Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 216

Archive 210

←

Archive 214

Archive 215

Archive 216

Archive 217

Archive 218

→

Archive 220

Sources say very different things

I've got governmental sources that say someone is a fugitive from justice after being accused of murder. On the other hand, I've got news articles speculating saying that he's just gone missing. Which sources are weightier for deciding whether they are lost, missing or on the run - especially when no one has seen hide not hair of the person? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:56, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

If someone has gone missing and the reliable independant sources are stating they are missing, you would reflect that. However a government source is a primary source and reliable for the position of the government. If the government say person X is a wanted fugitive, then they are a wanted fugitive, regardless of them being missing. Its not a mutally exclusive issue. But seriously, I wish people would stop posting to this board in hypotheticals and just link to the bloody article and sources concerned. See the big box at the top? It says link to the source, the article and the content concerned. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

You don't decide. You report what each source says. Rhoark (talk) 13:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

My apologies; my consideration in omitting the article and discussion, Talk:List of people who disappeared mysteriously, was to serve two purposes: first, to avoid any appearance of forum-shopping. I was asking about how to treat sources of differently perceived weights saying contradicting things.

As well, it was spare you the wall o' text contnet discussion that accompanied the argument to include Lord Lucan in the article.

Briefly, the British Peer was the primary suspect in the murder of a nanny and brutal assault of his own wife back in the early 1970's. He then vanished and an arrest warrant was issued. A year later, with no trace of the missing Lucan, an inquest jury found him guilty of murder. Books have been written about him questioning whether he did it. Newspapers call his whereabouts 'mysterious' - and this turn of sensationalist media semantics is what has some editors wanting him included in the article. To my reckoning, a person accused of murder is going to want to avoid capture, prosecution and possible conviction and incarceration. That is of course, my opinion, but its ratio decidendi; there's a mountain of precedent for that opinion.A person who is considered a fugitive from justice isn't a mysterious disappearance, but rather a completely understandable escape.

My issue is whether we use the governmental sources to preclude Lucan as a 'mysterious disappearance' or use the semantics of news media that consider his whereabouts a 'mystery.' - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:27, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Rhoark had it right. WP exists to report on on what's verifiable, and it's (supposedly, I can't be sure with no links to the sources, hint hint) verifiable that these sources have said these things. As Only in death pointed out, the government decides who is a fugitive, so it'd be best to say that he is a fugitive in wiki voice, sourced to the government source. At the same time, the article should report on what popular media is saying. In this case, however, the sources are not stating categorical facts, but speculation. So that belongs in source voice. Also, Only in death is right about something else: you should always (and still do so here!) provide as much information as possible here. Linking to huge discussions is fine, but be sure to give the sources and the intended wording (or if it hasn't been written yet, the current wording and an explanation of the proposed changes), at a minimum. Sorry for the extra formatting, but I wanted to stress a few phrases. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 02:03, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Right, Okay.

1. Here's one of the sources that note the issue of an arrest warrant (others are behind a paywall that I can see but typical readers cannot): ([1)
   
2. his status as a fugitive from justice: 2 3 4, 5)
3. His guilty verdict, delivered in absentia at inquest:(6, 7)

Now, I hope you will all excuse me, but the Chicago Cubs appear to have just won the World Series, and I must dance an Irish jig with my wife down in Wrigleyville. A good evening to you all. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

My apologies for my somewhat sudden departure. Did I adequately address your requests for sources? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

• Ah good ol Lord Lucan. Well there was nothing mysterious about his disappearance. The mystery is that he was high profile and managed to do a great job of it that he has never been found - despite all the speculation about his location. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:17, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
• To be clear, the scope of the list is "This is a list of people who disappeared mysteriously, and of people whose current whereabouts are unknown or whose deaths are not substantiated, as well as a few cases of people whose disappearances were notable and remained unexplained for a long time, but were eventually explained, or the body found. Many people who disappear are eventually declared dead in absentia." It is hard to argue Lord Lucan does not fall into the bolded sections even if the fact of his disappearance was a standard flight-from-justice. To be honest it seems ridiculous that any list of people who have 'disappeared' would not include a mention of Lord Lucan. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:22, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree completely. "People who are a fugitive from justice and whose whereabouts are currently unknown," is definitely a subset of "People who have disappeared." Plus, the notability of the case is something else. I live in the US and I recognized the name. (To be fair, I recognized it from reading WP, but still). MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

So, if I am to understand the mood correctly, its your contention that even thought the sources contend that his disappearance is a flight from justice, we stress the unknown whereabouts for his disappearance as opposed to the nature of the disappearance itself? Don;t we have an article for fugitives from justice to cover folk like Lord Lucan? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:58, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Its a list of mysterious disappearances and the scope of the list as it is defined on the list page clearly covers Lucan. So to answer your first question: Yes. To answer your second question: There probably is a 'List of uncaught Fugitives from Justice' however inclusion on both would be entirely reasonable. Only in death does duty end (talk) 01:04, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

What I contended is that the statement that he was a fugitive from justice can be put in wiki voice, as it's certainly true. The statement that he 'mysteriously' disappeared, on the other hand, seems to be the opinion of notable sources, so it should be put into source voice. As to which list he belongs on: both. Neither interpretation invalidates the other, and the former (that he was a fugitive) is simply due a bit more weight. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:12, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: So, something like this?

Lord Lucan (39), Richard John Bingham, 7th Earl of Lucan, commonly known as Lord Lucan, was a British peer who disappeared in 1974 after the murder of his children's nanny and assault of his wife, who identified him as the assailant. An arrest warrant was issued for Lucan, who was declared a fugitive from justice and later convicted of murder in absentia. Despite rumors of Lucan living in various parts of the world, he was declared dead in 2016.(ref of the murder) (ref of the arrest warrant) (ref of the conviction) (ref of being declared dead) (ref of rumor of him living in India).

Well legally declared dead rather than actually confirmed dead. The conspiracy theories around his disappearance are quite extensive. One theory has him being smuggled out and then killed by the establishment... Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:50, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

So I've gathered. The theories are as extensive as those circulating about Jack the Ripper and the Kennedy Assassination. However, that's all they are. We have articles that specifically address them, so as to let the main articles focus on the facts. Since this article is a bit odd, noting the possibility that he's alive seemed reflective of that material. Perhaps it would be better to just note that 'conspiracy theories abound as to his fate', or something like that. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Mark McEwan

Mark McEwan is now a judge on Chopped Canada. Chopped Canada judge]http://www.foodnetwork.ca/shows/chopped-canada/video/promo/the-judges-reveal-their-unique-styles-of-criticism/video.html?v=587613763932.BlackKnight999 17:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Bob's Guide

Regarding http://www.bobsguide.com. I'd never heard of the financial resource called "Bob's Guide" before coming across it at Profile Systems and Software. I see from the links search that it is used at some other software related articles e.g. Panopticon Software, Quod Financial, Calypso Technology, Data Explorers.

Typical links as follows.

• http://www.bobsguide.com/cgi-bin/guide/newsExtras.pl?ID=bg&action=print&seq=23011 is linked from Panopticon Software
• http://www.bobsguide.com/cgi-bin/guide/profile.pl?id=bg&vcode=fire&assoc=&mode= is linked from Kennet Partners
• http://www.bobsguide.com/cgi-bin/guide/vnewslist.pl?ID=bg&vcode=c2117&assoc=&mode=s is linked from Calypso Technology
• http://www.bobsguide.com/cgi-bin/guide/vprodlist.pl?ID=bg&vcode=BSI is linked from User:HenryJamesJacobs/sandbox

It looks a bit dodgy. Many (or maybe all?) of the corporate profiles appear to be written by the corporations themselves and I see this helpful link on one of the profile pages: "Send PR to: news@bobsguide.com". - Brianhe (talk) 19:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

http://www.bobsguide.com/about/ pretty much settles this. It is a commercial site with paid materials thereon.

For financial technology vendors, bobsguide provides an essential route to market, with global coverage and sophisticated back-end systems to deliver enquiries from qualified purchasers directly to customer service and sales teams. There is no charge to set up a Basic listing on bobsguide, but our sales team can help vendors maximise the number of enquiries received with a range of packages and specialist tools.

Fails. Collect (talk) 22:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

The Secret Daughter

On the article of the Australian television series The Secret Daughter, another user claims that these references [1] [2] [3] [4] to the ISAN database are reliable sources that there are a total of 10 episodes in the program's first season. I have disputed this in a discussion on my talk page, pointing to multiple other sources [5] [6] [7] [8] as well as a post on the production company's Facebook page noting an episode airing 7 November (episode 6) is the season finale. The other user claims that episodes aren't added to the ISAN database until "after production concludes" and that ISAN "doesn't accept un-produced material" but has not provided proof of this despite multiple requests. The user has also claimed that "no production run is commissioned for only six eps, it's eight or more" but I already disproved that claim with series from the same production company in the talk page discussion. The program has been renewed for a second season, but I see no evidence and the IP user has failed to provide any, that episodes 7 to 10 of season 1 are somehow part of season 2 or are yet to be scheduled. So, is ISAN a reliable source of how many episodes in a series despite multiple sources to the contrary? -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Nevada Country Scooper

I am wondering about this source being used in Jim Morrison#Conspiracy Theories. At first glance, this not appear to be a reliable source per WP:RS. Not sure if it's just a hoax website or is just an attempt at satire, sort of like The Onion. Anyway the entire section "Conspiracy Theories" section to be based upon this article. Though there may be some merit to discussing this type of thing with respect to Morrison, it seems that much better and reliable sourcing is probably needed, isn't it? -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Read its "About " page and rest assured this is not a reliable source even for where Nevada is located. Collect (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look Collect. The source and content in question was removed from the article by another editor, so the issue seems to have been resolved for now. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Ibn Abi'l-Hadid's commentary on Nahj al-Balagha

Hi. Can I use Ibn Abi'l-Hadid's commentary on Nahj al-Balagha as a reliable historical source in article titled Muslim conquest of Persia? Thanks.--Kazemita1 (talk) 03:15, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

It would depend on precisely what content you want to source. The Nahj itself has some (modern) controversy attached to its authenticity, so using a 12 century commentary on it as a source for a historical article will probably have issues. But again, it would depend on the content. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

LGBTQ Video Game Archive

What would be the proper way to handle the LGBTQ Video Game Archive, shown in the external links for LGBT themes in video games and LGBT characters in video games? At first sight it looks like a self-published blog, yet there's more to it. As described in their who we are page, the authors are academics who have received financing to build the site as an academic work, they have published their methodology, and the archive is described in their peer-reviewed publication as "a heavily curated" repository for the purpose of exploring the diversity of characters in the media. The site has been featured at several media outlets.

Could the website be used as a direct reference for content in articles, or should we limit ourselves to reference the contents of the academic paper? Note that, as the paper explains, the topic has never received an in-depth academic treatment focused on diversity like this one before; other previous articles have been focused on a narrow set of high-profile games, so it's unlikely that any other published reliable pool of these characters exist. Diego (talk) 13:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

There is a lot of interpretive wiggle room in what qualifies as an LGBTQ character or theme. I would consider the individual game/character pages to be a collection of reliably published opinion blurbs edited by Adrienne Shaw. Rhoark (talk) 15:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Can i use the following as references

Please tell me if i can use the websites below for references in writing my article.

• jeffbullas.com
• techcrunch.com
• adpushup.com
• advertise.com
• adotas.com

Aishwarya889 (talk) 21:43, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Jeffbullas.com is a clearly commercial site, and as such fails. TechCrunch.com is a mixed bag - including a database without editorial control, as well as some actual columns. Reliability depends on the actual information for that one. adpushup.com fails mightily. ditto advertise.com. adotas.com is a bit of a mystery - to me, its content appears quite bloggish, but other opinions would help. Three clear fails, one maybe RS depending on the claim, and one is pure mystery time. Collect (talk) 22:51, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for replying with such clarity. I really appreciate it. Aishwarya889 (talk) 23:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

California proposition endorsement citations

Hi, I'm looking to get a second opinion on possible citations for two groups that opposed California_Proposition_61_(2016). I'm assuming that the listing of a group on the "No on 61" or "Yes on 61" list of endorsements is not sufficient evidence for a citation, so I have tried to track down newspaper articles or websites for the groups whenever possible. However, in two cases I've come across ambiguous situations.

• The legislative commission chairman of the American Legion in California wrote an op-ed in the Sacramento Bee opposing Proposition 61. In it, he states that the Veterans of Foreign Wars and Vietnam Veterans of America join the American Legion of California in opposing 61. Is this reliable to support the inclusion of the following quote in the list of groups that opposed 61?

  Veterans of Foreign Wars, Department of California

• The California Taxpayers Association has two pages listing their opposition to 61: a list of their opinions on all propositions that will likely change for the next election, and a PDF analysis of 61. Is it preferable to cite the PDF in this case, and does the internet archive actually archive PDF pages? I don't want to cite a page without having an archive backup in place in case the website takes it down. This citation would support the inclusion of the following quote in the list of groups that opposed 61:

California Taxpayers Association

RocioNadat 00:42, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the second, you can use an archived link. here's the one you want. Regarding the first... It's something of a judgement call. I'm going to go with "Yes, it's reliable" because I can't imagine that the author would have been lying or mistaken is very likely. But it doesn't actually pass WP:RS, because it's an op-ed by someone who's neither a journalist nor an objective expert on the positions of the other groups. I say this is a prime case of WP:IAR because the author was in a position to know, there are plenty of disincentives to lying, and little chance of the author simply being mistaken (for the same reason they are in a position to know the other group's opinion). That being said, if most other commenters here disagree with me, I'd go with them. My arguments here are not very strong at all, being based mostly on probabilities and guesses. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

No on the first, not a reliable source, and only useable as a primary source for the American Legion (not the VFW or VA). It wouldnt be the first time an organisation has claimed more support than it actually has. I would want a reliable third party source, or a primary source from the other two organisations showing their support. On the second yes, its a primary source so reliable for the details of its own support. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:47, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Can I use this image?

Hello editors, can i use this image ? [9] Is it free licensed since it looks like a common image? Thank you Aishwarya889 (talk) 16:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the source is here. That page has at the bottom "Copyright © 1998-2016 Nielsen Norman Group, All Rights Reserved." The image doesn't appear to be licensed any differently from that, so this is a non-free image, and the non-free content guidelines apply. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Is the source reliable enough for the claim?

• Source in question: Noteboom et al 2015, which is a follow-up study to this source.
• Text in question: "As of 2012, 99% of physical therapy programs were teaching spine manipulation in the United States."
• Article where inclusion is suggested: spinal manipulation
• Question: Is the source reliable enough to make the claim?

Thanks 2001:56A:75B7:9B00:1984:4122:5040:4657 (talk) 01:29, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Would think so, although that's not quite the claim it makes - it specifies lumbar spine manipulation (for the 99% number at least) and accredited first-professional PT programs. Is there a reason to believe it wouldn't be reliable? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:55, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment Nikkimaria! The reason I have come here to ask is that another editor reverted my addition of this text stating that the source was not reliable. You can see the discussion here to see if the other editor's comments sway your opinion about the sources reliability. 2001:56A:75B7:9B00:1984:4122:5040:4657 (talk) 02:47, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. I could see how MEDRS could be read that way, but I don't agree that this contradicts the spirit of the guideline - a survey of educational practice is not the same as a clinical trial or in vitro experiment (and of course you wouldn't expect to see either of the latter two on this topic). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again for your comments Nikkimaria. Nikkimaria a second reading of your comment shows I misunderstood your comment and I now see what you were saying; one would not expect to see a clinical trial regarding educational practices. Thanks again 75.152.109.249 (talk) 22:16, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

This has also been asked at WT:MED. The last paragraph of the WP:MEDPOP section is the most relevant part of MEDRS. Nikkimaria is correct; this is a social claim, not WP:Biomedical information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:42, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Coachbuilt.com

Regushee (talk · contribs) added content to the article Presidential state car (United States), citing this page at Coachbuilt.com. Now, the specific page cited does list 31 references for its content, but nothing is footnoted, prohibiting me from citing the specific content Regushee added. Furthermore, Coachbuilt.com solicits content without any mention of requirements for reliability. Any help would be greatly appreciated! — fourthords | =Λ= | 21:30, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Coachbuilt is a fairly reliable site. That said, it sometimes has both sides of controversial material covered, without any further editorial comment, so it can be tricky. It's a great starting point, and has exhaustive coverage of some subjects, but I'd try to find a supplementary cite for specifics. Anmccaff (talk) 21:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

California proposition endorsement citations

Hi, I'm looking to get a second opinion on possible citations for two groups that opposed California_Proposition_61_(2016). I'm assuming that the listing of a group on the "No on 61" or "Yes on 61" list of endorsements is not sufficient evidence for a citation, so I have tried to track down newspaper articles or websites for the groups whenever possible. However, in two cases I've come across ambiguous situations.

• The legislative commission chairman of the American Legion in California wrote an op-ed in the Sacramento Bee opposing Proposition 61. In it, he states that the Veterans of Foreign Wars and Vietnam Veterans of America join the American Legion of California in opposing 61. Is this reliable to support the inclusion of the following quote in the list of groups that opposed 61?

  Veterans of Foreign Wars, Department of California

• The California Taxpayers Association has two pages listing their opposition to 61: a list of their opinions on all propositions that will likely change for the next election, and a PDF analysis of 61. Is it preferable to cite the PDF in this case, and does the internet archive actually archive PDF pages? I don't want to cite a page without having an archive backup in place in case the website takes it down. This citation would support the inclusion of the following quote in the list of groups that opposed 61:

California Taxpayers Association

RocioNadat 00:42, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the second, you can use an archived link. here's the one you want. Regarding the first... It's something of a judgement call. I'm going to go with "Yes, it's reliable" because I can't imagine that the author would have been lying or mistaken is very likely. But it doesn't actually pass WP:RS, because it's an op-ed by someone who's neither a journalist nor an objective expert on the positions of the other groups. I say this is a prime case of WP:IAR because the author was in a position to know, there are plenty of disincentives to lying, and little chance of the author simply being mistaken (for the same reason they are in a position to know the other group's opinion). That being said, if most other commenters here disagree with me, I'd go with them. My arguments here are not very strong at all, being based mostly on probabilities and guesses. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

No on the first, not a reliable source, and only useable as a primary source for the American Legion (not the VFW or VA). It wouldnt be the first time an organisation has claimed more support than it actually has. I would want a reliable third party source, or a primary source from the other two organisations showing their support. On the second yes, its a primary source so reliable for the details of its own support. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:47, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Can I use this image?

Hello editors, can i use this image ? [10] Is it free licensed since it looks like a common image? Thank you Aishwarya889 (talk) 16:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the source is here. That page has at the bottom "Copyright © 1998-2016 Nielsen Norman Group, All Rights Reserved." The image doesn't appear to be licensed any differently from that, so this is a non-free image, and the non-free content guidelines apply. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Is the source reliable enough for the claim?

