanks for checking it. I conclude there is now a pretty clear consensus. I have added the book as a source to the page itself to prevent a second nomination. [[User:Dwaro|Dwaro]] ([[User talk:Dwaro|talk]]) 11:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Icade

2020-06-02T11:55:49Z

Dwaro: add reference

{{Article for deletion/dated|page=Icade|timestamp=20200521233056|year=2020|month=May|day=21|substed=yes|help=off}}


{{about|the investment company|the iPad accessory|iCade|the Spanish schools|ICADE}}
{{Infobox company
| name = Icade
| logo = Icade logo.svg
| type = [[Public company|public]]
| traded_as = {{euronext|ICAD}} [[CAC Mid 60|CAC Mid 60 Component]]
| foundation = 1860 (SCIC) <ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.forbes.com/companies/icade/#767f7b38165f|title=Forbes 2000 list : Icade|accessdate=May 25, 2020}}</ref>F
| location = [[Paris]], [[France]]
| key_people = Olivier Wigniolle, CEO <ref name=ceo>[http://www.icade.fr/en/icade/direction/executive-committee/olivier-wigniolle, "Icade's page on Olivier Wigniolle". ''Icade.fr (EN)'']</ref>
| industry = [[Real-estate investment company]]
| assets = € 11.3 billion (on December 31, 2018)<ref name=financial>[http://www.icade.fr/en/content/download/17548/208726/version/2/file/PR_Icade-FY_2018-Financial_results.pdf, "Icade Annual Results (2018)"]</ref>
| revenue = € 1.77 billion (on December 31, 2018)<ref name=financial/>
| net_income = € 300.2 million (2019)
| homepage = [http://www.icade.fr/en/ Icade (EN)]
}}
[[File:ICADE SA logo.jpg|thumb|Previous logo]]
'''Icade''' is a multinational investment (REIT) company. It invests in various types of properties including both public (health care) and private (residential, company properties). As a service provider it consults property developers and assists them with management. Icade gained SIIC (REIT outside France) eligibility in 2007 after combining many of its subsidiaries. It is one of France's largest property businesses.<ref name=telegraph/>

Icade and Silic merged on 31 December 2013. Icade became the leading commercial real-estate company for offices and business parks in the Ile-de-France region.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Enright, Theresa,|first=|url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/946160387|title=The making of grand Paris : metropolitan urbanism in the twenty-first century|publisher=|year=|isbn=978-0-262-03469-2|location=Cambridge, Massachusetts|pages=213, 214|oclc=946160387}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.lerevenu.com/bourse/valeurs-en-vue/olivier-wigniolle-faire-dicade-un-operateur-immobilier-integre-leader-en|title=Interview: "Making Icade an integrated real estate operator, leader in France"|date=June 6, 2016}}</ref> Since the combination the new company has divested a number of assets in order to finance new construction projects and acquire more assets outside of France. <ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.lesechos.fr/2017/07/immobilier-icade-rachete-anf-176722|title=Immobilier : Icade rachète ANF|date=July 24, 2017}}</ref>

Today, Icade handles property investment, development and services in many different domains: offices, business parks, shopping centres, healthcare facilities and public amenities.

Icade is the number one real-estate investment company in office space and business parks in the greater Paris region, the number one real-estate investment company in healthcare in France, and a key partner of major French cities. Many of the buildings in a region dubbed the Canary Wharf of France, belong to Icade.<ref name=telegraph>{{cite web|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/investing/shares/questor-share-tip-buy-icade-could-benefit-hard-brexit/|title=Questor: this French property firm could be a beneficiary of a 'hard Brexit'|date=July 18, 2018}}</ref>

== History ==

=== SCIC ===

SCIC was a housing construction project owner in France, and was particularly active in the [[Paris]] region. During the 1950s and 1960s, it worked with a number of architects architects to build housing at Sarcelles (France's first large-scale programme, with over 10,000 housing units), [[Créteil]] and Massy-Antony. <ref>{{cite web|url=https://corporate-executives.com/companies/icade/|title=Icade profile|accessdate=May 25, 2020}}</ref> By the late 1980s, SCIC owned over 200,000 units of rental accommodation, most of which was state-subsidised social housing. SCIC was also active in the healthcare sector, assisting in construction of hospitals across France (Évry, Caen, Strasbourg, etc.).

=== Creation of Icade ===

Icade was created in 1954 as Société Centrale Immobilière de la Caisse des dépôts by Caisse des dépôts as a subsidiary. It was not until the 1980s that it started investing in non residential/public properties. SCIC was renamed Icade SA in 2003, and its capital opened up to shareholders outside the Caisse des dépôts et consignations.

In 2005, Icade delivered its first commercial building produced using HQE environment-friendly quality processes.
Icade was successfully floated on the Paris Euronext stock exchange on 12 April 2006, under Étienne Bertier (CEO of Icade from October 2003 to August 2007). It had an ipo of about €2.64 billion.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.euronext.com/news/ipos/detail/details.jsp?docid=58593&lan=EN&cha=2050&displayMode=1|title=News|publisher=}}</ref>

====key dates====
2003: Transformation into Icade
2006: Initial public offering
2013: Merger-absorption of Silic by Icade <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.agefi.fr/corporate/actualites/quotidien/20111201/icade-negocie-rachat-part-groupama-dans-silic-96989|title = Icade négocie le rachat de la part de Groupama dans Silic|date=January 12, 2011}}</ref>

=== Since 2007 ===

In 2009, the French government considered Icade as a potential "asset in the strategic investment fund that will be key to reviving France's economy". However, this did not ultimately come to pass.
In late 2009, Icade acquired Compagnie la Lucette from Morgan Stanley.<ref name="ad">[http://www.icade.fr/en/content/download/8197/85753/version/3/file/2013-02-20-Icade_PR_Annuels+Results_2012.pdf Icade Annual Results (2012)]</ref>

On November 13, 2009 Icade sold about 4745 housing units to a group of 25 social housing investors representing another company SNI. That move brought the number of residential units sold or committed for sale in late 2009 to early 2010 up to 29,452. The value of assets divested adds up to about €2 billion.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.euroinvestor.co.uk/news/story.aspx?id=10735795|title=Icade : Sale of Icade's housing division|work=EuroInvestor}}</ref>

In the summer of 2010 Icade reached an agreement with another company called MVRDV to develop part of France's first Eco-quarters, a residential complex made up of low energy buildings a first for France.<ref name=independent>[https://web.archive.org/web/20100807032238/https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/ecoquarters-the-new-trend-in-city-design-2041467.html "Eco-quarters the new trend in city design", ''The Independent (London) 02/08/2010'']</ref>

On February 17th, 2015, Chairman and CEO of Icade, Serge Grzybowski, resigns. Icade SA appoints Jean-Paul Faugere as Chairman of the Board of Icade and Nathalie Palladitcheff as Chief Executive Officer on a temporary basis <ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSFWN0VR02220150217|title=BRIEF-Chairman and CEO of Icade, Serge Grzybowski, resigns|date=February 17, 2015}}</ref>.

Major construction is currently underway to the West of Paris. <ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-eco/2019/01/03/97002-20190103FILWWW00207-immobilier-icade-cede-les-murs-de-son-siege.php|title=Immobilier: Icade cède les murs de son siege|date=January 3, 2019}}</ref>

===France's first low-energy, solar-powered buildings===
In 2010 Icade partnered with design company WVRDV to develop one of the first buildings in the eco-quarter of Paris.<ref name=independent/> The building, is located in the 13th arrondissement, and is one of the first low-energy buildings in France.

===Europe-Wide Reit===

In 2019 it established a major presence in Germany with the acquisition of 19 long term care homes. It is part of a plan to become the first ''Europe-wide reit''<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/trending/ljw_uih5xpixxwi1nbpmrw2|title=Icade reveals plans to establish first Europe-wide healthcare REIT |date=July 23, 2018}}</ref>

== Key figures ==
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! !! 31/12/2012 !! 31/12/2013
|-
| Net profit group share (million €) || 53 || 127
|-
| EPRA triple net NAV per share (€) || 80.7 || 77.3
|-
| Net worth (billion €) || 6.8 || 9.1
|-
| Employees || 1,721 || 1,479
|-
| Square metres owned by Icade || 2,436,759 || 3,085,000
|-
| Clinics owned by Icade || 55 || 59
|-
|}

== Activities ==

=== Property investment ===
Icade's assets include offices, shopping centres, business parks, healthcare facilities.
* Offices: In France, Icade handles office properties most of which are located in and around Paris.<ref name=ad/>
* Business parks: Icade's business parks are located in Paris, Saint-Denis, Aubervilliers, Rungis, Nanterre-Seine, Colombes...
* Icade owns two shopping centres: Le Millénaire in Aubervilliers (north-eastern Paris suburbs), opened in April 2011 (50%-owned by Klépierre) and "Le Parc de Fresnes".