• Source in question: Noteboom et al 2015, which is a follow-up study to this source.
• Text in question: "As of 2012, 99% of physical therapy programs were teaching spine manipulation in the United States."
• Article where inclusion is suggested: spinal manipulation
• Question: Is the source reliable enough to make the claim?

Thanks 2001:56A:75B7:9B00:1984:4122:5040:4657 (talk) 01:29, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Would think so, although that's not quite the claim it makes - it specifies lumbar spine manipulation (for the 99% number at least) and accredited first-professional PT programs. Is there a reason to believe it wouldn't be reliable? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:55, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment Nikkimaria! The reason I have come here to ask is that another editor reverted my addition of this text stating that the source was not reliable. You can see the discussion here to see if the other editor's comments sway your opinion about the sources reliability. 2001:56A:75B7:9B00:1984:4122:5040:4657 (talk) 02:47, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. I could see how MEDRS could be read that way, but I don't agree that this contradicts the spirit of the guideline - a survey of educational practice is not the same as a clinical trial or in vitro experiment (and of course you wouldn't expect to see either of the latter two on this topic). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again for your comments Nikkimaria. Nikkimaria a second reading of your comment shows I misunderstood your comment and I now see what you were saying; one would not expect to see a clinical trial regarding educational practices. Thanks again 75.152.109.249 (talk) 22:16, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

This has also been asked at WT:MED. The last paragraph of the WP:MEDPOP section is the most relevant part of MEDRS. Nikkimaria is correct; this is a social claim, not WP:Biomedical information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:42, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Coachbuilt.com

Regushee (talk · contribs) added content to the article Presidential state car (United States), citing this page at Coachbuilt.com. Now, the specific page cited does list 31 references for its content, but nothing is footnoted, prohibiting me from citing the specific content Regushee added. Furthermore, Coachbuilt.com solicits content without any mention of requirements for reliability. Any help would be greatly appreciated! — fourthords | =Λ= | 21:30, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Coachbuilt is a fairly reliable site. That said, it sometimes has both sides of controversial material covered, without any further editorial comment, so it can be tricky. It's a great starting point, and has exhaustive coverage of some subjects, but I'd try to find a supplementary cite for specifics. Anmccaff (talk) 21:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Counterpunch & The Daily Beast

I've read in a number of places that Counterpunch is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. To avoid dispute, I won't provide diffs. Does anyone have opinion on this, a quick perusal of even their Wikipedia page (which is usually scathing in such cases cf. Zero Hedge) suggests that this source should not be systematically censored as "unreliable". Should it be marked as left-leaning? Should Fox/WSJ/Judicial Watch.org etc. be marked as right-leaning? Should Chelsea Clinton's being on the board of the company that owns The Daily Beast be mentioned in every citation from that source? SashiRolls (talk) 11:34, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

You need to stop using the word censored when a source you don't like is removed or you are reverted.[11] It's not helpful. I also think you don't understand what we mean by reliable sources after reading your comments at Talk:The Washington Free Beacon. Doug Weller talk 16:24, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I apologize regarding the Free Beacon talk page. The question of reliability of sources I meant to raise is: is Wikipedia a reliable source concerning the credibility of a source? Wikipedia has a certain amount of SEO-google prominence and so decisions that "it" makes regarding inclusion or exclusion of a source are ipso facto notable, because of its wide readership. That it is not Wikipedia "who" decides these cases, but members of the Wikipedia community is a complicated question for authoritative/authorial voice, I admit. But that said, on a practical level, writing transparently onto the page of a journal that it is not considered a reliable source would also be a b-i-g time-saver for would-be editors, who think that they might legitimately have read something in a press source worth adding to a Wikipedia article. I see you just put a DS-warning on my page. I guess you think that this good faith edit was really just too pointy. I'm sorry. I'm probably trying to be more WP:Selfless than you think Bishonen, but I'll rewire if I need rewiring. Also let me know if you want diffs by mail. -- a newbie who's learned to  Self-trout SashiRolls (talk) 17:14, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't mean to be ungracious, but a newbie..? You were a newbie in 2012. As for the convenience of marking sources as unreliable, yes, it would be helpful if possible, but I don't think it is — I stand by my remarks about context. As TFD says below, pretty much everything is a reliable source to some extent. It's much less convenient to have to use common sense, yes, but I believe it's the only way. Bishonen | talk 17:27, 6 November 2016 (UTC).

2 (effective) edits in 2014, one in 2013. A bit more in 2015, but I'd never heard about half the Wikipedia I've learned of since August of this year. SashiRolls (talk) 17:39, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

SashiRolls, I'm afraid your questions are too general to answer, because the reliability of a source depends on context. See WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. If you could please give specific examples where you're concerned about how these publications have been used, or have been rejected, as sources? Then those examples could be discussed here. Bishonen | talk 16:27, 6 November 2016 (UTC).

Because of a topic ban gag rule, I cannot provide diffs to some examples concerning the The Daily Beast and Counterpunch I have in mind, however the reference I gave to the Clinton Foundation talk page cited below would be a good enough example of blanket rejections of a source, such as I have seen for Counterpunch elsewhere. The Free Beacon makes a claim, which I cross-checked to the primary source the author claims to be citing and everything checked out, but...! It didn't pass inspection at the Clinton Foundation article because the Free Beacon is an unreliable source and the tax returns themselves are primary sources (that anyone can read and see verify the claim). In the course of the discussion one admin wrote: "I agree with VM and Snoogans that the Washington Free Beacon is a completely unreliable, fringe source." which is fine, those are the opinions of those 3 users... however -- as you just said -- this sort of contextless rejection is an indefensible position. Especially when primary sources show the putatively "fringe source" to be accurately reporting what is claimed (that the Clintons declared the three corporations Goodman said they did on their (amended) tax returns). It's true. It's verifiable. But there is a problem ... the three editors never respond once they make their judgments as the discussion on the talk page shows. The point of the edit? Non-electoral. Desire to see more on the Caribbean in Wikipedia, specifically Haiti and Puerto Rico... SashiRolls (talk) 18:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

SashiRolls, do you realize how antagonistic it is to throw around terms like "gag rule" and "censor"? Don't just take my word for it; see item number 1 on this widely linked page. I assume you're unaware because you're really hurting your case when you do stuff like this. 18:33, 6 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk • contribs)

I'm working at learning the local mores. From what I read above, upekkha is a basic ingredient in navigating this river. Thanks for showing me the boat! ^^ SashiRolls (talk) 15:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Pretty much everything is a reliable source to some extent, although editors should use common sense in which sources to use. Counterpunch exists to present views and information ignored by mainstream media. Most of its articles are opinion pieces and hence not reliable for facts, except in exceptional circumstances. TFD (talk) 16:43, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Counterpunch, but it would give me pause to have a statement of fact referenced to the Daily Beast. I haven't seen any evidence that they have an excellent fact-checking operation or a reputation for putting a lot of resources into fact-checking, and if there's a putative fact where your best ref is the Daily Beast I'd kind of wonder if that material is actually useful. Herostratus (talk) 16:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both for your responses! SashiRolls (talk) 09:17, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Book: Blockchain Revolution: How the Technology Behind Bitcoin Is Changing Money ... by Don Tapscott

Source: Blockchain Revolution: How the Technology Behind Bitcoin Is Changing Money ... Author: Don Tapscott Print Length: 366 pages Page Numbers Source ISBN: 1101980133 Publisher: Portfolio (May 10, 2016) Publication Date: May 10, 2016 Sold by: Penguin Group (USA) LLC Language: English ASIN: B0141ZP32E At Google Books: [12] and at Amazon.com: [13]

Articles Blockchain (database) and Ethereum

Some blockchain implementations enable the coding of contracts that will execute when specified conditions are met. For example, Ethereum is an open source blockchain project that was built specifically to realize this possibility by implementing a Turing-complete programming language capability to implement such contracts.

There have been a couple of editors that challenge this source as a RS, and have repeatedly deleted of content from the above two articles, recently discussed here Talk:Blockchain_(database)#Smart_contract_section_of_article and Talk:Blockchain_(database)#Tapscott.

Thank you Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:07, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Not this nonsense again. Is it the same guy complaining? Both the users involved in the earlier dispute are still there. Why can't users just learn to read sources, determine if their views are noteworthy and summarize those views in a neutral manner like Wikipedians are supposed to do rather than complaining to RSN? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

This issue is falsely presented here as whether the book is a reliable source as opposed to the fact that the book has been slapped on portions of unsourced information which is the current case which is the real issue. Some editors have used the same source which is not accessible to the public to paste on anything that is unsourced, O.r. in the article because they think it has some magic clout perhaps. A while ago someone named BramCohen or something removed it in a bunch of places because it was not apropos to the information. Maybe its reliable, maybe not. Depends, but not in this case for sure because it is being put on the article as a source when its not a source for the paragraph in question. No chapter, no page number, no nothing. Using it as go to convenience all purpose source for a long term unsourced paragraph seems wrong. An editor there has said recently about it, In the case of the few sentences of this article that address smart contracts, the material seems rather straightforward. It broadly comports with all that I've read on the subject and is not particularly controversial. end quote. That is o.r. Original Research. Editors opinions count for zero as to making the unsourced paragraph into a remotely sourced piece of good information from a book we can not access written by an industry promotion guy who formerly worked for bitcoin foundation. It seems the over use of that book smacks of promotion of the book since you have to buy it on Amazon for a peak. This then appears to be special interest promotional editing for the book or could be interpreted thus. Its over used. We have no idea whats in the book beyond a few reviews of it. Earl King (talk) 04:07, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

• Its got an ISBN and was sold by Penguin in the US so presumably there are copies out there. So unless you have a better argument than 'Its not available to me' thats not a reason to disregard it as a source. It could be in one library in Mongolia but as long as someone can go look at it its verifiable. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:22, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I guess I went to your page to get a feel for who you are above, it says, Dear USA. What the fuck are you thinking? That is all. So I get the impression that your opinion on this is confrontational just like your user page is. You did not comment about what I said. I said it may or may not be a reliable source but why not use a decent source. Its a controversial article. It needs better sourcing. The author of the book is an unabashed rah rah promotional person for the subject who hosts seminars on promotional aspects of it. And yeah its as 聖 has said it is the same people churning back and forth on rather pointless issues. Not sure why. A simple decent source that is non promotional or not advertising like, by someone with some neutral objective would be fine. Other wise it is just a book someone tossed at some information because they like the book and think it can source nearly anything related to the subject. Earl King (talk) 05:16, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

None of that is actually a policy backed argument to exclude it. Its a book published by a reliable publisher on the topic at hand by someone who is, by your own admission, knowledgeable on the subject. Unless you have some evidence it doesnt reference the material its being used to source, and since you have confirmed you hav not actually read it I doubt you have any, its useable for material that is not contentious. And so far you have also not demonstrated any argument as to why the information it is being used to source is contentious. Oh and since your fist response to someone disagreeing with you was to go to their user page to find someone to use against them, I am pretty sure everyone here now has a good idea of *your* approach. Smear tactics and waffle. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:05, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

At first glance, it is certainly a reliable source in the WP sense. It is published through a proper publisher (Penguin) and the author is proper academic/scientist in the field (see [14]). So unless it has gotten overwhelmingly bad (scholarly) reviews describing it as misleading and unreliable, it can be used as a reliable source. I haven't seen any scholarly reviews of the book yet, but here are several non-scholarly reviews in proper news media describing it mostly positive: Guardian, Financial Times.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that [15] review, it reminded me of a recent [16]article on one the subjects in the book (and referenced in the Guardian article) which indicates they do know what they are talking about. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

LA Times and Biocom

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biocom, an experienced user has made a broad claim that they "do not think the LA Times, in particulr, is considered reliable except for the field of film and associated forms of entertainment."[17] Thus the question for this board: Is the Los Angeles Times a reliable source for coverage of business-related topics? Specifically: is the article Biotech trade group Biocom expands to L.A. a reliable source in relation to the Biocom article? Thanks. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 15:53, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Wow. I read 2 references on that page, the LA Times and one from a 2006 Pulitzer prize winner (at Xconomy). No, the article in question does not appear local at all (given that it speaks about rivalry between N. California and S. California NGOs / advocacy groups). The jab at the LA Times seems to be just that -- a jab. The article on Biocom seems to me like a "snow" keep... this article should be expanded and fixed. SashiRolls (talk) 17:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

In the budget-cutting tronc era, the Los Angeles Times may not be quite the paper it once was, but then again you could say that about nearly all American newspapers. It remains one of the top newspapers in the United States and certainly a reliable source on the same basis that we would use any other major newspaper. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:54, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

ISAN as a source for future television episodes

Reposting since this post didn't get any response before it fell into the archives: On the article of the Australian television series The Secret Daughter, another user claims that these references [18] [19] [20] [21] to the ISAN database are reliable sources that there are a total of 10 episodes in the program's first season. I have disputed this in a (now lengthy) discussion on my talk page, pointing to multiple other sources [22] [23] [24] [25] as well as a post on the production company's Facebook page noting an episode airing 7 November (episode 6) is the season finale.

The other user claims that episodes aren't added to the ISAN database until "after production concludes" and that ISAN "doesn't accept un-produced material" but has not provided proof of this despite multiple requests. So, is ISAN a reliable source of how many episodes in a series despite multiple sources to the contrary? -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:08, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I read through the following two documents on the ISAN web site and found no mention of any such requirement: [26] [27] Considering that one of those are the official rules of ISAN, I'd say the other editor is just plain wrong. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 02:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I also couldn't find evidence. -- Whats new?^(talk) 02:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ISAN codes are not evidence something exists. They are applied for at various times (pre, during & post production) so merely having one allocated is not evidence by itself of a show's existance. In this case I suspect the production company applied for 10 and only ended up producing 6. Its also possible they had 10 episodes planned and/or produced, but decided to push back the last 4 episodes into a later series due to production issues etc. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:51, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

• @Whats new?: I just looked over the previous discussion, and I have to say that the IP's attitude seems rather poor. My advice to you would be to edit the article appropriately and disengage, as arguments only seem to be fueling the fire, so to speak. If the IP insists upon edit warring, you can request protection on the page. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@MPants at work: Thanks, I will take your advice. I was trying to encourage constructive discussion, but I agree that disengaging may be a better option for now. I've already put forward all the points I can on the issue anyway. -- Whats new?^(talk) 06:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Need help to fix an article that is seen as NPOV by several editors

I work on the Dakota Access Pipeline protests article and it has been criticized as having a biased POV (in favor of the protesters). I would like very much to present a NPOV article but have not found RS to present what some editors feel is needed in the article. Some editors have suggested the following sites as usable for the article. I'm not sure. What do you think? 1, 2, 3, 4. BTW, there is also a Dakota Access Pipeline article that contains both more technical information and protest information from Iowa where both Native Americans and land owners, and others have protested the pipeline. Gandydancer (talk) 15:35, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi. :) #1 and #3 both fail a whois test IMO. Both are registered at godaddy.com & a whois search does not reveal who is responsible for the site. Concerning #2 VOA (Voice of America), I listened to them through middle school, you can count on them for a pro-Establishment perspective. If you wanted to source the question of the problem of sovereignty and the necessity of consultation to this article, I suppose one could, otherwise I don't really see what it adds to the existing article. Concerning #4 The Hill... I stopped forwarding the Hill on FB because it was a bit too pro-Bernie, but I'm pretty picky and haven't yet read this article (but will) SashiRolls (talk) 18:05, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi again. I wouldn't see any problem with citing Craig Stevens as long as it is made clear that he is "a spokesman for the Midwest Alliance for Infrastructure Now Coalition [28]. MAIN is a project of the Iowa State Building and Construction Trades Council, with members in Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Illinois – the states crossed by the Dakota Access Pipeline." Strange that this is not signaled as an op-ed by The Hill, though they do indicate who he is (which isn't really the case for #1 or #3). MAIN has a whole host of links on their blog... [29] SashiRolls (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@SashiRolls:, @Gandydancer: I've edited your comments above to fix the references to the links. Feel free to revert me, I was just getting confused about what was being referred to until I checked the diffs.

I'd like to add that I'm seeing a phenomenon here which is becoming more and more common; fake fact-checking sites. From thinly disguised blogs with 'fact' in their titles claiming that snopes.com is owned by George Soros to these highly specialized sites that only sometimes clearly identify their POV on their about pages ("The Dakota Access project, when operational, will be among the safest and most technologically advanced pipeline in the world helping to bring needed energy to communities across the country."), this is becoming an issue here. Hence, this thread. My advice to you is anytime you see a suspect (or hell, even a new) fact checking or information site, immediately check it using https://www.whois.net/. As Sashi mentioned, the two 'fact checker' links you provided here both obfuscate information about who owns and operates them. Compare the results of that (sorry, I can't link directly to the results) to, for example, the results from running a whois search on factcheck.org. I rarely advise people to follow simple rules, but this is an exception: If a fact checking site does not practice extensive transparency, do not trust them. But just because they don't obscure their identity doesn't mean they can be trusted: I wouldn't trust a fact checking site hosted by the Democratic party for any claims about the GOP, for example. Not even a little bit.