The alternative assets portfolio (Icade Santé) : Icade owns 62 establishments as at 30/06/2014.

The non-strategic assets portfolio : Icade still owns a collection of shops mainly comprising a network of "Mr Bricolage" DIY Stores. The others non-strategic assets portfolio are warehouses, housing and assets in Germany (as at 30/06/2014).

== Notes ==
{{Reflist}}

== External links ==
{{commonscatinline}}
* {{Official|http://www.icade.fr/en }}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Icade}}
[[Category:Real estate companies of France]]
[[Category:Companies based in Paris]]
[[Category:Real estate companies established in 1954]]
[[Category:1954 establishments in France]]
{{CAC Mid 60}}

Hackaday

2020-06-02T11:46:56Z

Dwaro: add reference to editor in chief and launch date in infobox

{{short description|A blog publishing several articles each day about hardware and software hacks}}
{{Infobox website
| name = Hackaday
| logo = Hackaday_logo.png
| screenshot =
| caption =
| url = {{URL|hackaday.com}}
| commercial = Yes
| type = [[Blog|Weblog]]
| language = English
| registration = Optional
| owner = Supplyframe Inc.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://hackaday.com/2013/07/25/hello-from-supplyframe/ |title=Hello from SupplyFrame – your new evil overlords! |publisher=Hackaday.com |accessdate=23 June 2014}}</ref>
| editor = Mike Szczys<ref>{{Cite web|title=Mike Szczys's Profile|url=https://hackaday.io/mike|access-date=2020-06-02|website=hackaday.io|language=en}}</ref>
| launch_date = September 2004<ref name="launch"></ref>
| current_status = Online
| revenue =
| alexa =
}}
'''''Hackaday''''' is a hardware [[Hacker|hacking]] website.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Here's a USB flash drive that could fry your laptop|url=https://www.computerworld.com/article/2896525/heres-a-usb-flash-drive-that-could-fry-your-laptop.html|last=Constantin|first=Lucian|date=2015-03-13|website=Computerworld|language=en|access-date=2020-06-01}}</ref> It was founded in 2004 as a [[Online magazine|web magazine]].

==History==
Hackaday was founded in 2004 as a web magazine for [[Engadget]] devoted to publishing and archiving "the best hacks, mods and DIY (do it yourself) projects from around web".<ref name="launch">{{cite web|author=Phillip Torrone|title=Introducing Hack A Day, the gadget hack archive|url=https://www.engadget.com/2004/10/07/introducing-hack-a-day-the-gadget-hack-archive/|work=Engadget|accessdate=15 November 2011|date=October 2004}}</ref> Hackaday has since split from Engadget and its former parent company [[Weblogs, Inc.]].<ref>{{Cite web|title=A Letter From Jason Calacanis, The Owner Of Hack A Day|url=https://hackaday.com/2010/07/12/a-letter-from-jason-calicanis-the-owner-of-hack-a-day/|last=By|date=2010-07-12|website=Hackaday|language=en-US|access-date=2020-06-01}}</ref> In 2007 ''[[Computerworld]]'' magazine ranked Hackaday #10 on their list of the top 15 geek blog sites.<ref name=CW>{{cite web|last=Computerworld staff|title=Top 15 geek blog sites|url=http://www.computerworld.com/article/2545070/data-center/top-15-geek-blog-sites.html|work=Computerworld|accessdate=29 August 2017|date=1 May 2007}}</ref>

Hackaday.io started as a project hosting site in 2014<ref>{{Cite web|title=Project Community Profile: Hackaday.io {{!}} Make:|url=https://makezine.com/2020/05/09/project-community-profile-hackaday-io/|date=2020-05-09|website=[[Make (magazine)|Make]]: DIY Projects and Ideas for Makers|language=en|access-date=2020-06-01}}</ref> under the name of Hackaday Projects<ref>{{cite web|url=http://hackaday.com/2014/02/18/hackaday-launches-our-own-hosting-site/|title=Introducing: Hackaday Projects| work=Hackaday|accessdate=23 June 2014}}</ref> to provide a hosting space for documenting hardware and software projects. It has now grown into a social network of 100,000 members<ref>{{cite web|url=http://hackaday.com/2015/10/29/hackaday-io-just-passed-100000-members/|title=HACKADAY.IO JUST PASSED 100,000 MEMBERS|work=Hackaday|accessdate=3 Dec 2015}}</ref>

In 2015, Hackaday acquired hardware marketplace Tindie.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Hackaday Acquires DIY Hardware Marketplace Tindie|url=https://social.techcrunch.com/2015/08/06/hackaday-acquires-diy-hardware-marketplace-tindie/|website=TechCrunch|language=en-US|access-date=2020-06-01}}</ref>

=== Hackaday Prize ===
The Hackaday Prize was founded in 2014.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Hackaday Prize Is Looking for Products—and Profitability|url=https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/geek-life/hands-on/hackaday-prize-is-going-for-products|last=Schneider|first=David|date=|website=IEEE Spectrum: Technology, Engineering, and Science News|language=en|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=2020-06-01}}</ref>

* In 2014 it was awarded to someone who developed a [[satellite ground station]].<ref>{{Cite web|title=The Hackaday Prize Awarded to Satellite Ground Station Project|url=https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/aerospace/satellites/the-hackaday-prize-awarded-to-satellite-ground-station-project|website=IEEE Spectrum: Technology, Engineering, and Science News|language=en|access-date=2020-06-01}}</ref>
* The prize for "Best Product" was awarded to the Vinduino project in 2015.<ref>{{Cite web|title=An Engineer Shows How Data Can Trump Conventional Wisdom|url=https://www.electronicdesign.com/content/article/21801308/an-engineer-shows-how-data-can-trump-conventional-wisdom|last=|first=|date=|website=[[Electronic Design]]|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=2020-06-01}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=Water-Saving Agricultural System Wins Best Product|url=https://hackaday.com/2015/11/18/water-saving-agricultural-system-wins-best-product/|last=By|date=2015-11-18|website=Hackaday|language=en-US|access-date=2020-06-01}}</ref> Another winner was the inventor of an eye-driven wheelchair.<ref>{{Cite news|date=2015-11-18|title=Eye-driven wheelchair scoops US prize|language=en-GB|work=BBC News|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-somerset-34858765|access-date=2020-06-01}}</ref>
* The 2016 Hackaday Prize was awarded to Dtto, a modular [[open-source robotics]] platform.<ref>{{Cite web|last=By|date=2016-11-29|title=Awarding The 2016 Hackaday Prize|url=https://hackaday.com/2016/11/29/awarding-the-2016-hackaday-prize/|access-date=2020-06-02|website=Hackaday|language=en-US}}</ref>
* In 2017, Antonio Regueira was nominated with a robot arm, but he did not won the prize.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Premio a un robot correcaminos de dos alumnos de la Politécnica de Ferrol|url=https://www.lavozdegalicia.es/noticia/sociedad/2017/05/10/premio-robot-correcaminos-dos-alumnos-politecnica-ferrol/0003_201705G10P28993.htm|last=|first=|date=2017-05-10|website=[[La Voz de Galicia]]|language=es|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=2020-06-01}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=Project Giant Robot Arm|url=https://hackaday.com/2015/12/26/project-giant-robot-arm/|last=By|date=2015-12-26|website=Hackaday|language=en-US|access-date=2020-06-01}}</ref> It was awarded to an open source [[underwater glider]].<ref>{{Cite web|last=By|date=2017-11-12|title=Open Source Underwater Glider Wins 2017 Hackaday Prize|url=https://hackaday.com/2017/11/11/open-source-underwater-glider-wins-2017-hackaday-prize/|access-date=2020-06-02|website=Hackaday|language=en-US}}</ref>
* In 2018, the prize was awarded to Dexter, an open-source [[robotic arm]].<ref>{{Cite web|last=By|date=2018-11-04|title=Dexter Robotic Arm Wins The 2018 Hackaday Prize|url=https://hackaday.com/2018/11/03/dexter-robotic-arm-wins-the-2018-hackaday-prize/|access-date=2020-06-02|website=Hackaday|language=en-US}}</ref>
* In 2019 the prize was awarded to FieldKit, a modular [[sensor]] system.<ref>{{Cite web|last=By|date=2019-11-17|title=FieldKit Is The Grand Prize Winner Of The 2019 Hackaday Prize|url=https://hackaday.com/2019/11/16/fieldkit-is-the-grand-prize-winner-of-the-2019-hackaday-prize/|access-date=2020-06-02|website=Hackaday|language=en-US}}</ref>