One final note is that it's perfectly possible to have an article about a protest, movement, or political/social issue that paints one side in an extremely positive light and the other in an extremely negative light without violating NPOV. It's possible that one side makes objectively good arguments and the other doesn't, or that one side engages in objectively unethical behavior, and the other doesn't. I'm not saying that this is the case here, I'm just saying that "neutral" with respect to the two sides and "neutral" with respect to reality and verifiable sources aren't always the same thing. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:35, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I do not think those are reliable sources. They include a company website and opinion pieces. Note that neutrality does not mean presenting both sides equally but presenting them as reported in reliable sources. It could be that coverage of the protests emphasizes their view while ignoring that of the industry, but that is what protests are supposed to do. Readers can always go to the articles about the pipeline if they want to know more about the issues. TFD (talk) 18:23, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

THANKS SO MUCH TO ALL OF YOU! Opps, sorry for shouting but I really am so thankful for this help. A problem with this article is that I wrote most of it and the people that have been editing seem to be sympathetic to the movement, as am I. So this is a situation that could well produce bias that the editors, myself included, just did not pick up on. But as I said, actually its quite a simple story with the builders saying it safe and the tribe saying well we're the boss of our land, or should be, and we don't want it here. It's not really an argument about whether or not its safe. I think that that is what the editors that have criticized the article are expecting to see. At any rate, yesterday the CEO of the builders spoke at length on PBS so I can add a lengthy statement by him. Again, thanks to all. Gandydancer (talk) 02:51, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@Gandydancer: No, thank you for making good faith efforts to account for your own possible bias. We need more editors willing to do that. :) MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:29, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

organizational behavior

on the organizational behavior topic there is a big messy un-sourced list of disciplines and then even sub-disciplines. not sure if here is the place to ask questions and sorry if not but there are no reliable sources in the list in the article and my understanding of OB is not what someone has added with their own little favorite group of disciplines and sub-disciplines. i thought we could removed un-sourced junk. am i in the right place? could someone lend a hand over there.Happydaise (talk) 01:49, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Happydaise is snidely referencing me when he/she writes "someone has added with their own little favorite group of disciplines and sub-disciplines" although I had nothing to do with the composition of the list of disciplines and subdisciplines. They were probably incrementally added by several different editors over time. I only asked this newcomer to Wikipedia not to make wholesale changes. When Happydaise challenged me after he deleted social psychology from the list and I restored social psychology to the list, I pointed out various sources in the article that referenced social psychology, something that Happydaise could have done himself/herself. Iss246 (talk) 04:24, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

hey wasn't talking about you per se with the favorite group of disciplines comment. sorry anyway. look i just want to resolve this. but don't we need to have reliable sources. still there is none. you have not included any reliable sources. you just said doesn't need any sources and most articles are like that. thats my point and we are asked to boldly remove un-sourced material. That list is un-sourced. anyway hope someone else can help out. sorry if you were offended or misunderstood but its just that the list is un-sourced. could you add your sources here?Happydaise (talk) 05:31, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me like the issue is that sources support the list, but no in-line citations are provided. Well, that's an easy enough question to answer: add them. I know this seems a bit like humoring the new editor, but really, since the new editor is the one who takes issue with it, the onus is on them to get it done. Does that require a lot of hard work, painstakingly going through every single reference looking for places where the inclusion of a list entry is sourced? Yes, yes it does. Welcome to Wikipedia! :) MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:17, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I take it that you user:Happydaise were referencing me despite the pallid denial. Many, many encyclopedia entries of sections devoted to concepts such as "Also see"sections. These sections are not footnoted. Editors use their judgment to indicate what should go in such sections. That is the way it is throughout Wikipedia. However, elsewhere in the article, wherever there is text, the text is sourced. For example, the abnormal psychology section has a "see also" list that isn't footnoted but the rest of the text is footnoted. It is also common to see two or more ists that aren't footnoted as in mathematical psychology. Iss246 (talk) 19:11, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@Iss246: I suspect you were replying to Happydaise. If that is the case, you should probably reduce the indent on your response one level to make it clear. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:20, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes User:MjolnirPants, I was responding to user:Happydaise.Iss246 (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

The list of contributing disciplines we are talking about is found in section 2 within the article body itself. it is not a see also list at the end of the article page. these are totally different. it is smack bang within the article body taking up a separate heading. can someone here please look at the Contributing disciplines heading right in the thick of the organizational behavior article body itself under heading no. 2.

Psychology

Social psychology

Sociology

Human Resources Management

Anthropology

Political science

Economics

Mathematics and Statistics

Doesn't this section actually need to be sourced despite iss246 saying it does not need any sources similar to the see also section at the end of an article?Happydaise (talk) 02:49, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• @Happydaise: Why don't you stop arguing about it and start putting in the work needed to fix it? If you're contending that others need to fix it for you, then I'm afraid you don't understand how WP works. What you need to do to deal with this is as follows:

1. Read the entire article. Note down which sources appear in which sections.
2. Starting with the sources most likely to mention one of those disciplines as contributing, begin reading all the sources.
3. Every time you find a source that mentions a contributing discipline, get the name of that source by editing the article. You'll see the references appear like this: <ref name="refname">{{cite web|url=http://www.reputableinstitution.edu/expertscholar/pubs/reliablesource.pdf|title=Ponderous Essays on the Minutiae of Boring Subjects|first=Joe|last=Blow|publisher=University of the Dude School of Chillaxing}}</ref>; or perhaps like this: <ref name="refname"/>.
   1. If you don't see the name="refname" part, then just add it inside the opening <ref> tag.
4. Then all you have to do is add <ref name="refname"/> after the entry that the source supports.
5. Repeat as necessary. If you go through all the references, and there are still un-supported list items, then feel free to just delete them. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:42, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

after reading over the Wikipedia:Content removal article my opinion is to remove the un-sourced list. i do not believe there are sources for this list. i think it is pretty well part of how wikipedia works. remove un-sourced material i put it here out in the open before i do so. no point including a list that has no sources.And iss246 believes no sources are even needed? whats that about. and then i'm lectured here on how wikipedia about how it works. may not but i can certainly read and from what ive read in the Wikipedia:Content removal article it is certainly clear that removal is the gold standard option here in this instance. so i am going to make a bold edit and remove the un-sourced content from wikipedia.Happydaise (talk) 22:31, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@Happydaise: i do not believe there are sources for this list. What you believe is really irrelevant. If you remove items from the list that are sourced elsewhere in the article, then you are disrupting the article, and that is not acceptable. If you believe the items are not sourced elsewhere in the article, then you should confirm it by actually putting in the work to do so. At best, you may add a hat tag to the page about the lack of in-line citations.

You may add that to the page by inserting the text {{No footnotes|section|{{subst:DATE}}}} at the top of the section. This may encourage other editors to help. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

User:MjolnirPants, I concur. The article should not be subject to disruption. The entry, however, could benefit from further editing. Iss246 (talk) 19:31, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Endless Rise Investor

Can an interview published on endlessriseinvestor.com be used as a reliable source? Specifically here with Jacob Wlinksy, founder and CEO of ValueWalk. Meatsgains (talk) 04:56, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

• To source what? That he spoke to a contributor? As a whole, the site describes itself as "Endless Rise is a community based site, and you are encouraged to engage in a number of different ways:"..... Niteshift36 (talk) 14:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

To provide additional background information on the company. Meatsgains (talk) 02:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

• Such as? The site itself doesn't appear to have editorial oversight and works on member submissions. So we really end up with the CEO talking about his company some more. What specific information from that primary source do we need in the article? Niteshift36 (talk) 05:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

To verify existing content and pull from some of Wolinksy's responses such as:

• "We’ve never taken VC funding"
• "I saw some pretty bad advice about asset allocation on the internet. And I really thought it was interesting, I made some comments and analysis. And the person that actually contacted me was Alice Schroeder, and said she liked it. At that point I was trying to get a voice for myself. And I was initially doing it as a hobby."
• "I also worked at SumZero for a period of time."

Meatsgains (talk) 23:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

• Since the last factoid is already sourced by another source, why would we need this one to support it? Also, keep in mind that this article is about the company, not Wolinsky, so whether his previous employment matters is a question. That leaves two. How important are those? Honestly, neither statement looks like something that really improves the article. It looks more like a way to put another source on the short list. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

The purpose of this post was to determine if the source is reliable, not to get into the weeds of what can or should be added. We will cross that bridge when the time comes. The reference list is short so how does providing an additional source, which is an interview with the CEO, not strengthen the page's verification and improve quality? Meatsgains (talk) 03:14, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

• RSN doesn't just say "reliable or not reliable". Often it deals with context and what specifically is being referenced. What can/should be added is part of the discussion. Merely adding references doesn't make the article (or topic) notable. Adding a second source to verify an uncontroversial, already sourced fact doesn't improve the article. Adding something trivial like never taking VC isn't really improving the article either. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:25, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I provided context and am asking whether or not endlessriseinvestor.com can be used as a reliable source. Again, whether or not the content should be added to ValueWalk is another discussion. Meatsgains (talk) 23:51, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

• As a site that doesn't appear to have editorial oversight, I'd say no. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:30, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

ValueWalk

Is ValueWalk.com a reliable source? I was under the assumption that it was and have used it many times as such and am now being told that I "don't seem to understand WP's policy on Reliable Sources". Meatsgains (talk) 23:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

• Many sources that don't pass RS get used on Wikipedia. Often they stay there until someone challenges their use. Value Walk is probably a bit like Examiner.com has been treated. While something like the NY Times is always a RS, Examiner was generally not well regarded and only specific articles could be used. Value Walk accepts guest contributions, so it would also depend on who actually wrote the article being used. From what I've seen, much of what this site is being used to source on Wikipedia could be sourced with reliable sources that aren't as questionable. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:35, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Would still like to hear other users' input as to whether or not it can be considered a reliable source. As of now, it seems it can be used as an RS depending on the article and the content it is supporting. Meatsgains (talk) 00:00, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

• That's what I just said. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:31, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
• Niteshift is right. A source's reliability isn't a question that applies to the source itself, but to the specific claims it is used to support. So if you tell us exactly what page on valuewalk.com is being used, and the exact language it's used to support, then we can weigh in on that. But if you just want to know what other Wikipedians think of the site, you're going to get mostly noncommittal answers. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

The Purvis Family Tree

I need an expert opinion on if the following sources are reliable. I am trying to make Edward William Purvis an A-Class article but a lot of the stuff about his family background, why they are in the East Indies, the regiments he was in, and other early life, which can only be found in the sources below. Please let me know so I can go ahead and include them or should I remove them and the information associated only with them. Need for the next step for Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Edward William Purvis .--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:10, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

• Purvis, John, ed. (2012). "William Purvis". The Purvis Family Tree. Retrieved November 13, 2016.
• Purvis, John, ed. (2012). "Robert Raaff Purvis". The Purvis Family Tree. Retrieved November 13, 2016.
• Purvis, John, ed. (2012). "Robert William Theodore (Theo) Purvis". The Purvis Family Tree. Retrieved November 13, 2016.
• Purvis, John, ed. (2012). "Edward William (Toby or Ukelele) Purvis". The Purvis Family Tree. Retrieved November 13, 2016.

Generally this type of source fails rs as selfpublished, unless the writer is an expert who has had his or her work on the same topic published in reliable sources. With modern genealogy, we know far more about people's ancestries than ever before. But unless biographers find it important, it should not be included, per weight. TFD (talk) 15:27, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

The weight of his family tree is certainly questionable, but I don't think it's undue to include information such as why his family moved to the East Indies , what regiment he served in and details about his early life, so long as they're not the focus of too much attention (for example, one or two sentences about his early life seems appropriate).

With regards to the source: So long as the information taken from it doesn't violate the guidelines at Self-published sources (the link you provided was the MOS about self-references in the article), it's perfectly acceptable. So for example, as long as he doesn't claim to have been promoted to Colonel on his first in the army because everyone could see he was destined for greatness, there shouldn't be much of a problem with citing a source he wrote himself. Honestly, if you were to find a secondary source that discussed his early life and childhood, that source would probably be based on Purvis' autobiographical material, anyways. At least in part. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:30, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I would not include this information, since it's only available from a self-published sources. This indicates to me that this information has not been noted by 3rd party sources and is thus inconsequential/ K.e.coffman (talk) 19:59, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Breitbart News

Is Breitbart generally considered a RS? KINGOFTO (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I would have thought not. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Definitely not. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:08, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Nope, not at all. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

As in many other examples discussed here, Breitbart is RS for opinions properly sourced and ascribed as opinions. It is very rarely usable for claims of fact where any better sources exist (I suspect statements about its editors, ownership, etc. fall into that category, for example). Collect (talk) 12:52, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

While what Collect says is absolutely correct, I think it also needs to be noted that while Breitbart fails many "reliable for fact" checks, it is known as an authoritative voice for right-leaning topics, and thus when considering opinions on a topic, using Breitbart's staff writers' opinions should be considered in fair weight to opinions from other sources. That is, just because Breitbart is not going to be used for facts, doesn't mean that differing document-able opinions that are spearheaded by Breitbart should be ignored when considering NPOV/WEIGHT/FRINGE issues when covering media/authoritative opinions/reactions about a topic. --MASEM (t) 13:21, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree almost completely with Collect. Breitbart cannot be used for any factual information whatsoever, but if (for example) a Breitbart columnist or other alt-right type expresses the opinion that all Hispanics should be forced to have their pets euthanized, they can be cited as a source for that view. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:39, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

If Breitbart says "John Droe" is one of its editors, then as a statement of fact, it should be usable. And any fact with "should" in it, ain't a "fact" <g>. Collect (talk) 21:32, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

John Droe might disagree and I'd be inclined to believe him over Breibart. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Primry sources are (except in some contentious areas) valid reliable sources for themselves. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:42, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Sources at Artur Phleps article

A disagreement has arisen on whether the two sources below are used appropriately within the Artur Phleps article, which is currently at Featured Article status:

• Kumm, Otto (1995). Prinz Eugen: The History of the 7. SS-Mountain Division "Prinz Eugen". Winnipeg: J.J. Fedorowicz. ISBN 978-0-921991-29-8. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Kaltenegger, Roland (2008). Totenkopf und Edelweiss: General Artur Phleps und die südosteuropäischen Gebirgsverbände der Waffen-SS im Partisanenkampf auf dem Balkan 1942–1945 [Skull and Edelweiss :General Artur Phleps and the Southeastern European Mountain Units of the Waffen-SS in the Partisan Struggle in the Balkans 1942–1945] (in German). Graz: Ares Verlag. ISBN 978-3-902475-57-2. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Statements that the sources support:

• ....despite his disdain for the corruption, intrigue and hypocrisy of the royal court.
• After (...) publicly calling King Carol a liar when another general tried to twist his words...
• Otto Kumm claims that the 7th SS Division (...) killed over 2,000 Partisans and captured nearly 400 during Case White,.
• The division was committed to Case Black (...) and killed, according to Kumm, 250 Partisans and captured over 500.

References

I believe that WP:FRINGE applies, i.e. statements from fringe sources should be reported only if they are noticed by independent reliable sources. In Kumm's case, I consider his account to be a primary, non-independent source. Kumm's statements referring to "partisans", given the overall behavior of the Wehrmacht and the Waffen-SS in Yugoslavia, most likely includes non-combatants, i.e. murders of civilians.

Some of the material cited to these sources is (in my definition) "intricate detail", such as:

• After finishing at the Lutheran Realschule school in Hermannstadt...
• In November 1940, with the support of the leader of the Volksgruppe in Rumänien (ethnic Germans in Romania), Andreas Schmidt, Phleps had written to the key Waffen-SS recruiting officer SS-Brigadeführer und Generalmajor der Waffen SS (Brigadier) Gottlob Berger offering his services to the Third Reich. Phleps subsequently asked for permission to leave Romania to join the Wehrmacht, and this was approved by the recently installed Romanian Conducător (dictator) General Ion Antonescu.
• ...was presented to his son, SS-Obersturmführer (First Lieutenant) Dr.med. Reinhart Phleps...

References

More on these sources:

• J.J. Fedorowicz has very low reputation within Wikipedia for accuracy, fact checking and reliability, as it predominantly publishes Wehrmacht/Waffen-SS apologist literature.
• According to de.wiki article on Ares Verlag, the imprint publishes "right-wing literature with extreme-right tendencies" link.
• Otto Kumm was a high-ranking Waffen-SS commander closely associated with the subject of the article; following the war, he was a leading figure in HIAG, a lobby group and revisionist veteran's organisation founded by former high-ranking Waffen-SS members. The organisation focused on economic, legal and historical rehabilitation of the Waffen-SS, to which end it published scores of apologist and revanchist materials. Please see HIAG#Waffen-SS_historical_revisionism.

Additional discussion: Talk:Artur Phleps#Roland Kaltenegger and Otto Kumm, with commentary from a German speaker:

• "This featured article uses Otto Kumm's history of the 7th SS-Mountain Division and Roland Kaltenegger's Totenkopf und Edelweiss (2008) as references. Both are well known apologists of Nazi war crimes. (...) I may quote how Michael Wedekind, in his study of Nazi occupation of Northern Italy (Nationalsozialistische Besatzungs- und Annexionspolitik in Norditalien 1943-1945, Munich 2003), characterized a Kaltenegger book of 1993: "The explosiveness of this work with its striking proximity to National Socialism lies with the intended downplaying-apologetic defibration of historical events up to a sometimes redundant-episodic degree, thereby overriding central and characteristic aspects of not only the national socialist policy of occupation and annexation, but also of the fight against partisans, which is the central topic. (Die Brisanz der Arbeit mit ihrer auffälligen Nähe zum Nationalsozialismus liegt in der verharmlosend-apologetischen intentionierten Zerfaserung historischer Vorgänge ins bisweilen Redundant-Episodenhafte und damit in der Überspielung zentraler und wesenhafter Aspekte der nationalsozialistischen Okkupations- und Annexionspolitik ebenso wie der thematisch in den Mittelpunkt gerückten Partisanenbekämpfung. (p. 8))"

I would appreciate uninvolved editors having a look into this matter. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Half of this has nothing to do with the sources themselves, it is about coffman's personal idea of what "intricate detail" is, and, as I have pointed out at the article talk page, a similar level of personal biographical detail is provided in the (randomly selected) George S. Patton article, which is also Featured. The material used from Kumm and Kaltenegger has been used with care, and is almost entirely unexceptional biographical information about Phleps' career, promotions, how he joined the Waffen-SS, the fact that his son was handed his posthumous award etc, and they are not used to downplay or apologise for Phleps' actions or inaction in any respect whatsoever. The article can in no way be described as apologetic towards Phleps, his crimes are detailed in the lead, in the body and in a separate section. Every author gets criticised, and the above criticism of Kaltenegger is not about the book in question, so far as I can tell. I acknowledge that Kumm was later the commander of the division that Phleps raised, and served under his command, but I don't think that disqualifies his use for such unremarkable and uncontroversial biographical information. I believe they are both reliable sources for the material they support. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:14, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

How is Kumm's statement on killing "over 2,000 Partisans and captur[ing] nearly 400" not controversial? Same goes for Phleps's "disdain for the corruption, intrigue and hypocrisy of the royal court". I do not find this to be "unremarkable and uncontroversial biographical information", and would appreciate a clarification. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:31, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

The onus is on you, because you are questioning them. In what way ARE they controversial? On what basis do you question that material? Do you have any sources that in any way contradict those specific statements? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:03, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

The onus is on those who want to use the source to demonstrate that it is reliable. When the burden of proof is reversed, it's often impossible to prove a negative, as not other author is likely to have covered the subject in such detail. Comparing Phleps to George Patton is not helpful, as the latter commanded several armies and is pretty much a household name in the English speaking parts of the world. The former's highest command was a corps consisting of two divisions. WP:EINSTEIN is applicable.