==References==
{{Reflist|30em}}

==External links==
* {{Official website|hackaday.com}}
* [http://hackaday.io/ Hackaday.io], Hackaday's online community

{{italic title}}

[[Category:Online magazines published in the United States]]
[[Category:Magazines established in 2004]]
[[Category:Technology websites]]
[[Category:Magazines published in California]]

Hackaday

2020-06-02T11:40:24Z

Dwaro: add more refs, change to bulleted list

{{short description|A blog publishing several articles each day about hardware and software hacks}}
{{Infobox website
| name = Hackaday
| logo = Hackaday_logo.png
| screenshot =
| caption =
| url = {{URL|hackaday.com}}
| commercial = Yes
| type = [[Blog|Weblog]]
| language = English
| registration = Optional
| owner = Supplyframe Inc.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://hackaday.com/2013/07/25/hello-from-supplyframe/ |title=Hello from SupplyFrame – your new evil overlords! |publisher=Hackaday.com |accessdate=23 June 2014}}</ref>
| editor = Mike Szczys
| launch_date = September 2004
| current_status = Online
| revenue =
| alexa =
}}
'''''Hackaday''''' is a hardware [[Hacker|hacking]] website.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Here's a USB flash drive that could fry your laptop|url=https://www.computerworld.com/article/2896525/heres-a-usb-flash-drive-that-could-fry-your-laptop.html|last=Constantin|first=Lucian|date=2015-03-13|website=Computerworld|language=en|access-date=2020-06-01}}</ref> It was founded in 2004 as a [[Online magazine|web magazine]].

==History==
Hackaday was founded in 2004 as a web magazine for [[Engadget]] devoted to publishing and archiving "the best hacks, mods and DIY (do it yourself) projects from around web".<ref>{{cite web|author=Phillip Torrone|title=Introducing Hack A Day, the gadget hack archive|url=https://www.engadget.com/2004/10/07/introducing-hack-a-day-the-gadget-hack-archive/|work=Engadget|accessdate=15 November 2011|date=October 2004}}</ref> Hackaday has since split from Engadget and its former parent company [[Weblogs, Inc.]].<ref>{{Cite web|title=A Letter From Jason Calacanis, The Owner Of Hack A Day|url=https://hackaday.com/2010/07/12/a-letter-from-jason-calicanis-the-owner-of-hack-a-day/|last=By|date=2010-07-12|website=Hackaday|language=en-US|access-date=2020-06-01}}</ref> In 2007 ''[[Computerworld]]'' magazine ranked Hackaday #10 on their list of the top 15 geek blog sites.<ref name=CW>{{cite web|last=Computerworld staff|title=Top 15 geek blog sites|url=http://www.computerworld.com/article/2545070/data-center/top-15-geek-blog-sites.html|work=Computerworld|accessdate=29 August 2017|date=1 May 2007}}</ref>

Hackaday.io started as a project hosting site in 2014<ref>{{Cite web|title=Project Community Profile: Hackaday.io {{!}} Make:|url=https://makezine.com/2020/05/09/project-community-profile-hackaday-io/|date=2020-05-09|website=[[Make (magazine)|Make]]: DIY Projects and Ideas for Makers|language=en|access-date=2020-06-01}}</ref> under the name of Hackaday Projects<ref>{{cite web|url=http://hackaday.com/2014/02/18/hackaday-launches-our-own-hosting-site/|title=Introducing: Hackaday Projects| work=Hackaday|accessdate=23 June 2014}}</ref> to provide a hosting space for documenting hardware and software projects. It has now grown into a social network of 100,000 members<ref>{{cite web|url=http://hackaday.com/2015/10/29/hackaday-io-just-passed-100000-members/|title=HACKADAY.IO JUST PASSED 100,000 MEMBERS|work=Hackaday|accessdate=3 Dec 2015}}</ref>

In 2015, Hackaday acquired hardware marketplace Tindie.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Hackaday Acquires DIY Hardware Marketplace Tindie|url=https://social.techcrunch.com/2015/08/06/hackaday-acquires-diy-hardware-marketplace-tindie/|website=TechCrunch|language=en-US|access-date=2020-06-01}}</ref>