Regarding the sources, my contention is that they are unreliable, due to the author's ideological leanings and the publishers' lack of reputation for accuracy and fact checking (these are fringe publishers). There's a requirement on Wiki that the articles should be built on independent reliable source, but I don't see any proof of reliability in this case, and none have been presented either here or on the article's Talk page. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:21, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

The casualty material you are questioning from Kumm is attributed to him in-text to offset any bias, and Casagrande's overall view of Kumm's book has also been noted when Kumm is introduced to ensure that the reader understands that Kumm's divisional history is strongly apologetic. However, none of Kumm's apologetic material has been used in the article. I have even added an explanation that Kumm later commanded the division, to reinforce the point. I believe those points inform the reader about where the information comes from, and allow them to understand the implications of taking his word for it. You have produced no material to challenge anything said by either author, all you have offered is sweeping statements, your personal opinion about the publishing houses, a WP:CIRCULAR reference to de WP, and a review of a different book by Kaltenegger. In other words, your opposition to these sources is based on your opinions, not any evidence. The inherent bias in Kumm has been mitigated by in-text attribution and by clearly explaining that Kumm's book is strongly apologetic. As I have pointed out, they are used for entirely unremarkable information about Phleps' career, nothing extraordinary has been cited to either author. I believe that addresses any concerns with their use in the article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:54, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I'll add that Kaltenegger's work has been used as a reference in scholarly articles and books, including his Zona d'operazione Litorale Adriatico in an article by Gianmarco Bresadola in Contemporary European History Vol. 13, No. 4, and in an article by Boris Mlakar in Guerres mondiales et conflits contemporains No. 234. And his Deutsche Gebirgsjäger im Zweiten Weltkrieg has been used as a reference for quite a number of books published by respectable presses. They include: Swastika over the Acropolis: Re-interpreting the Nazi Invasion of Greece in World War II, Scraping the Barrel: The Military Use of Substandard Manpower, 1860–1960, and Prelude to Blitzkrieg: The 1916 Austro-German Campaign in Romania. Kumm's book has also been used as a reference in several books, including Scraping the Barrel: The Military Use of Substandard Manpower, 1860–1960 and Britain, NATO, and the Lessons of the Balkan Conflicts, 1991-1999, and his book was positively reviewed in Military Review in 1997. His book was also used as a reference in an article by Anne Wittmann in East European Quarterly in 2002, Mutiny in the Balkans: Croat Volksdeutsche, the Waffen-SS and Motherhood. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:36, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

A comparison of this article to the one on Patton was mentioned. Comparing their careers, I suggest a reading of WP:EINSTEIN The question naturally occurring to me is whether the intricate detail is based solely on extreme right wing-oriented sources, and whether anyone not in this orientation has bothered mentioning it. DGG ( talk ) 02:19, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Frankly, WP:EINSTEIN tells us nothing about this matter, and is an extremely short and one-sided essay that doesn't reflect any community consensus. Patton was just randomly selected from a list of FA biographical articles. Other examples are George Jones (RAAF officer), Henry Wells (general), and Raymond Brownell, all of which mention where the subject went to school. It is pretty clear that isn't "intricate detail", it is just biographical information about the subject which may be of interest to our readers. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:22, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

There are two issues at stake here. One is the question of RS. I started the discussion on the talk page and added some information on Otto Kumm's exonerating divisional history and on Kumm denying war crimes.[30] So far I was not able find other sources on the casualties inflicted on the "partisans". That's why I kept him. On the whole, however, Kumm's work is by no means reliable. His work is not scholarly, but highly biased. It has been used, naturally, by trained historians for their own works, where they often point to its shortcomings (see Lumans, p. 238). But to see him being cited on Wikipedia alongside George H. Stein and Vladis O. Lumans, lends an aura of reliability to his work that it does not deserve. I would be inclined to keep citations, where it is not possible to replace them, as long as Kumm's bias becomes clear to the reader according to WP:BIASED. If that concern is by now consensus, however, I will greatly appreciate that.

Since 1980, I think, Roland Kaltenegger has published a row of books mainly on German mountain rangers and their warfare against partisans. Anyone familiar with his works can see that he has always been consistent in his intention, as he put it, to "create a literary monument" to these troops, including the Waffen-SS. He is known to criminalize the resistance movement while uncritically adhering to the judgements of the Germans. In Totenkopf und Edelweiss Kaltenegger subscribes to Paul Hausser's ("Soldaten wie andere auch") ambition to "enlighten" (aufklären) about the differences between SS and Waffen-SS (p. 10). Kaltenegger was assisted by veterans of the 7th SS Division, among them Otto Kumm and Phleps' son Reinhart. Because of his closeness to the veterans' cause, Kaltenegger had some exclusive access to sources from private archives, but that's about the only thing that makes his works noteworthy.

The second issue pertains to the question of "intricate details". From my perspective that does not necessarily depend on the sources used. For example, I do not consider the details of the "Waldheim as translater"-episode as merely anecdotical even though they are told by Vladis Lumans. Such anecdotes blur over the tensions between Italians and Germans on the Balkans shortly before the Italians capitulated. But I do support the notion that details which are only to be found with sources of a certain bend are likely not notable. --Assayer (talk) 06:24, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Kumm's inherent bias is now clear in the article, I cannot see how it could be made more obvious. What you fail to recognise is that not all sources are equal. In any given article there will be books by notable academics published by university presses alongside less worthy sources from less worthy publishing houses. That is in the nature of drawing from a wide range of sources to make sure our articles are comprehensive. Suggesting that Kumm is somehow made equal to Stein by using him in the same article is frankly ridiculous, and doesn't reflect WP policy. Elsewhere you have told me that Stein is trumped by Wegner, so do we then remove Stein from that article because Wegner is better? Of course not. Wegner doesn't provide some of the information we obtain from Stein. We compare and contrast sources where they differ, and note where there might be bias by using in-text attribution. In any case, it is about what is being used in the article, which, apart from the casualty information (which is now highlighted by reference to Casagrande) is completely unremarkable. What possible harm can there to WP be in saying where the man went to school, or how he arranged to be enlisted into the Waffen-SS? The information is available, and it is of relevance to his biography. And BTW, details don't have to be notable in themselves, the subject of the article is what needs to be notable. You are conflating the two here and elsewhere, to the extent that I am not sure you understand notability at all. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:18, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Again the point that articles are to based on reliable rather than fringe sources is missed here. Comparing Stein to Kumm is a false equivalence. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:32, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I didn't draw that "false equivalence", if that is what it is, Assayer did. The reliability of sources varies. That is a fact. The point is germane. In any case, it is you who claim they are "fringe" sources, despite their use in books and articles. Few if any of the books or articles I listed make negative comments about them, despite Assayer's unsupported claims. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Comment: This discussion is already far too long for something which should have been able to be handled as a minor editorial issue. As such I’ll try to be brief with my cmts:

1. I disagree that the information included is "intricate", to me the details included are similar to those expected to be included in any biography of a military figure (I’ve certainly included them in some of the ones I’ve written). Much of this information is not at all controversial either so I see no issue in the sources in question being used for those purposes.
2. Regardless, just because a source may be considered "questionable" does not mean it must be avoided completely (or excised from the Wikipedia for that matter), it can be used carefully for non-controversial information as they seem to be here (for instance WP:RS only states "Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims"). If such sources are the only ones available to provide this information then I see no issue with their careful use per my cmts above.
3. Recent changes have addressed the issue highlighted with Kumm (which the article now clearly warns its readers about, i.e. describing it as "his strongly apologetic divisional history").
4. Kaltenegger seems an appropriate source to me. Indeed as a biography on the subject in question its usage would seem to be required in order for the article to be considered reflective of the sources available.
5. Neither Kumm nor Kaltenegger seem to be excessively used to me at any rate.
6. The article seems balanced and includes relevant criticism of the subject where appropriate (i.e. mention of the crimes committed by units under his command etc) so honestly I don't see what all the fuss is about. I could understand this level of concern if that were not the case, but that is not an issue here as far as I am capable of telling. Consequently I'm struggling not to view the points raised as being exaggerated and blown out of proportion. Anotherclown (talk) 23:01, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Kumm's bias is now clear in the article. I argue that the bias of books like his is glossed over as long as WP:BIAS is not followed. I have also argued elsewhere, that a 50 year old study (Stein) is not the latest research, and that more recent studies should be consulted, because historiographical knowledge progresses.[31] In respect to bias, however, it does not make a difference when the biased study is published, be it 1979 or be it 2008. And this becomes a problem if other sources are not used for comparison. By "notable detail" I mean that details should relate in one way or another to the subject's notability. For example, while the military education of a soldier might be relevant information, details concerning his general school education might not.

As to Kaltenegger, I haven't found a serious historian who did not note Kaltenegger's bias (according to de:Winfried Heinemann an Unbelehrbarer = an "unconvincable"). Is it "required" to use his work "in order for the article to be considered reflective of the sources available"? Maybe, if his work would be put into historiographical context. But the article only uses a fraction of the sources available. Since the article nonetheless appears to be "balanced", I might illustrate my concern by mentioning that Phleps' secret basic guidelines how to lead a guerilla warfare of 27 April 1942 are not mentioned. Here Phleps makes it very clear how pitiless he wants his men to deal with the civilian population. ("If the population participates in partisan warfare, it is to be executed completely without sparing and the place is to set ablaze" = Beteiligt sich die Bevölkerung am Bandenkampf, so ist sie ohne Schonung zur Gänze niederzumachen und der Ort anzuzünden. emphasis in original, see Casagrande, 2003, p. 224ff, quote p. 227.) You do not find such documents with Kaltenegger. The same applies to the article on the 24th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Karstjäger, where Kaltenegger is used, but not Michael Wedekind's study (cited above). But, as I was told, Wikipedia is about contribution and improvement. Yet I hope that some of my concerns get across. Publishers like Fedorowicz, Munin, Stocker/Ares, Vohwinckel, Druffel, Pour-le-Mérite, Arndt, Schild, Flechsig, you name it, should not be considered reliable as such, even if they are only used for "unremarkable biographical material". --Assayer (talk) 19:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

As you have mentioned them and have access to these sources, why don't you add the information you are talking about? No-one is stopping you from addressing your concerns, in fact your additions to the articles are welcomed. What is not welcomed is this campaign to remove unremarkable biographical material. So far as your idea of what is a "notable" detail, it is frankly wrong-headed and shows a lack of understanding of notability, the comprehensiveness criteria and WP practice for biographical articles. This is a biographical article, and we provide information about the whole person, not just narrow military-related bits. As I have pointed out with examples from other biographical articles, it is established practice on WP to include such information in order to ensure we meet the comprehensiveness criteria, which reflects community consensus built up over the years. You are essentially trying to limit what is in biographical articles based on your extremely narrow view of what should be in them, meaning that only military-related material should be in a military biography. Frankly, that is ridiculous and contrary to the Featured Article criteria. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:38, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Twitter on SpongeBob SquarePants (season 9)

Is Twitter used in this context a reliable source? (Note that this is not the current version, but is similar to the current version). I removed it as unreliable, but am I wrong? I do apologize if I am. JudgeRM (talk to me) 23:29, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

In this case, Twitter is not the source but rather the medium. The sources in question here are the respective twitter account owners and each one should be treated independently with regards to determining reliability, per WP:RSSELF, as towards whether they count as a WP:SELFSOURCE or could qualify an 'exception' as "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications." Bear in mind the nuances of that exception, self-published obviously means not published by a third-party and it could be interpreted that the material of the self-published source need only be in the same relevant field as independent third party; also it is ambiguous of whether derivative works (i.e. a quote of the self-published work in a reliable source) count as having "work"..."published by reliable third-party publications."

The question of whether Vincent Waller is a source of not, I think qualifies as WP:SELFSOURCE, since SELF is an organization responsible for creating the work and generally very thorough NDA's prevent misrepresentation or unreliability of information. Artists can get in a lot of trouble if they self-publish (or report!) misleading information about a project they worked on regardless of how important the role they had.

I say Reliable User:Eaterjolly (talk) 21:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Seymour Hersh, London Review of Books

Is this LRB article by Seymour Hersh a WP:FRINGE source, as @Guccisamsclub: has suggested? In particular, can we assume that Hersh is accurately quoting W. Patrick Lang and Michael T. Flynn?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Comment: You can quote Flynn if you like, but in that case we'll have to quote him as saying what appears to be opposite too. Consistency is not his hallmark. But giving this much space to Hersh's hand-picked interlocutors—all to bolster his own theories about the US role in Syria—is highly undue. Hersh's conspiracy theories on who supports ISIS and Al Nusra, where they get their arms (its overwhelmingly the Syrian and Iraqi armies, regardless of what Hersh says some German traveler says ISIS says), who's responsible for the Ghouta chemical attack (a false flag in Hersh's world), US military's conspiracy to work with Assad and Russia to stop Obama's alleged warmongering in Syria (all because some anonymous source says so) are all largely fringe. I don't have the time or the expertise to dredge up and debunk all of Hersh' claims, but his collegues typically think they reek, and if you google [anything Syria]+Hersh you will find very few RS' that with anything positive to say (but you will get thousands upon thousands of hits from RT, globalreaseach, Assadist and alt-right blogs etc). My general advice would be to wait a bit. Establishment sources which today reject most claims coming from the Trump camp, will probably become a good deal more indulgent once Trump gets more firmly into the saddle. Then these claims can trickle down into Wikipedia. Guccisamsclub (talk) 14:40, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

It appears the issue is not whether it is a reliable source for what Hersh said (it is) but whether presenting Hersh's view is due or undue. I suggest closing this thread and taking it to NPOVN. TFD (talk) 15:15, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

You mean a reliable source for Flynn's verbatim quote? Probably, since that's a very low bar. But you'll note that Hersh spins the Flynn firing to advance his own theories about US policy in Syria: sharp conflict between the WH and the dovish military, US and US-allied support being the key factor behind the rise of ISIS and Al Nusra, Assad representing the best possible future for the Syrian people and so on. So of course, according to Hersh, Flynn's firing had everything to do with Obama's destructive agenda in Syria. Problem is that only Hersh and Lang actually say this point blank, and this is a theory that contradicts the majority of sources on this particular issue. Hersh's verbatim quotes of Flynn are spliced with Hersh's paraphrases of Flynn and Hersh's own commentary. How do we know Hersh's chopped up rendition is accurate? And what does it say about Flynn's firing? All Flynn himself says is that his intelligence on jihadists in Syria and Turkey "looking the other way" got "a lot of pushback from the administration". That's not really the same as him saying "I was fired for my opposition to sending weapons to the rebels", which is what Hersh would have us believe. Given all this, it is fair to ask how mainstream the rest of Hersh's analysis of US policy toward Syria is. The examples I cited (though there are more) indicate that it is about as far away from mainstream views as you can get (textbook FRINGE). Moreover, Hersh's evidence is much too sparse for what he's trying to demonstrate. So we can quote Flynn, but parroting Hersh is probably a bad idea. The only reason we are even discussing this is because the Trump supporters dredged up this Baathist analysis during the campaign. Guccisamsclub (talk) 18:53, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

"Parrotting" Hersh is not the same as reporting quotes from his sources, or reporting on Hersh's own views. Textbook fringe is UFO conspiracy. Hersh is an opposition journalist. There's a big difference. -Darouet (talk) 19:07, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Hersh is not simply quoting: he's also paraphrasing Flynn and tacking a quote from Lang at the end to advance his own marginal ideas about Flynn's firing, and by extension, his ideas about Syria (which are fringe to the extent that the concept can be applied to political issues at all). I see no reason to simply assume that he's reproducing Flynn's meaning accurately (nevermind that he is looking at all the evidence, not just the occasional bits that support his view...but this is more about WP:DUE). I have no objection to quoting Flynn verbatim. Guccisamsclub (talk) 19:31, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Obviously, the LRB is a citable source with in-line attribution. "Writing in the London Review of Books, Seymour Hersh ... " Agree with TFD above, the question is more one of due or undue for NPOVN. SashiRolls (talk) 19:56, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

The text that Guccisamsclub removed was non-neutral: for instance placing "moderate rebels" in quotes projects the editorial opinion that the rebels are not moderate. Whether that's true or not, Wikipedia doesn't need snark quotes in text. On the other hand the remainder of the material is perfectly reasonable and used with attribution. Guccisamsclub's assertion that "Hersh will say just about anything these days on Syria" is itself a very biased comment, and wholesale text removal, rather than correction, is also non-neutral. -Darouet (talk) 04:16, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

There's plenty of POV to go around—compare the original edit, er edits. I think someone who thinks Ghouta was a false flag (and not only that) will indeed say just about anything, regardless of where he's published. The fact is that the whole paragraph is largely based on Hersh's interpretation and paraphrase of Flynn's recollection, not Flynn's on direct words. That interpretation is, once again, that Flynn was fired for his opposition to the alleged policy of arming "moderate jihadi terrorists" to get rid of Assad (by consistently and massively bombing them instead of Assad I imagine). Don't know if it's properly fringe, undue, or whatever, but it certainly advances an extremely marginal view. You are welcome to make changes and continue this discussion on the article talk page.Guccisamsclub (talk) 07:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

There was a great CJR article on Hersh sometime back basically lamenting that few in the media are willing to do the kind of critical reporting Hersh does. In any event, I think they way you handled this situation in the end was great. -Darouet (talk) 02:22, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

thepoliticalinsider.com/

Besides being reliable for only its own opinion, do we ever consider this a RS?

• http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/

Please ping me when you reply. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: It is not a reliable source. It lacks the hallmarks of reliability (citation by reliable sources, clear authorship, professional full-time journalists, awards, recognition, etc.) and appears to be a clickbait outfit. Its "about" page clearly confirms its unreliability. Neutrality^talk 21:29, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

As I suspected. I just wanted confirmation from other experienced editors. It the shadow land which often connects fringe, clickbait, alt-right, and fake sites. It's not really a fake, but its lack of fact checking is a serious matter. If we had an article about it, that would be the only place it could be used, and then for documentation about its own POV and practices. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:22, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

AINA (Assyrian International News Agency)

Some user Ferakp is claiming that AINA is not a reliable source [32][33] [34] [35] [36].

AINA is the largest and most well known Assyrian news organization. AINA is used in articles dealing with Assyrians, and also on human rights abuses against the Assyrian Christian minority in Iraq and Syria. Also hundreds of articles cite the Kurdish or Arab counterparts (Rudaw) of AINA.

AINA's reports were used by the US Department of the State [37][38][39], in social science books [40], by Human Rights Watch [41], by Amnesty International [42] [43], and by New York Times[44] and so on. --87.189.131.200 (talk) 18:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Kind of Kurdish nationalist are even scared from Amnesty reports. Do you think they will accept AINA? Yes AINA is very reliable though. Beshogur (talk) 18:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Comment: there is no argument to discredit AINA as reliable. The only thing that drive the party claiming that it isnt reliable is a political bias. The issues of Northern syria and the Kurdish conflict is very polarized. The editors who are pro-PYD(Syrian Kurdistan) are quick to denounce any source that is not full of praise to the PYD party. While the same editors will use the most partisan sources to support their views.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 11:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

A Rape on Campus: Is Salon and / or the College Fix a reliable source for "Jackie"s full name?

For a couple of years, the full name of the woman at the center of the discredited Rolling Stone article has been named by sources like the College Fix (among others). Recently Salon also included her full name.

Up to this point, the main argument has been that sites like the College Fix are not reliable (because they are right wing). Here's a sample among many that names her. Salon on the other hand is a progressive left publication. An editor is arguing that [this Salon article is just too short to be reliable. She argues that we must be sure of the "veracity of the name." Is it a reliable source?Mattnad (talk) 09:34, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Something doesn't seem right here. Mainstream news media is referring to the complainant by the name "Jackie", but suddenly her true name is identified by right-wing sources like the Daily Caller, without commenting how she was identified. It's likely that they used video testimony and social media, but if we are to include this, I think it would be best to attribute it. For example, "Grace Guarnieri of Salon identifies Jackie as Jackie [redacted]." Merely being reported in reliable sources is not the only consideration, though. There is also the question of WP:HARM. Jackie is not a public figure, and identifying her in a negative light could conceivably fall afoul of WP:BLPPRIVACY and possibly also WP:AVOIDVICTIM (the latter especially if, as she alleges, Erdely pressured her to tell the false story). Although that's outside the scope of this particular guideline, I think it's best to take a wait-and-see approach to this story as it develops. In the mean time, we should keep her privacy intact. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

So the idea is that Jackie is not a public figure, but possibly a victim? I think that made sense a couple of years ago but a lot has changed since the original allegations in Rollingstone. According to the Wiki article, Jackie told a story that has later been discredited by a college investigation, a police investigation, a Columbia journalism school review of the Rolling Stone article, and now this recent lawsuit that found Erdley guilty of libel. That libel finding means a Jury found that Jackie's story was so incredible that publishing it was an act of malice. That was the hurdle for a finding of libel in this case. I suspect that Salon, which is pretty far left, published the full name because the court case decision makes it clear that Jackie's story never happened, ergo she's not a victim.Mattnad (talk) 13:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Note: I have redacted the last name in the comment above in accordance with WP:BLPTALK and the actions of the oversight team at the talk page (e.g., diff). Rebbing 13:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

There is a legitimate concern as to whether or not "Jackie" is a "public figure", but there is no reason to ascribe any belief in her accusations as being true as a result of the libel verdict. "Rolling Stone" may try to appeal that verdict, but the tenor of reportage on the testimony there is not likely to help their case, especially as they reprinted an article whose accuracy was reasonably in dispute. Thus, "Jackie" is not reasonably protected as a "victim" but, at most, as a "non-notable person" under WP:BLP. She is, apparently "judgment-proof" as lawyers use that term, and thus she is unlikely to be a "specific named defendant" in any libel action. If "Rolling Stone" does not appeal the verdict, moreover, the presumption here that "Jackie" is protected under WP:BLP is diminished. With regard to WP:RS, "Salon" may, indeed, be a "reliable source" for "Jackie"'s name, which is the pure WP:RS result. Collect (talk) 14:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

My take on the Salon piece is that it's a hastily-written news blurb for the magazine's website. It's not just that it's brief: I have grave doubts about the research and editorial control that went into it. It seems plausible to me that the author may simply have included "Jackie's" full name after Googling for background; it may not reflect her own investigation or deliberation. Moreover, since the Salon piece appears to be the first serious media source disclosing the name, I would expect some mention made of that in the article (e.g., "'Jackie,' whose full name we now know is Jackie [Name], . . . ."). Given the significant and continued attention this case has received, we should be seeing other publications using "Jackie's" full name if it can be reliably sourced, but we aren't. Rebbing 14:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Your personal theories regarding Salon's hypothetical editorial practice are irrelevant. Unless there is some credible evidence they are not reliable, 'I dont think the author took time over their research' is not a valid argument. I personally dont think her full name should be in the article, but only because it is not necessary. WP:BLPNAME covers this fairly well. "Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event." - while there have been subsequent and related issues, for 'Jackie' the original article is the one event. "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. - The name was intentionally obfuscated at every stage until recently, even by those sources who doubted the event. And there is zero loss of context when omitting the full name. It literally adds no benefit to the article except to explicitly out the person. "When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories." - It has been brief (basically only one reliable source as such - Salon) and even those more scholarly articles which address the ongoing effect of false accusations still obfuscate the name. In short BLPNAME heavily stresses/advises we should consider not including it until multiple high quality sources cover it, however it does not prohibit it outright. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Even if it was a situation where NYTimes or the WastPo published her last name, if it was just this one source, plus a smattering of "College Fix"-type clickbait sources, was the only third-party, non-legal documented source of her last name, BLP would suggest we leave it out, regardless of her role in the situation. She has not appeared to publicly link her full name to the situation, indicating she still wishes to remain private about it , and so I think WP:BLPPRIVACY matters here. (Following the logic we used on Star Wars Kid, where he had been readily identified by name in countless sources but, up to a few years ago, wanted to keep that association private. Only in the last few years did he step up and publicly connect his identity to an RS, and thus why we include it now). --MASEM (t) 15:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Glory Days (Little Mix album)

Some IP who actually confirmed the third single album with a source indcated from http://directlyrics.com and does this source is reliable? it may be I think in my opinion. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 17:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I'm not so sure. And I can't find another suitable source, either ... richi (hello) 17:55, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing in the About Us section to suggest it is a reliable source with editorial oversight.Martinlc (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

German Luftwaffe pilot "rabidly anti-Nazi"?

I would appreciate more eyes on this discussion: Der Stern von Afrika: Anti-Nazi? Thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Attempting to cause more trouble on German WWII personnel I see.

I appreciate that you've gone out of your way to denigrate Marseille. It is clear, given the apparent absence of knowledge on his life and without having read any of the biographies on him, that this post is designed to force the view of tertiary and inaccurate source on the article. The literature that specialises on Marseille is emphatic: he was anti-Nazi. Other editors should beware before being drawn in to this agenda-driven bull shit. Dapi89 (talk) 17:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I've responded there as well. This abuse of the reliable source notice board needs to stop. The specialist sources say he was Anti-Nazi.

You can scour the internet for a contradictory 'source' if you like, but it carries no weight. Dapi89 (talk) 17:18, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I have changed the tile from "Nazi pilot rabidly anti-Nazi" which displays the bias of it's creator. Dapi89 (talk) 17:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

It would help if we could have more detail of the statements from secondary sources. Some reference to primary sources would also be useful, in order to distinguish between someone who was anti-Nazi and the alternative, namely someone who just liked to fly, shoot, and f*ck without interference from authority and without worrying too much about the cause he was fighting for. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

The biographers have already done this. Some of the enormous parts of the literature have been put into his article. K.e.Coffman knows this. He agitates for the pro-Nazi source, despite it's tertiary nature and it's failure to explain itself.

There is no discussion to be had. Dapi89 (talk) 17:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Ironically, while searching for "Hans-Joachim Marseille" and "anti-Nazi", I found a book by Michael Paris, From the Wright Brothers to Top Gun: Aviation, Nationalism, and Popular Cinema, which refers to Marseille as an "ardent Nazi".

The book is published by Manchester University Press and the author is a senior lecturer in history at the University of Central Lancashire. So we have two reliable sources that describe the subject that the movie is based on as a "Nazi" (here's a review from H-Net: link).

I don't see how this can be discounted or, as the editor put it on the Talk page of the article, "treated with contempt". K.e.coffman (talk) 01:23, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Both authors mentioned deal with the movie and with Marseille himself only in a most cursory way. I think Paris is wrong in claiming that only few films were made in Germany about the Luftwaffe. I am thinking of Stukas and Flieger-Ofiziere (1942). The Star of Africa was not generally banned in West Germany, but only temporarily banned by the Freiwillige Selbstkontrolle der Filmwirtschaft, before it hit the screens. It turned into a box office success. The review cited supports my initial impression that Paris' work is superficial. The other work mentioned is not exhaustive of the subject either. To be sure, that does not mean that Marseille was "rabidly anti-Nazi", nor that the "specialist sources" which are marshalled to make that claim are by any means reliable. But that's another topic. On a side note: I am not a native English speaker, so I might be to blame, but as I understand it, the phrase "agitates for the pro-Nazi source," means that someone is vigourously supporting a source with a Nazi bias. That would be a gross misrepresentation of the argument.--Assayer (talk) 02:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

"...agitates for the pro-Nazi source..." is indeed an odd turn of phrase, but I believe that in this context this means the source being used "agitates" for describing Marseille as a "Nazi". K.e.coffman (talk) 05:12, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• I think it somewhat tendentious to insist on using tertiary sources which are primarily about cinema and film to support the claim that Marseille was a Nazi, while ignoring secondary sources primarily about Marseille that describe him as "openly anti-Nazi", such as the biography by Heaton and Lewis, The Star of Africa: The Story of Hans Marseille, the Rogue Luftwaffe Ace. London, UK: Zenith Press (2012). --Nug (talk) 08:01, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

In response to Assayer: You can use quotation marks in a sarcastic manner if you like, but it has prompted me to ask you if you trying to say the three biographers are not specialists? If so why? And what evidence/credentials do you have to form that conclusion? In relation to the mini-discussion phrasing; this should be obvious from the context.

Appreciate the sensible observation Nug. There are actually three biographies that describe him as such. In K.e.Coffman's world, they should count for nothing of course. Instead, he would prefer to use single-line statement from a book that is neither about the man or the organisation in which he served, from an author that doesn't even bother to explain himself. Dapi89 (talk) 18:16, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Is it really useful to fragment the discussion between this page and Talk:Der Stern von Afrika? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:35, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• Note: The discussion specific to Marseille's relationship with Nazism moved to: Talk:Hans-Joachim_Marseille#Marseille_and_Nazism, including a discussion of the statement on Marseille by the Military History Research Office (Germany) (MGFA). K.e.coffman (talk) 21:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

40 Million Pilgrims

Can we rely on this source for mentioning the number 40 million pilgrims participating 2016 Arba'een Pilgrimage? The source says 12 million Iranians have participated this year, while as far as I know, only 2 million visas were regulated this year.--Mhhossein ^talk 18:24, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I would use it only to ref the statements "several millions" or "many millions" and not "40 million". My detailed reasons for this follow.

I would be a little leery of it for a couple reasons. First of all, neither the Yam Times or anyone else is saying that there were 40 million pilgrims in Karbala at one time, this being a logistic impossibility. The headline -- and only the headline -- says 40 milllion. Headline writers (a different person than the story writer, generally) can get carried and away, and there's no place for nuance in a headline. I assume that they meant 40 million in the course of a year, or something; or maybe they just think it sounded cool, since it is not in the story so maybe they pulled it out their hat.

You have to go with what the story says, not the headline. The story says "The number of Arab and foreign pilgrims as reached 6 million, of 60 different nationalities, the biggest contingent being 12 Millions Iranians" which I can't figure out how 12 million is a subset of 6 million, but maybe you can. And some other numbers are given. The article seems a bit of dog's breakfast with the numbers, which doesn't inspire great confidence.

You also have to keep in mind that other sources give much lower figures. Looking at Arba'een Pilgrimage I see other sources that top at 20 million and go down, and the article Karbala gives very much lower figures -- a million, a few million.

I would point out that sizes of large crowds are notoriously hard to estimate. This is a known thing, and you can have two sources estimating a crowd, and both acting in good faith, that are off by a factor of ten or even more. There's no reliable way to count that many people. That's not even controlling for is someone has an ulterior motive in inflate or deflate the numbers.

For all these reasons I think the readers is best served by just saying "many millions" or "several million", to be honest.

Whether the Yam Times is a reliable source generally... well, they are a real paper, with a real staff apparently, published daily, in actual print. So they are not just some guy's blog or whatever. They've been around about 20 years. Their "About Us" says "...dedicated service on the principle of Nation First..." however you want to take that. Absent some evidence to the contrary, I'd assume they are regular paper with a fact-checking desk and a good enough source for the statement "several millions" or "many millions", but not more than that IMO. Herostratus (talk) 23:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• On the Arba'een Pilgrimage#Pavilions and free services it shows the area jam packed with people, I believe this is the 22 million mentioned earlier or somewhere thereabouts, making it impossible for it to be 40 million, thus I'd follow with Herostratus' "Several million". Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:19, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

@Iazyges: Thanks, I prefer to wait for more sources in this regard. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Well but as as say there may not exist reliable sources for crowds of this size. According to our article Crowd counting, " At unticketed events... crowd counting is more difficult and less precise" not even accounting for "For many events... the number of people in a crowd carries political significance and count results are controversial". If you Google "estimating crowd size" you'll get a lot more. What technique is being used by the source? Minkowski fractal dimension? Jacobs Method? Or "Looks like about X million to me" method? Or what?

If you don't know the answer to that question, I don't see how you can even begin. And even then, it's just not clear to me how accurate these would be for these very large numbers. Certainly you would want so see evidence that an organized large-scale attempt to get a true estimate was made. If that's lacking, it's a much better to the service to reader to be approximate and vague rather than give a number that we are not entirely confident of.

Another alternative is "X million according to Y, Z million according to A..." etc. I personally don't like that because it places the sources too much in the forefront, interfering with the reader's desire to get an encyclopedia-level overview of the subject. And how is the reader supposed to know how to balance the relative veracity of sources if we can't? The sources exist for the reader who wants to drill down. But it is an alternative. Herostratus (talk) 17:38, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not convinced that TheYamTimes is an RS. I mean, yeah, it claims to have been around for many years and its website claims to have an editor. But I wasn't able to find any third party references to the newspaper or any indication that it has a good circulation. I am also concerned that this is a local source (which usually have considerably less stringent fact checking, if at all). Personally, I would search for better sources here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:47, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Lemongirl942: That's why I reverted the edits. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:13, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Cyprus Investment Promotion Agency

Cyprus Investment Promotion Agency is used as a source with this profile at our article Alpari Group. Should this be considered a reliable source, given that their mission is explicitly to promote banking and investment entities such as this? - Brianhe (talk) 01:39, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

That's a tough call. It's a nonprofit organization affiliated in some way with the Government of Cyprus. In the UK, it would be called a quango. The organization's goal is to get companies to invest in Cyprus. It's inherently promotional. It probably should be viewed on a par with PR Newswire - a source for "X says Y", but not more than that. John Nagle (talk) 19:30, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Axe Warrior Guitars

A reliable source, Bloody-Disgusting, reported that Axe Warrior Guitars will release a Hellraiser: Judgment-themed guitar ([45], [46]). I was going to add a Marketing section to the article and list this (along with whatever other promotions come up). However, I am unfamiliar with the legitimacy of Axe Warrior Guitars and am unsure if this is an official piece of promotional material or some random people with a website. Can anyone help? DarkKnight2149 22:09, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

@Darkknight2149: Nothing in the Bloody-Disgusting or Axe Warrior Guitars suggests that this is an official piece of merchandise. It looks much more like random people with a website; the piece itself is an inexpensive, budget guitar, wrapped in Hellraiser themed decals. I would personally hesitate to include it in the Hellraiser: Judgment article. Hope this helps. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 15:42, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Ha! I was about to reply to the same effect. The only thing I would add is this: a marketing section might be appropriate for official tie-in promotions as long as we have (a) an acknowledgement from Dimension Films that this is official, and (b) significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. We definitely don't have that here. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 15:56, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the advice! Normally I would tweet the director or something to find out, but no one closely attached to this film seems to have one. DarkKnight2149 16:53, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

• I'm with Ryk on this one as well, FWIW. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:01, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source?

Wondering if https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4679917/ can be used to describe species and the biota of Licancabur Lake. The nagging doubt I have is that "Frontiers in..." is considered a somewhat dodgy publisher from what I know. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

It's iffy. 'Frontiers in...' is on Bealls list, but it was a controversial addition to the list. See Backlash after Frontiers journals added to list of questionable publisher - Nature. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Hm, its only cited once by other essays, but that doesn't necessarily mean it isn't reliable, will dig deeper. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:04, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

If their editorial board is made up of who they claim it is, I think it can be taken as reliable. Its main members appear to consist of Martin Klotz who has written over a hundred essays on the matter of bacteria here, Akio Adachi likewise has a good history, with several essays in the Uni of Tokushima here. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:09, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Some of these dodgy publishers falsely claim that reputable people are part of their boards, or create "sham" editorial boards that don't do any vetting. We sure this isn't happening here? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:14, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Given the controversy outlined in my link above, I don't think that's the case here. Again, I'm cautious though. Beall's list is a great indication of reliability, and publishers don't get added willy-nilly. But at the same time, there were a large number of well-respected researchers protesting this. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:17, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

The Silent Ballet at List of post-rock bands

• thesilentballet.com
• fragileorpossiblyextinct.com

The Silent Ballet is referenced 25 times at List of post-rock bands, each time to support a band's presence on the list. It's also referenced in about 50 other articles. It looks like they published reviews and lists on "instrumental/experimental music" criticism from 2006 to their close in 2012, and were rebooted as Fragile or Possibly Extinct in 2014 with the same editor and some of the same contributors. (This according to a page at FORPE.) However, I'm not seeing any indication that The Silent Ballet (or Fragile or Possibly Extinct, for that matter) would be a considered reliable source. As far as I can tell, the editor and contributors aren't notable music critics. The current About page at FORPE suggests they're an amateur blog/fansite. Most importantly, a Google search finds plenty of bands quoting their reviews, but nothing from notable music publications, which suggests they lack a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Opinions? Woodroar (talk) 16:35, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Blogs (http://fragileorpossiblyextinct.com/about/ states it is a blog) and SPS are not "reliable sources for anything other than the publisher, and not much even then. Collect (talk) 12:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Source-Sensitive Topic: Macrophilia | Souces need independent audit

Comparing the current Macrophilia with User:Eaterjolly/sandbox/Macrophilia and discussing Talk:Macrophilia#Compilation:_Best_Sources,_Primary. As it has been mentioned many sources have some reason to be deemed questionable, due to lack of notability of the publishers. Many of the mainstream publishers treat Macrophilia as a strictly sex topic, where there is a significant body of alternative view publications which contradict and/or directly criticize more mainstream sources and that frame it as being in a grey area between artistic/literary theme (without explicitly describing it as such) and paraphilia. What I mean by explicitly, is to say many of these sources pay interest to the fact when defined as a "fascination with giants" in a non-sexual context as well as a sexual context it can be found literally everywhere including through history.