=== Hackaday Prize ===
The Hackaday Prize was founded in 2014.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Hackaday Prize Is Looking for Products—and Profitability|url=https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/geek-life/hands-on/hackaday-prize-is-going-for-products|last=Schneider|first=David|date=|website=IEEE Spectrum: Technology, Engineering, and Science News|language=en|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=2020-06-01}}</ref>

* In 2014 it was awarded to someone who developed a [[satellite ground station]].<ref>{{Cite web|title=The Hackaday Prize Awarded to Satellite Ground Station Project|url=https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/aerospace/satellites/the-hackaday-prize-awarded-to-satellite-ground-station-project|website=IEEE Spectrum: Technology, Engineering, and Science News|language=en|access-date=2020-06-01}}</ref>
* The prize for "Best Product" was awarded to the Vinduino project in 2015.<ref>{{Cite web|title=An Engineer Shows How Data Can Trump Conventional Wisdom|url=https://www.electronicdesign.com/content/article/21801308/an-engineer-shows-how-data-can-trump-conventional-wisdom|last=|first=|date=|website=[[Electronic Design]]|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=2020-06-01}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=Water-Saving Agricultural System Wins Best Product|url=https://hackaday.com/2015/11/18/water-saving-agricultural-system-wins-best-product/|last=By|date=2015-11-18|website=Hackaday|language=en-US|access-date=2020-06-01}}</ref> Another winner was the inventor of an eye-driven wheelchair.<ref>{{Cite news|date=2015-11-18|title=Eye-driven wheelchair scoops US prize|language=en-GB|work=BBC News|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-somerset-34858765|access-date=2020-06-01}}</ref>
* The 2016 Hackaday Prize was awarded to Dtto, a modular [[open-source robotics]] platform.<ref>{{Cite web|last=By|date=2016-11-29|title=Awarding The 2016 Hackaday Prize|url=https://hackaday.com/2016/11/29/awarding-the-2016-hackaday-prize/|access-date=2020-06-02|website=Hackaday|language=en-US}}</ref>
* In 2017, Antonio Regueira was nominated with a robot arm, but he did not won the prize.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Premio a un robot correcaminos de dos alumnos de la Politécnica de Ferrol|url=https://www.lavozdegalicia.es/noticia/sociedad/2017/05/10/premio-robot-correcaminos-dos-alumnos-politecnica-ferrol/0003_201705G10P28993.htm|last=|first=|date=2017-05-10|website=[[La Voz de Galicia]]|language=es|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=2020-06-01}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=Project Giant Robot Arm|url=https://hackaday.com/2015/12/26/project-giant-robot-arm/|last=By|date=2015-12-26|website=Hackaday|language=en-US|access-date=2020-06-01}}</ref> It was awarded to an open source [[underwater glider]].<ref>{{Cite web|last=By|date=2017-11-12|title=Open Source Underwater Glider Wins 2017 Hackaday Prize|url=https://hackaday.com/2017/11/11/open-source-underwater-glider-wins-2017-hackaday-prize/|access-date=2020-06-02|website=Hackaday|language=en-US}}</ref>
* In 2018, the prize was awarded to Dexter, an open-source [[robotic arm]].<ref>{{Cite web|last=By|date=2018-11-04|title=Dexter Robotic Arm Wins The 2018 Hackaday Prize|url=https://hackaday.com/2018/11/03/dexter-robotic-arm-wins-the-2018-hackaday-prize/|access-date=2020-06-02|website=Hackaday|language=en-US}}</ref>
* In 2019 the prize was awarded to FieldKit, a modular [[sensor]] system.<ref>{{Cite web|last=By|date=2019-11-17|title=FieldKit Is The Grand Prize Winner Of The 2019 Hackaday Prize|url=https://hackaday.com/2019/11/16/fieldkit-is-the-grand-prize-winner-of-the-2019-hackaday-prize/|access-date=2020-06-02|website=Hackaday|language=en-US}}</ref>

==References==
{{Reflist|30em}}

==External links==
* {{Official website|hackaday.com}}
* [http://hackaday.io/ Hackaday.io], Hackaday's online community

{{italic title}}

[[Category:Online magazines published in the United States]]
[[Category:Magazines established in 2004]]
[[Category:Technology websites]]
[[Category:Magazines published in California]]