Having observed the community quite a bit across my life, I may have some bias according to internalized opinions thereof. Because of that, a few more editors eyes on this matter would be greatly appreciated on whether information from these sources would be acceptable. Eaterjolly (talk) 02:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind having a look at the sources. Which sources specifically should be looked at? Looking at the current article, most sources in used, such as Vice Magazine or The Washington Post are just fine. Any sources you are unsure of? ~Mable (chat) 09:39, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

@Maplestrip: In the draft, I used the sources Macrophile.com and Girlonthenet.com with significant weight, and do plan on using Felarya.com (<- warning: mild nsfw already caused some stir editing at a sensitive rl location <v<;~) in describing popular tropes thereof. When bringing up the sources at Talk:Macrophilia, one editor (greatly senior) expressed doubts about the reliability of these 3 specifically (recommending taking them here), though I do contest girlonthenet is publisher (with editorial oversight) of the guest blog post (an expert by way of notable publications pertaining to sexuality and culture, overseeing the publication of a primary source anecdotal article) and that "Megafurry FAQ" is a community authority verified by the journalism and editorial oversight of Alternet.org which cites the aforementioned. It's clearly not optimal, but for a currently fringe subject gaining in notoriety I think accuracy and NPOV is more important than weighing mainstream and/or sources with well-established reputations. I appreciate any input in making this article better :D Eaterjolly (talk) 08:28, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

These are indeed tough calls. Felarya.com won't load for me for some reason, but Macrophile.com and Girl on the Net look fairly interesting. I've never heard of either website, so allow me to be skeptical. The about page of Girl on the Net doesn't make it look like the website has any kind of editorial oversight for guest contributors or that the oversight that it does have is done by an "expert in the field". I mean, the "girl on the net" might have some good experience writing for other publications, but it looks like this is a personal blog... I, uhm, don't feel qualified to judge these kinds of sources for their reliability, but I wouldn't put too much weight on them. ~Mable (chat) 10:34, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I mean, GirlOnTheNet probably has no financial incentive to overseeing what guests contribute and certainly there the question is "who watches the watchers" (there probably is no oversight for GirlOnTheNet's own posts), but I also suppose there is also no reason to doubt the good faith of the publisher. There has been enough opportunity for something a guest contributor has said as factual to be criticized by reliable sources, and GirlOnTheNet is notable enough for that to be possible. Eaterjolly (talk) 02:55, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I do want to point out for anyone I forgot to mention my view that while on the surface Felarya.com looks like another wiki, it is simply a small set of author's collaborating within their own hierarchy to compile a lore collection and publish it using mediawiki software as a medium. It professes careful curation by it's chief author pseudonym Karbo whom is a notable artist on deviant art and elsewhere.Eaterjolly (talk) 23:55, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

As you describe it, Felarya doesn't sound reliable. This Karbo doesn't seem "notable" enough to be regarded as an "established industry expert". They make a decent sum of money on Patreon (though I've seen non-notable individuals make more), but all other Google results just link to their DeviantArt page. I've seen before that similar editing standards with hierarchies and such are not well-approved. A wiki-esque format is particularly poor suited to establish notability on any subject (or, more specifically, whether an aspect of a subject is worth mentioning). Again, though: I don't have access to the website, so I can't say much of it. ~Mable (chat) 11:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

On the notability of Karbo, I can't really say much accept that Karbo's work was featured cursorily in a mainstream article on vore {compare: this and this}. Also I can say that Karbo is the only Vore/Macro artist to win DeviantArts DailyDeviation award, not once but 1 2 3 times. Besides Karbo is the creator of Felarya {albeit perhaps only veritable through WP:SELFSOURCE and timestamps}, which a search of Felarya on deviant art produces more than 12,000 works most of which are explicit fan works citing Karbo, so I think WP:PARITY can apply here not just for the notability of Karbo but {maybe I'm pushing it, but..} for the notability of Felarya itself. {Interestingly this google search "felarya -site:deviantart.com" gives me about 28k results, many of which seem to be RPs and fan works, though not a hundred percent of them} {OH GOSH, there even appears to be a fan fiction published book O.O>} Also, it isn't really that the source even claims anything factual, but rather that it is just such a notable work that it displays a lot of the common tropes and names a lot of them for us. Eaterjolly (talk) 19:57, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

The Guardian's Pop and rock Music blog and chemtrails

1. [47] Rayner, Alex (June 23, 2008). "Beck is back, but what's the conspiracy about chemtrails?". TheGuardian.com. The Guardian. Retrieved November 28, 2016. quote: "Chemtrails' chief proponent, Canadian journalist William Thomas, claims to have "broken" the story in 1998"

Author info: Alex Rayner works for Phaidon Press, writes about art, TV, books and film for the Guardian, and co-edits the art and fashion magazine Supplement.

2. Chemtrail conspiracy theory see Talk:Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory#Faulty_reasoning_for_reversion_of_edits

3. Used to clarify that: Chemtrails' chief proponent, Canadian William Thomas, claims to have "broken" the Chemtrails story in 1998. The view of his involvement in creating this subject is consistent with all other reliable sources as stated in the current entry. Thomas is a living person and has the following claim on his personal website. Chemtrails Confirmed (2010) by William Thomas willthomasonline.net ... "Since I first broke the “chemtrail” story for the Environment News Service in late 1998 and Art Bell in January 1999, countless chemtrails researchers have learned what farmers like my own neighbors have long observed: Sheep don't look up"

sample diff1 sample diff3

Reliable books devoted to this subject are not available (and reliable sources state they are non-existant). WP:RS are limited. WP:Blogs as sources was a failed proposal but offered advise on use in BLP articles (where very strict sourcing required). WP:Blogs_as_sources#Things_to_consider The blog appears to meet all other other criteria for inclusion as a reliable source. such as:

• Is the article you're sourcing via a blog of a biographical nature, about a living person? YES contains BLP
• If so, is the blog hosted on a reputable news website? YES
• Is the news source in question typically fine to use on Wikipedia on other biographical articles as a source? YES
• Is the author a journalist? YES
• Is the blog post just a quick--or detailed--news report that happens to be technically formatted as a blog post? DETAILED NEWS REPORT
• If you can answer yes to each of these questions, the source is probably fine to use in a BLP. CHECK
• If the post is expressing an opinion of a named individual, rather than a pure news source, the content added to our BLP article must be attributed to the specific speaker or writer. No opinion from the blog article will be expressed in the entry. The blog article has much reliable information that is consistent with all other reliable sources.

Thanks in advance Johnvr4 (talk) 20:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

The problem isn't so much reliability (though a pop music blog about Beck isn't such a great source). The problem is we have a much better source (an article in Skeptical Enquirer) already cited saying much the same thing already. Also you copy/pasted from the source which is a no-no. And you managed to leave out the gist of the source, that the reasoning behind chemtrails was "employing the kind of woolly thinking that makes the Loose Change September 11 documentary-makers sound like Richard Dawkins". And you haven't discussed this at all at the article Talk page before coming here. So all in all, this is problematic in nearly every respect. Alexbrn (talk) 20:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

The WP article entry does not have that Thomas broke the story in 1998. Similar text is used in many (mostly unreliable) sources so I doubt its a copy violation. It was close paraphrasing given your previous difficulty in reading sources and verifying them. I left it out the rest of the sentence because it was not relevant (I don't know who Richard Dawkins is nor am I familiar with Loose change) but please just put it back if you like it. The complaint about not discussing the issue on the talk page is an utter misrepresentation. It was discussed right here: [48] with this text and some bold type "Why doesn't the article (or many reliable sources) state Art Bell and William Thomas began this subject in 1999? or that Thomas claims he invented it (in Jan. 1999) I believe it to be factual and our reliable sources confirm it. Are these true Investigative Journalists in your opinion? You responded with another misrepresentation and some nonsense about original research right here: [49]. I took this as further evidence that were continuing to either not read or selectively read what was written. Johnvr4 (talk) 21:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

There does not appear to be disagreement between the involved editors over the reliability of this source. Johnvr4 (talk) 10:36, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

• it's a blog that is about something else and discusses this to talk about that; not a lot of value. Thomas' claim that he originated the story doesn't appear to be true based on other refs already used in the article, and there is no reason that WP should be a vehicle for propagating his claim. Jytdog (talk) 22:20, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

It seems like it's more about the conspiracy theory beliefs than the artist.

As we discussed on the talk page, the comment expressed is an unfounded (and OR) opinion that lacks any reliable or verifiable support. There aren't reliable sources that are in factual conflict with this source or with Thomas' alleged role. If there were, editors would be able point to each of those sources and then we could then put them on the notice board too. Johnvr4 (talk) 23:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello Kpop and Korean Indie

I've opened discussions about both of these websites before, but never received conclusive answers.

Hello Kpop [50] appears to be run on a volunteer basis. And some of the articles are written under pseudonyms, such as this one [51] by "Xiaolong" - this article [52], also by Hello Kpop, identifies "Xiaolong" as Timea Baksa, so the website's authors aren't totally anonymous. And many of the articles are written by clearly identified authors, such as this one [53] by Jung Bae. Hello Kpop appears to have editorial oversight, as stated here - [54]. According to the About page, [55] the website has worked with "some of the biggest names in the Korean entertainment industry", as well as the Korean Tourism Organization. And as stated on this page [56], the website has been cited as a reference by several professional publications, including The New York Times and Wired.

Korean Indie appears to be considered a blog of sorts, albeit one that's run by a "staff". Like Hello Kpop, it claims to have editorial oversight. [57] And Korean Indie has been profiled by the Korean Culture and Information Service [58] as well as the Asian Correspondent. [59] Korean Indie's "editor-at-large", Chris Park writes in his online resume [60] that operating Korean Indie is something he does "on the side". But he also calls himself a "seasoned video game and tech journalist". Apparently, Park used to write reviews for a website called punkbands.com. I'm not familiar with this website, and it appears to have gone defunct. So I have no idea whether or not it was a professional publication. But Park has also been a featured panelist at KCON music festival [61], as well as the somewhat smaller Toronto KPop Con. [62]

Both of these strike me as being somewhat tough calls, although I'm inclined to treat each of them as reliable sources - even if it has to be on a case-by-case basis. There don't seem to be a whole of of English language sources out there for Korean music, especially Korean indie music. I'm currently working on an article about a Korean indie band, and these would both go a long way towards helping me fill out the details. Absent any strong opinions to the contrary, I'll probably go ahead and use them. But it would be good to build a consensus if possible. --Jpcase (talk) 19:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

New York Magazine/"New Journalism"

I need opinions on whether New York Magazine (Nymag) in general is considered a reliable source, as well as a particular piece for a particular situation. There is a discussion going on here regarding the use of the term far-right as a factual label for Steve Bannon and Breitbart...particularly concerning its connotations as it is a loaded term.

Wikipedia itself describes Nymag as a cradle of New Journalism, which is described as: It is characterized by a subjective perspective, a literary style reminiscent of long-form non-fiction and emphasizing "truth" over "facts," and intensive reportage in which reporters immersed themselves in the stories as they reported and wrote them. That alone raises serious concerns of it being a RS in general.

The article in question can be found here. It's not labeled an opinion piece, but I argued that due to its source that it can be implied as an opinion piece. (this matters because we're referring to reliable sources applying a label to Breitbart and whether or not it's encyclopedic) The first line is At the moment, everyone is trying to figure out exactly how scared to be of the imminent Donald Trump presidency. It's clearly an opinion piece, as over 62 million voters might disagree.

So as you might have guessed, I'm contending over there that it is not a valid source for its intended purpose, but I'm being challenged by Drsmoo so we need an outside opinion. sarysa (talk) 16:54, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• Breitbart has long been understood to be a platform for the alt-right. Numerous reliable sources have stated or implied this, including Breitbart itself (by implication) and Stephen Bannon himself (explicitly). So if there's disagreement over the use of nymag sources, then simply use different ones. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:12, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  • @MjolnirPants: The disputed term is far-right not alt-right. That said, I'm trying to get a ruling on Nymag's validity (overall and/or in this case) for the sake of future reference. It's a bit of a nuisance when something isn't labeled an opinion piece but is written like one. sarysa (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
    • You are hitting the tip of an iceberg that deeply affects WP more than ever, in that many well-established sources that, prior to say a decade ago were pinnacles of objective reporting, have had to fight against declining readerships and competition from citizen journalists, and have engaged more and more in new journalism. (This last US election cycle demonstrates this more than anything else). And our "verifyability-not-truth" mantra does not seem to allow for consideration of when a source, which may previously have been an unquestioanble RS, has clearly published something opinionated without labeling it as an op-ed, as editors seem to want to use those opinions as facts (as you seem to be finding here). That's a much larger problem that needs to be discussed.
    • As for this situation, its a contentious label that if either Bannon nor Breitbart has actually self-identified with, should be treated as a claim and not fact. The fact that it was NYMag, as noted, a source of new journalism, should make it even clear any labels used only there should be considered as a claim. But even if say the NY Times made that claim, I would still use caution about throwing such contentious labels around. --MASEM (t) 23:44, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@Sarysa: You're right, I didn't notice that at first. So I guess then the question becomes "Is alt-right a subset of far-right?" to which there's a pretty convincing answer of "yes" ([63][64][65][66]). Those links are just ones that explicitly call the alt-right "far-right", culled from the lead of Alt-right. It's probably not even all of them, I stopped after four. There are plenty of others which indirectly do so, either from using synonymous phrases such as "extreme right" to describing alt-right individuals as holding beliefs which are unique to the far-right. So while far-right is a broader term, it seems the alt-right is a subset of it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 00:17, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Luftwaffe pilot web-resources

Hi team, Can you please comment on these on-line resources regarding German WW2 pilots. If you read through their introductions and then their bibliographies you will find they have done a huge amount of research and accessed extensive original microfiche records and many respected books on the subject matter (that are referenced by other RS publications on the subject). Having a small library on the German pilots (30-50 books) I find extremely close correlation with the data provided in these resources and the published materials and a high co-incidence on the same published sources.

http://www.ww2.dk/lwairfields.html & http://www.ww2.dk/Airfields%20-%20General%20Introduction.pdf

http://www.ww2.dk/lwoffz.html & http://www.ww2.dk/Lw%20Offz%20-%20Introduction%20-%20Apr%202016.pdf (from 50000 official microfiche documents - p18-20 detail the official British War Archives used, which included 160 tonnes of captured documents (p18))

https://web.archive.org/web/20130928070316/http:/lesbutler.co.uk/claims/tonywood.htm (also with extensive Allied air-war information. Individual files have details of the exact official microfiche records used for that file)

I have downloaded and merged these files onto a single spreadsheet, and filtering by individual pilot gives some of the most complete records I have ever seen. I don't believe they have been fabricated nor promoting any pro-Nazi agenda, and I believe the gaps these web-sources fill in are invaluable. Some people have commented that not being in a hard-copy publication from a reliable publishing house casts doubt on their value or reliability as RS. I would presume such vast amounts of material, as a whole, would make extremely dry reading and would not be viable for sale as a published book :) , but having them put on-line allows people to search for specific details as they need and is an ideal format for such extensive data to be presented. Would you accept their accuracy as a suitable reference for Wiki-articles regarding Luftwaffe biographies and units? Your comments please, can people verify details of the official Allied archives used? Do people have doubts to their authenticity? thanks Philby NZ (talk) 08:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I really don't see how they can be used, as they need to be reliable in terms of their content, creator(s) and publishing. Such material should be drawn from secondary published sources such as books. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:00, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

So basically, unless someone volunteers to find a reliable company to publish a book that will hardly sell, probably make a decent financial loss just to exhibit this data, Wikipedia won't accept the information as suitably 'reliable'? The primary information can't be seen as reliable unless there's a secondary source to verify the primary source?? The implication is that Wikipedia believes that someone has sat down then and fabricated all or some of this content for their own agenda unless proven otherwise, except of course for all the dates and notes about significant events and people that match up in other published works with less overall detail? Philby NZ (talk) 08:25, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

No, that's not the implication. WP:IRS says explictly that "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Not all published sources have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, so being published isn't enough. Doug Weller talk 17:14, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Jordan Lead Codices - dubious media sources, sensational claims

These are metal documents claimed to date to the time of Jesus and to have the first mention of him. They are generally considered fakes but recently they've hit the media again. The sources used in the article are newspaper reports based on a press release I cannot find of some work by genuine scientists, and very dubious work by non-scientists which is being treated as gospel (pun intended). The source being used now (the Daily Mail was an earlier source) is the The Jordan Times.[67] They based their story on an email from the Ion Beam Centre of the University of Surrey and I've seen mention of a press release (The Mirror seems to be the source for the press release claims, it's mentioned in other sources[68]) but their website is silent on this.[69] The Jordan Times and other news sources also mention "A further report by independent analyst Matthew Hood" and a quote from him is in our article. In no way is he a reliable source and he shouldn't be used here. It also uses a picture by David Elkington. Elkington, his wife, Hood and a few others, including a hypnotherapist,[70] wrote a dubiously published[71] book[72] Elkington seems to be the main protagonist on the "genuine" side - see this BBC article on him/

So, no actual scientific sources, just a claim of one that I can't verify, plus reports of sources that we would rarely use directly. In the lead as well as it's own section. It was inevitable given the publicity this is getting, but it has always been my opinion that we need to be very wary of new sensational claims (WP:REDFLAG comes to mind), and even new research reports (as opposed to press releases) would need to be handled carefully until they are responded to. Doug Weller talk 16:27, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Elkington/Hood do not matter because they are not quoted in the Wikipedia article. (I told you to remove Hood but you didn't, I will remove his quotes now) However, there is a study on this by the Ion Beam Center in the University of Surrey, which was published by the Jordan Times, a reputable news source which has a reputation of fact checking. Yahoo also reported. The Wikipedia article Jordan Lead Codices now only mentions this study, and this study is sourced. I have emailed the Center and their reply would be a definite proof that this is an actual study, not a made up story by media. Makeandtoss (talk) 17:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Our criteria state that "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Not emails. Yahoo isn't a reliable source (and suggested that a related article was one on UFOs). We need a link to a published study. The Jordan Times is not a reliable source for this - their article is based on an email and on unreliable sources, and of course it is at least partially state owned and Jordan has a big stake in this. And at the moment because the Jordan Times says it was from the email statement they received, we seem to have a quote from Bernhard Lang, Emeritus Professor of Religion, University of Paderborn and St. Andrews[73] being attributed to scientists from the Ion Beam Centre, which might be a BLP violation. And no, I don't think we should be quoting a German Catholic theologian either (nothing to do with his religion, he's just not an RS for this). Doug Weller talk 17:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

We are obviously not going to source an email. We are going to use the email to prove that the sourcing is reliable. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:22, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

The lack of a clear origin for claims in the press is worrying. For example, it isn't clear which statement is referred to as "the statement" in the last sentence of the Jordan Times article. If it is in the statement of Webb and Jeynes, it is suspiciously unscientific. If it is in the statement of Hood, it is from an unreliable source. I think we should wait until the actual text of the Webb and Jeynes examination is available. So far most of what I can find written about this is rubbish from journalists who don't know the difference between language and script or between a codex and a scroll. I can't tell in 30 minutes of searching if the Surrey people concluded the lead was about 2000 years old or merely at least a few hundred years old; both versions are going around. And practically none of the reports mention that ancient lead is readily available and easily obtained by forgers. Even though the Surrey researchers are qualified to examine the lead, they are not qualified to judge the authenticity apart from the age of the lead. Zero^talk 02:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

globalsecurity.org

I've not seen this site questioned before and had always considered it as a mid-ranking and largely credible source for tank-spotting and militaria. WoKrKmFK3lwz8BKvaB94 (talk · contribs) is now bulk-removing it (eg "removing conspiracy theory website www.globalsecurity.org", or see contribs). They're simultaneously removing "removing white supremacist website rense.com" http://rense.com, which I'm unfamiliar with.

Thoughts? Personally I'd bulk revert this as I see no reason to remove globalsecurity.org and certainly not to see it as "conspiracy theories". However I don't know rense.com. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

[74] shows some previous discussion here. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Not reliable at all, globalsecurity is a pretty notorious conspiracy theory site. On mobile so can't link the pages right now, but the site has claimed in the past that 9-11 was an inside job, that HARP is a secret weapon, and that chemtrails are for reals. They basically host/print all kinds of nutty stuff, much of it WP:FRINGE. Should never be trusted as an RS. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

• What Fyddlestix said. It's a conspiracy theory factory, churning them out at an industry trend-setting pace. It's the leading global supplier of semi-plausible-sounding conspiracy theories. They outpace the competition on every front. [More sarcastic ad-copy type statements ad nauseum.] MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

The problem with WoKrKmFK3lwz8BKvaB94 (talk · contribs)'s bulk removals is that the editor is just removing line URLs, not doing the work to find another source. When this is done, effort needs be made to find a better alternative source. It's better if the deleting editor puts in that effort instead of creating work for others. John Nagle (talk) 20:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I would like to see some links indicating that the site has sanity issues. It's tone can seem overblown (geddit?) but I have never seen any conspiracy/nutter stuff, and I have been reading it for some years. It has always seemed a better-than-nothing but essentially WP:RS. Am I missing a loony section or do you have to pay for that? Irondome (talk) 20:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, look at what's on the front page of the site right now. A story saying that the US government killed MLK, 2 different stories saying that MH 17 was not shot down by russian-armed separatists [75][76], and a story by the site's founder saying that CNN and and BBC both had "foreknowledge" of the collapse of building 7 on 9-11. The site is complete garbage, really surprised that so many people are fooled by it. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

• You're citing http://www.globalresearch.ca/, not globalsecurity.org, which is what's being discussed here. Are these two organizations connected beyond using "global" in their name? - BilCat (talk) 20:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Well crap, now I feel pretty stupid. Thanks for catching that BilCat! Fyddlestix (talk) 20:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

It happens Fyddlestix. I did something similar a while back on a source. You got there 3 minutes before me BC. I think we are discussing two different animals here. Irondome (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

John Nagle: I disagree that "effort needs be made [by the removing editor] to find a better alternative source." A fundamental principle of the burden component of Wikipedia:Verifiability is that: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, ... Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." I agree that it is absolutely courteous to try to find a reliable source for text that is currently unsourced or poorly sourced (and I do it all the time). But it is not an obligation of the removing editor to do so, and usually having no content is better than having unsourced content. Neutrality^talk 20:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm surprised this is being discussed with a straight face. These are absolutely terrible websites, very nearly of the FAKENEWS variety. I am purposefully not removing the content as the points that some of the links are "sourcing" are sometimes relatively straightforward, but where there seems to be doubt, I'm adding citation needed tags. The onus should not be on me to find replacement sources when the source being removed is as manifestly unreliable as these two websites. I'm surprised that these websites are linked anywhere in the articlespace of Wikipedia. How can this be debated? jps (talk) 20:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Non RS by a wide margin. The onus is on those who wish to retain the material previously cited to this web property to replaces the sources if they wish. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I think we are talking about two different sites here. http://www.globalsecurity.org/index.html is fine. This other site is entirely different, and appears indeed nutsy. Note the completely different site graphics, colours, etc. Do we have a confusion here? Irondome (talk) 20:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm gonna sheepishly put up my hand here and admit that I at least got the sites mixed up, yes. Sorry about that. I'm looking at globalsecurity now though and not seeing how this is a slam-dunk RS though. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. I just removed one place where it was being used, so thanks for reminding me of globalresearch.ca jps (talk) 21:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Who killed JFK? [77]. No we're talking about a site with problems. jps (talk) 20:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

No it appears to be discussing a whole range of different theories there. It is the wrong site colleague. Irondome (talk) 21:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Range of "different theories"? This is part of JFK assassination conspiracy theories. How can you claim otherwise? jps (talk) 21:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

• As opposed to en:Assassination of John F. Kennedy?

There has been some confusion between sites here. Who, other than User:WoKrKmFK3lwz8BKvaB94, still believes that globalsecurity.org is a problem? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I think so. The claims that JFK was not killed by Lee Harvey Oswald are pretty firmly conpsiracy theory fodder. And YES they are being hosted by globalsecurity.org . jps (talk) 21:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

There is also "Who killed JFK? Castro" and "Who killed JFK? Anti-Castro" sections there. It appears to be a section for a variety of different scenarios. It appears to be presenting them for comparison, not claiming they are true. The source is acceptable, certainly for military matters, although higher grade sourcing should be preferred. Irondome (talk) 21:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, conspiracy theorists love to come up with lots of alternatives to the standard story. That's the game. They often hold contradictory ideas simultaneously guilelessly. I guess you haven't come across many JFK conspiracy theorists? jps (talk) 02:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

At least put in a tag if you remove a link. Just removing the link can result in a meaningless reference. John Nagle (talk) 21:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I had looked at the .org site, and I consider it to be a self-published source by an organisation that specialises in defense-related consulting. I would treat it as a primary source. It appears to ride on the reputation of its director and spokesperson John Pike. Is he an established expert? I'm not sure. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Pike published a long time ago in the arms-control field, but feel free to see for yourself on Worldcat [78]. I don't think that it's a high-quality site and won't use any material from there because I've found a significant number of mistakes. Not non-RS by our terms, but not the first place I'd go for info.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:06, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• Globalsecurity.org isn't a conspiracy site. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
• In the context it was used in these articles (as a source that was "better than nothing") it should not be removed as a "conspiracy site". Although globalsecurity has other problems, such as not attributing its own sources, User:WoKrKmFK3lwz8BKvaB94 has not provided any actual evidence that it promotes conspiracy theories, as the claims about the JFK assassination were merely being presented, not promoted, as Irondome stated above. Kges1901 (talk) 22:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Presenting a conspiracy theory without explaining why it's nonsense is promoting it. See WP:FRINGE. jps (talk) 02:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

A red herring. Firstly the site in question has never to my knowledge at least, been used in any WP articles about conspiracy theories, nor do the sections in any way infer in tone that the content is truth, in contrast to real conspiracy garbage sites, which tend to be strident and intemperate in language and tone. Secondly, WP:FRINGE is a guideline, not a policy, and as such, common sense must be used in it's interpretation. Thirdly, the site homepage states; For reasons of succinctness and presentation, the information provided on this website may be in the form of summaries and generalisations, and may omit detail that could be significant in a particular context, or to particular persons. In other words, it assumes it's readership has some grasp of reality. You will also note that the summaries are actually loosely sourced to documents on the right of the screen. Many of them are extremely critical, even though GS does not use a citation mechanism as we do. Your attempts to paint Globalsecurity as a conspiracy monger is as persuasive as claiming WP does the same, because of some of our content. I am more concerned with GS being a primary source, which must be treated with care in use. Irondome (talk) 02:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

No one would argue that Wikipedia should be used as a reliable source, so your point seems really daft (one of Wikipedia's problems is that it can function as a conspiracy theory monger, which is why WP:FRINGE exists in the first place). The issue is that the site uncritically promotes conspiracy theories, and you haven't been able to explain that away in spite of your peculiar love for the site. Wikipedia's problems with reliability (because we do not have full editorial control as pseudonymous editors can come in spouting this or that) are well-known to everyone here, and if you're going to use that argument, I think you've shown us exactly why the globalsecurity.org is not reliable. It needs to go. jps (talk) 10:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

i agree globalsecurity.org is a reliable source just as much as CNN or BBC are. You see western media having all kinds of conspiracy theories when it comes to Russia or China so why should it be a problem if 10% of the times conspiracies can be found? You can always find western media who claim that Russia bombed their own civilians in Moscow in order to start the Chechen war and all these other obscure stories sometimes even about Putins own family. So where is the difference if sometimes in this site it is claimed that 9/11 was an inside job, there are many documentatires made and books written by the way about this subject. And i am really saddened to see how people try to slam conspiracy theories and their writers if by fact many those people are the ones who make pioneer work and think outside the box. Only recently the global surveillance of the NSA was considered a conspiracy theory and we know what happened then.--Crossswords (talk) 05:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

What? We are not yet at the point of post-truth where we need to say that everybody is a conspiracy theorist. If you want to argue about CNN or whatever, do so elsewhere. This is about THIS site and it is clear that THIS site publishes conspiracy theories without so much of a nod towards their incorrectness. jps (talk) 10:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

globalsecurity.org seems remarkably low quality in terms of (graphical) presentation and reads like a blog. That makes me wonder about the credentials and qualifications of the site operators. Based on what are the articles reliable? DIY Editor (talk) 06:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

so you only want to have sources who have big budget? Thats pretty monopolistic thinking. And how is the design poor, its only simplistic? --Crossswords (talk) 06:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Well this is probably taking things a bit off topic but it's not just the simplicity (which is not poor design in and of itself) but the general appearance/quality of it. It does not have the feel of a reputable or reliable site, regardless of complexity of design. Also as I said the articles from what I saw read like someone's personal opinion in blog format. What are the qualifications of the writers/editors? DIY Editor (talk) 06:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

That said, does this site actually offer anything that's not in the primary sources? Someguy1221 (talk) 07:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

If I didn't know any better, I would think some of the people arguing for its inclusion are somehow attached to the site for, shall we say, external reasons? jps (talk) 10:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

That's far less likely than an editor having confused two sites with similar names, and now too embarrassed to back down and admit it. Advice about digging holes would seem to apply. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Do you admit that the JFK essays on globalsecurity.com globalsecurity.org are conspiracy theories? jps (talk) 11:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Why are you now introducing a third website globalsecurity.com? We are discussing, and only discussing globalsecurity.org.

Is there some problem where you don't appreciate that these are different sites? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

globalsecurity.com is a parked domain with no content. jps probably means globalsecurity.org here. Kges1901 (talk) 12:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. My apologies for writing com instead of org. I anxiously await User:Andy Dingley's evaluation of the essay on globalsecurity.org's website. jps (talk) 13:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

globalsecurity.org is a reliable source. Similar-sounding sites are not reliable sources. The "org" is cited in many places - including Salon, Politfact, http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/21/nyregion/c-corrections-782734.html?mtrref=query.nytimes.com&gwh=3B6FF5B14F5517AD2E92693C6AA54903&gwt=pay and the New York Times (many, many times). Note the NYT itself was "caught" by the ".com" extension error. I think this ends the confusion. And removing the ".org" refs is foolish as a result. Collect (talk) 14:03, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Are you seriously contending that just because a website is ".org" it's reliable? Do you have no concerns over the JFK conspiracy theories? jps (talk) 14:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

No and I did not say that. The New York Times and many other newspapers find the site reliable. That it has essays clearly marked as essays does not make the site "unreliable" any more than the many "essays" printed in the New York Times make that paper "unreliable." The use of straw man arguments is discouraging here. The site meets the requirements of WP:RS which is what we are discussing. Collect (talk) 14:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

The NYTimes used it in 2001 apparently as a means to identify Pike's opinion on missile defense systems which I actually think might be an okay use of this website (maybe one of the only okay uses of this website). Since then globalsecurity.org has published false information. What about the website today makes you convinced it is reliable? Please explain how a website that publishes uncritical fantasy about 1960s assassinations should be considered to meet the requirements of WP:RS. jps (talk) 14:31, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Wow - you do not let go. Essays are not facts. Clear enough? The NYT has published essays which are not facts ergo we should not allow the NYT as a source. QED. Sorry, you accused the site of carrying material which it did not carry and now you seem so invested in the discussion that you are unwilling to admit that the site is reliable for clear statements of fact. And as I never said "org" makes a site "reliable", your aside on that is pure (fill in the blank). And I note that the clear preponderance of posts here appear to find the source generally reliable for claims of fact. Collect (talk) 15:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

That's cool, and all, but I note that the essay which is not fact is written as an expository text rather than a persuasive one. It's pretty obvious how to tell opinions from facts in the New York Times. Do you see any clear indications that the JFK conspiracy theories promoted by globalsecurity.org are being couched as opinions? I think the site is attempting to make a clear "statement of fact" with respect to JFK assassination. How did you determine that they are not? jps (talk) 16:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

In sum

Okay, let's break it down. I will try to spell out the facts as plainly as I see them:

• We aren't talking about globalresearch.ca Everyone agrees that site is trash.
• Globalsecurity.org has prominently displayed essays on "who killed JFK,RFK,MLK, etc."
• There is no indication anywhere on globalsecurity.org that they are trying to faithfully discuss the facts surrounding the assassinations of JFK,RFK,MLK.
• The essays on the assassinations as published present material which is factually incorrect and they do so uncritically.
• Globalsecurity.org is not currently being used as a source on the assassination of JFK/RFK/MLK in Wikipedia.
• Globalsecurity.org is used as a source for various military history-related articles in Wikipedia.
  • Sometimes the site is used as a reproduction of third-party articles hosted on the site.
    • It is unclear (to me at least) how they are handling copyright or intellectual property considerations for doing said hosting.
  • Sometimes the site hosts original content.
    • The original content on the website does not generally show any sort of rigorous vetting or identification of what sources it has used.
    • The website has a throwback html style sheet that is reminiscent of the mid to late 90s.
    • While there is an editorial board listed, none of the original content has bylines and the style is generally amateurish in comparison to most other reference materials we use here.

I have a hard time seeing how this website passes the muster here. While I think that, for the most part, the website hasn't been used irresponsibly here, I think that there is a risk of sending readers to that website because doing so gives it our editorial approval, and there are documented issues with it (which may or may not have existed when other news websites used it). Removing the website seems more than reasonable to me. I am not convinced that the website has an editorial policy that makes it reliable even in "uncontroversial" contexts. I am especially worried that if the only source that can be found for some information included in Wikipedia is to this website, then it may in fact be possible that the information is incorrect considering that the website uncritically reproduces incorrect information and prominently links to that on its mainpage. The assumption by many here is that it is supposed to be mere exposition of these conspiracy theories rather than endorsement, but as there is no way to tell whether they intend that or not (there is no indication in the style of writing that they think these ideas are incorrect even as one essay may contradict another), I worry that our use of this website runs quite afoul of WP:RS and even WP:V. I think the website has been impeached by its own lazy editorial style and sourcing.

As I said above, I think it needs to go.

jps (talk) 14:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• I have no idea what "globalresearch.ca" is, or why you've introduced a fourth website into this. You seem hopelessly confused. Can we really pay any credence to your judgement here? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I think you are the one who is confused. Reread the above section. Still waiting for your evaluation of the JFK assassination essays on globalsecurity.org. jps (talk) 14:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• You found a poor website, then used that as a reason to remove links to a different website, because you were confused over their names. When this was pointed out to you, you proceeded to attack other editors as having some COI with the external website. Now you are desperately flailing around, trying to find any excuse as to avoid admitting you made a mistake. And you still can't remember which website you're dealing with. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• No, I have been pretty consistent here. Sorry you can't keep up. Still waiting for you to evaluate the essays on globalsecurity.org about the JFK assassination. jps (talk) 16:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Personal opinion on .org: The actual information on a machine itself is pretty good. The same numbers and blurbs you see everywhere else, actually pretty good. You want people to see it, probably use it to edit. Numbers it refs are probably good. Unfortunately it is in a loony blog. Do you let Area 51 stuff cancel actual real info? (I use it as an External link, but I have other stuff, most won't). Sammy D III (talk) 14:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I worry about using the site as an external link as it appears to endorse the site in its entirety. I think there may be many accurate things on the website, but I worry that if the only place a piece of information is available is on globalsecurity.org, then given the "loony-ness" of the blog, there seems a chance there might be something "loony" about the "information" so singularly sourced. If the numbers/blurbs on a machine are pretty good because they are the same numbers/blurbs seen elsewhere, then please let's use the elsewhere rather than linking to a loony blog. jps (talk) 14:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree with analysis by jps. The website globalsecurity.org fails WP:RS as a polemic engaging in conspiracy theory and WP:FRINGE that lacks sufficient editor oversight. Source globalsecurity.org should not be used on Wikipedia. Sagecandor (talk) 15:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I oppose deleting current refs by globalsecurity.org. This may leave accurate information already in place un-referenced. Do you want content referenced by a strange but accurate site or no referenced content at all? If anyone cares, they can discuss it there. This is a mechanically accurate site that entry-level editors can easily understand and use. I think you are setting the bar too high. Maybe step back a touch and take a little wider POV? Sammy D III (talk) 16:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I would actually prefer citation needed tags over referencing to a "strange" site that has problems with accuracy elsewhere. If it is "accurate" as you say it is, why can't we just reference the other references which can verify that? I think that we need to set the bar higher. My consideration is that the website might be reliable as the opinion of Pike, but if it is just regurgitating facts that can be found elsewhere, we should not be linking to it owing to the problems we know many readers have distinguishing high-quality sources from low-quality sources. The last thing we need are people surfing around that website, landing on an article on how Fidel Castro killed JFK, and then coming back here to change Wikipedia to make it say that... if you get my drift. jps (talk) 17:03, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you tell the New York Times that a site it uses hundreds of times is "not usable" <g>. Collect (talk) 15:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any citations which show use of this website from the New York Times after 2001? Do they use it for anything other than identifying it as Pike's website and as a source for Pike's opinions? Because, if not, I wonder at your argument. jps (talk) 16:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I remember being told some time ago in a conversation about, of all things, Bob Dylan's contested conversion to Christianity, that the phrase "reliable source" is actually a bit of misnomer, and that "acceptable source" probably better expresses the basis for inclusion. I tend to agree with Collect that a source which has been repeatedly cited by print sources like the NYT probably meets our basic standards for use. This is not to say that the source is necessarily reliable in the strict definition of that term, and I certainly would have no reservations about very very carefully checking to see whether what is cited from it is supported by other sources, and have serious reservations about using it as a source of anything but statements about certain theories it proposes. But it is probably one of the better sites to use to source information about some of the woo theories that are widely discussed in other sources. John Carter (talk) 16:03, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that repeated use of the website by the New York Times has been demonstrated yet. If you have evidence of that, please let us know. That said, I must say that yours is an interesting approach that totally turns the discussion on its head. I think if we adopted that, though, we would end up removing the source entirely from Wikipedia at this point (to be reinserted at a time when we decide Pike's opinions deserve inclusion). jps (talk) 16:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Examples from NYT of links to globalsecurity.org: 2014: An NYT "editor and researcher" selected reference to the site as a resource on Iran's Guardian Council, Also in 2014 as a resource on Pakistani ISI director Ahmed Shuja Pasha, 2013: globalsecurity "Iranian rocket expert" cited in NYT article, 2012: Cited as a "defense website" for historical information on a US military exercise. There are several other references that can be found by searching globalsecurity.org on NYT. Washington Post has used them more recently: 2016, 2015, 2014. Reuters has most recently used globalsecurity as a source in 2016, CNN in 2015 and Fox in 2016 Kges1901 (talk) 20:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

It's also worth pointing out that the site is also cited in numerous books, as evidenced with this search: [79]. An ideal source? Probably not. But acceptable? Certainly seems to be. Parsecboy (talk) 21:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I looked through the above references. On the whole, the site seems to be used whenever authors want to get Pike's opinion. Perhaps that's the best way to use it here? That's actually very close to the suggestion that User:John Carter made above. jps (talk) 18:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Are you referring to Kges's comment or mine? Because that is not the sense I got from looking at the books that cite the site. Parsecboy (talk) 21:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Jps, if you read some of the stories, you will find that some of these news articles cite globalsecurity for its content and not Pike's opinions. I am not saying that globalsecurity is good, but that it is not a conspiracy website. Kges1901 (talk) 22:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

If not a "conspiracy website", what do you call a website that hosts conspiracy theories such as the one about Fidel Castro assassinating JFK? jps (talk) 16:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

As discussed above, the site assumes the reader has some level of intelligence - notice all of the conspiracy theories presented about JFK contradict each other (Castro and the Mafia couldn't both have assassinated JFK). Kges1901 (talk) 00:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• from their history/about page: "While we make every effort to ensure that the information on this site is accurate and up to date we accept no responsibility whether expressed or implied for the accuracy, currency and completeness of the information. Before relying on the material you should independently check its relevance for your purposes, and obtain any appropriate professional advice. For reasons of succinctness and presentation, the information provided on this website may be in the form of summaries and generalisations, and may omit detail that could be significant in a particular context, or to particular persons. And here is a recent post from "Sitrep". Done here. Jytdog (talk) 17:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• Wokr is right to remove rense.com. Just looking at their home page makes it pretty bloody clear that Wikipedia should not be citing them. PizzaGate, Breitbart was assassinated because he knew about PizzaGate, stuff about Obama and Hillary that I don't even want to repeat, Crop Circle Science, Fukushima nuclear fears following the quake a few weeks back, gay porn stars planning to blow up German intel headquarters ... there's enough bogus alt-right conspiriology there to make me trust Wokr regardless of whether the site is actually "white supremacist" on top of all this, but "Ctrl-F"ing "Duke", "Black", "Latino", "matter" and any number of other buzzwords seem to support this assertion too. Just posting this here because the OP mentioned it but it seems to have gone unnoticed since then. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I also wonder if a site whose front page features a link to this is not justifiably called cospiracy-minded. It's certainly not quite on the level of Rense, but it does make me very suspicious. Full disclosure: I read down as far as Fyddlestix accidentally confusing it for another site before going off and doing my own research, so I don't know if this point has already been made. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Does any of that relate to the site in question or are you just WP:FORUM? —DIY Editor (talk) 01:05, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I am responding to what the OP said. They brought up a particular user removing a bunch of links on a bunch of articles to two separate websites. Their title only named one of the websites, and it seems most of the subsequent discussion has focused on that one, with it just being left up in the air whether the named editor was right or wrong on the other one. I decided to point out that they were very clearly right, which made me want to assume good faith and say they were right on the other one that the rest of you have been honing in on. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to be rude. This section is about globalsecurity.org and it seemed like you were addressing a different site at length. Another site having deficiencies doesn't seem to bear on this one. —DIY Editor (talk) 01:17, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

No, the section is about what the OP comment was about. This subthread (which if you look at my edit summary is not the one I was posting in; I was posting at the bottom of the main section) and most of the subsequent discussion has neglected the fact that the Andy seemed to be getting the impression that this particular user was mass-removing citations of this or that website based on a personal, and potentially false, impression of the site as white supremacist or conspiracy-oriented. I was pointing out that in one of the two instances cited, the user was 100% right. Honestly, I interpreted the OP comment as being more focused on Rense, since GlobalSecurity was not linked, and the end of his comment seemed like he was more looking for opinions regarding Rense. I "Ctrl-F"ed the page and noticed that no one else had even mentioned Rense. Honestly it looks more like the rest of you were responding to his title than his actual comment. But what's done is done. No one is saying that Rense is a reliable source and (on reading a bit more) it looks like consensus is in favour of dropping GlobalSecurity as well. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

• globalsecurity.org is cited in:

1. Fighting to the End: The Pakistan Army's Way of War / Oxford University Press
2. Gulf Military Forces in an Era of Asymmetric Wars / Preager
3. Handbook of International Electrical Safety Practices / Wiley-Scrivener

John Pike, one of the founders, "directed the Space Policy, Cyberstrategy, Military Analysis, Nuclear Resource and Intelligence Resource projects" [1] at the Federation of Atomic Scientists. In terms of reputation and expertise it appears better than the average RS. James J. Lambden (talk) 03:44, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@James J. Lambden: Do those sources cite globalsecurity.org for its opinions or for factual statements? If the latter, do they address the fact that globalsecurity.org itself gives a disclaimer about using it for factual claims? The fact is Wikipedia must necessarily have higher standards for sources of factual claims than scholarly books since we can't rely on our authors' or publisher's good name. There are plenty of self-published sources that are cited by scholars who are themselves capable of performing independent fact checks but Wikipedians aren't allowed do that. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

People have mentioned Globalsecurity's disclaimer, "address the fact that globalsecurity.org itself gives a disclaimer about using it for factual claims?" Saying something is anything because it has a disclaimer? "Whilst every care has been taken in the compilation of this publication to ensure its accuracy at the time of going to press, the Publishers cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions or any loss arising therefrom." Jane's Fighting Ships 1993-94 Jane's Information Group Inc. (1993) ISBN: 0-7106-1065-3 Title page. Sammy D III (talk) 11:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Umm... what? Could you rephrase that? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:08, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clear. At least two people have refered to .org's disclamer as a reason not to trust them. Everyone, including "Janes", prints a disclamer. That was it. Sammy D III (talk) 14:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. There's a lot of not very focused discussion above. My take is that globalsecurity.org should not be used as a general source, but (as any source) may or may not be reliable for specific statements. As a factual source, I would not use it to reference any controversial statements, as it is clearly not a high quality source (whatever its merits), and if it is used for an uncontroversial statement, then it could probably be replaced by a better source. It can (as any source) be used for the opinions of the authors, but issues of WP:DUE weight would likely necessitate secondary sourcing (like the NYT links in the above discussion). Looking at some of the removals, I do feel that this source was used in a very questionable way, as a general reference for an article, rather than a reference for specific statements. The way it has been deployed feels rather spammy, often relegated to an External links section or similar. I did not see it appearing in any footnotes, but I haven't checked every edit jps made. The reliability of a source depends on the context. This is already a somewhat questionable source, and while it might be suitable in some contexts, it is clearly not an appropriate general reference for an article. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I have problems deleting it retroactively. I live in part of its world. The machine stuff is good. I don't use it as a ref, it's a blog, but I see where others use blogs, and I know the info is good. So if someone has already used it the stuff they posted is good. Unfortunately it is at the bottom of a sewage-treatment plant. I only use it as an External link and I agree that it should deleted there. Sammy D III (talk) 17:05, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

2013 NYT "GlobalSecurity.org, in Alexandria, Va., said that the flight, if truly successful, showed that Iran was slowly ..."

2012 NYT "According to the defense Web site GlobalSecurity.org, military planners during the cold war used Internal Look to prepare for a move by the Soviet"

2011 NYT "“It’s a significant step forward for the Iranians,” said Charles P. Vick, an expert on Iranian rockets at GlobalSecurity.org, a private research group in Alexandria, Va."

2011 NYT " Tim Brown, a special-ops analyst with GlobalSecurity.org, which specializes in computer satellite imagery; and Lawrence Kobilinsky, chairman of the"

None of which mention Pike.

2 Dec 2016 [80] Chron.com (Houston Chronical)

[81] Edwards Air Force Base usage of source

In short widely used by reliable sources, and by a US government agency. Collect (talk) 19:15, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, some of those links seem to be references not to globalsecurity itself, but individuals working there. It might well be that specific individuals associated with globalsecurity meet or surpass RS in their fields, like, maybe, computer satellite imagery. My own opinion is probably closed to that of Slawomir Bialy above, and, basically, kind of on a par with some of the academic periodicals of religious schools which credit some truly pseudoscientific or woo beliefs, like maybe BYU Studies Quarterly. It probably can be used without problems for some material, but it also would probably be a very good idea to review it rather thoroughly if it is dealing with matters subject to some dispute in academia or the appropriate fields. John Carter (talk) 17:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

"some dispute...appropriate fields?" History of something real would generally be good? Started in "x", did "y" many, stopped at "z"? Even if you do not like the subject, when it happened is sort of locked in? (COI: I want to use it). Sammy D III (talk) 15:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

It is a reliable source. It is used by the mainstream media as a source, it is cited in 240,000 books in Google books and by 17,600 articles in Google scholar. It has a page showing support from third parties[82] and despite its disclaimer for errors, bills itself as "reliable source of background information and developing news stories in the fields of defense, space, intelligence, WMD, and homeland security."[83] Its director is John Pike, a leading expert.

Of course, as with any publication, editors need to distinguish between news reporting, opinion pieces, analysis that combines facts and opinions, and blog postings by readers. Furthermore it also has a number of articles that should be seen as tertiary sources and treated accordingly.

I do not see why there is confusion with Global Research which has no connection with GlobalSecurity.org. There are articles like "Truth or conspiracy: Lunar landing." But it is a transcript of a Katie Couric program where GlobalSecurity.org's director debates Bill Kaysing, who wrote, We Never Went to the Moon. AFAICT, there are no articles that provide any credence to conspiracy theories.

TFD (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I think that is an excellent answer, which I support. I know that my area is accurate. I do machines, we are both using the same Technical Manuals and I recognize it. I would think any other machine would also be accurate. Sammy D III (talk) 21:11, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

AllAfrica.com

Is AllAfrica.com a reliable source? I would err on "no", but just double-checking here. I think we have a problem with fewer articles on developing nations and we should probably try to read/cite more national newspapers in those countries; but this website may make things easier for us.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:59, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I've seen it regularly referred to in travel guides and other recent works on Africa as a source of information, which leads me to assume that it probably basically is at least acceptable, even if it might not be a less preferable source than some national newspapers, magazines, or other media. John Carter (talk) 15:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It is a news aggregator which seems to republish material by permission of the original source. I would recommend that articles be cited to the original publisher via AllAfrica.com ie say both where it comes from and where you got it. Reliability, as always, is dependent on what specific material is being cited and the specific article which is being referenced and that article's publisher.

From what I have seen of articles on AllAfrica claims should be carefully scrutinized not because of the quality of AllAfrica but because the underlying news services are, from a first world perspective, rather low quality. Often even national papers are not independent, can have a strong bias which may difficult to spot without underlying local/regional knowledge and are often credulous in their reporting. These problems can also exist in first world papers but the weaker the Fourth Estate is in a given area typically the more likely news sources from that area are to be unreliable. Jbh^Talk 16:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

David Seaman (journalist) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Seaman (journalist)

The article David Seaman (journalist) is up for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Seaman (journalist)) and the subject apparently made a three-minute "call to arms" style about his article and its proposed deletion.

IP editors have been restoring a variety of unreliable/dubious sources (Zero Hedge, "Morning News USA," an op-ed in a campus newspaper) and citing sources that don't actually reflect the content (i.e., citing a local TV station article which references in passing "someone who tweets under the name David Seaman" and affirmatively attributing it to the article subject).

More eyeballs and hands would be appreciated. Neutrality^talk 01:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine

Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine [ http://www.alternative-therapies.com/ ] claims to be peer reviewed. Is it a reliable source for medical claims?

This relates to the discussion at Talk:Electromagnetic hypersensitivity#The Science of Electro-Magnetic Sensitivity. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:50, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I checked the affiliations of a number of the members of the review board, and their institution's websites pay a lot of lipservice to "evidence based medicine" or equivalent phrases. I think that's a pretty good sign. After all, medical treatments and medicines are all alternative right up to the point that they're proven effective (and some would say beyond that, if they're only useful in fringe [not WP:FRINGE] cases). MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I looked at the credentials of the editorial board and their appeared to be a mixture of mainstream and alternative practitioners, and mainly doctors rather than researchers. I would also note that some of the authors only publish in this journal. It claims that it is highest impact factor CAM journal in the United States. On the whole it would appear that it could host RS artcilces, although RS is determined on an article by article basis.Martinlc (talk) 20:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

It appears to be a reliable source. It has articles that report the results of studies carried out by scientists using standard research methodology. The problem is that isolated studies are primary sources and have limited value for articles. One article for example says that three small studies have shown that some dogs may be able to detect hypoglycemia in people. After extensive testing, this theory may turn out to be true at which time it will become included in standard medical textbooks. Or it may turn out that subsequent studies cannot confirm it. In the meantime, it provides nothing that we could add to any existing article. TFD (talk) 22:01, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes any use would have to conform to WP:MEDRS which requires strong review evidence not just individual studies.Martinlc (talk) 23:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• I'm just (sheepishly) adding to the record, that of course, we need MEDRS sources, and must judge each use on the specific paper and text it's cited to. I wasn't trying to give a blanket pass to the publisher, even though my last comment reads like it was. My bad. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Sources for the names and occupation of a BLP's parents

This is in reference to the article Ilias Psinakis and the names of the subject's parents and his father's occupation. The subject is a living person and currently the mayor of Marathon, Greece.

The source for his parents' names and the name of his brother is his biography on the official website of the city here. (Google translation here) Can this be used to reference their names?

This article in GRReporter (an English language Greek news site) states that his father "Notis Psinakis was the owner of a factory producing electrical appliances". Can this be used to source that information? I note GRReporter is used as a reference/source in multiple books by reputable publishers. However, in the discussion at Talk:Ilias Psinakis, an editor is claiming that this source "It isn't journalistic news, it's an opinion piece. Fluff. Fan stuff. We don't call opinion-pieces and fan-like content a reliable source." I'd appreciate an outside opinion on whether this renders it unreliable for simply verifying his father's occupation. Voceditenore (talk) 17:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I would think an official biography such as the Mayor's page on the city's website is a reliable source for the person's family. I think people are just being difficult. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 19:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Keep your personal feelings about me out of your comments. You have been chastised in the not-so-distant past for this and certainly know better than to start violating WP:NPA. The mayor's personal bio page and the city's website are WP:PRIMARY and not acceptable sources for a BLP. You also know better in this regard. Frankly, I would love to see the article contain the names of his immediate family. The problem is there are no appropriate sources out there to allow for those names to be added. If such reliable sources can be found, great. I'm all for such content, but not if its there in a manner that violates BLP policy. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:39, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

You need to learn to AGF. Let's not talk about not-so-distant pasts, you seem to have one as well. Why not stick to the topic at hand. For a name of a family member, you can most definitely use the mayor's site. Let's not get so overly bureaucratic. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 19:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

This determination is based on what policy? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

And just for the record, AGF was violated by you when you stated, "I think people are just st being difficult". There's nothing in that statement that deserves AGF - your meaning was wholly obvious. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Have you read the WP:PRIMARY you linked to above? It can be used in this case for a simple statement of fact not needing interpretation. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 19:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

(1) You didn't answer the question. (2) Primary, as a policy, is talking about basic facts, not the names of other individuals. Do I doubt these people are his parents? Mostly no. The person who created this article has tried numerous times to remove the fact that the article subject was born in the Philippenes rather than Greece and are basing it on some fly-by-night source found somewhere on the interwebs. That alone causes me to pause as to what's in the article, how it's sourced, and whether or not what's in there from the original article creator is true. From the aspect of this being a BLP, verifiability and reliable sourcing is even more imperative. As I have already stated at the article talk page, you can't just add the names of other individuals and their relationship to the article subject without it being substantiated by a reliable source. Primary sources - especially in the case of other people's names dropping into a BLP - are not what we should be looking to here. Primary sources are not reliable sources. Anyone can create a webpage and claim they are all kinds of things including being related to Person A and Person B. If we - encyclopedia editors - take it as fact, even though it's not coming from a reliable source, then we are compromising what the encyclopedia is supposed to be: a collection of facts based on reliable, verifiable sources.-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

There is a confusion here, between primary sources and self published sources. Primary sources refer to court and other documents, transcripts, public records, etc., as opposed to secondary sources and tertiary sources which are based on the primary sources. The relevant guideline here is WP:BLPSELFPUB (using the subject as a self-published source), i.e., his biography is on the official website of the city of which he is mayor to source the first names of his parents. That information is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject, and there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. The question is whether his merely listing the first names of his parents "involves claims about third parties." In my view is a completely unreasonable interpretation of that guideline in this instance. For one thing, there are probably multiple Greek people with the same first and last names. The first names of his parents is a basic fact about the subject and no one else. In any case, it would be useful to have the input of other editors here, and preferably ones who refrain from bringing up each others' block logs. If necessary, I will put a neutrally worded notice on the BLP noticeboard asking for further input here. Voceditenore (talk) 07:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• Voceditenore is correct here. And just to expand further - primary sources (and self-published sources) are not inherantly unreliable as a matter of policy. They are reliable for non-contentious information about the subject. The Mayor's biography on the local government website is a perfectly acceptable source for basic information (absent any conflicts). An author's personal blog would be reliable if they post they are currently working on a new novel, a football teams official website would generally be valid for their current squad etc etc. BLP's require more care with regards to self-published or primary sources, but unless there is actually a credible reason to distrust the information (eg: his biography states his father owned a factory, other reliable sources state he was a member of the Gestapo etc) its useable. 'Its a primary source' by itself is not a reason to exclude, its just a reason to look at it more closely. I make no comment on if the material *should* be included, as that is an UNDUE issue. But I cant see from the above links anything has been presented to show the material for being included has been sourced unreliably. From taking a look at GRR it seems reliable for the information listed here for inclusion. Its a professional publication with an editorial staff etc etc. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Only in death, your explanation seems reasonable, and I accept what you are saying in regard to the sourcing. My issue has been also along the lines of whether the co tent is necessary and if the article can survive without it until we find a better, more appropriate source. I still maintain that putting in the names of people we can't truly verify true policy regarding sourcing for blp's is a bit risky. As well comma I encourage you to read the articles & blogs posted at what you believe is a reliable source as named above. Look at the English translation, and you will see that while the source is a professional publication, it is pretty much equivalent to the National Enquirer or here in the United States. Lots of love, lots of fan type sentiment, and not a lot of journalistic oversight. That has been one of my biggest problems with that source when it's mentioned as being professional and acceptable. I honestly don't think it is either. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Winkelvi, the GRReporter is moot, as it is not going to be used to source the parents' first names. His biography on the official website of the city of which he is mayor is going to be used. However, the GRReporter article was in the politics section, not the entertainment or society sections. He is newsworthy because he is probably the most flamboyant (for better or worse) politician in Greece. If you read the article carefully, it is actually not a "fan piece" at all. In places it makes some quite critical assertions about him. We have established that his biography on the municipal website is reliable for specifying the first names of his parents. That is standard, uncontroversial information in biographies. There is nothing "risky" about using the municipal website for this. In fact, you are the one who restored the version of the article with his father's nickname (Notis) referenced to GRReporter iinstead of his full name (Panagiotis). So please drop the stick about the manufactured BLP violation of sourcing his parents' first names. Voceditenore (talk) 08:52, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Voceditenore, I'd advise you to back the fuck off with the aggressive attitude and accusations. I happen to disagree with a few opinions on this and have defended my position. So what? Telling me to drop the stick when I don't have one is wrongheaded. Telling me I am manufacturing a BLP vio when all I've done is defend a position I see as an issue is a personal attack. Disagree with me, fine. Starting with the fisticuffs and bullying behavior because I'm alone in this is uncalled for bullshit. I had a better opinion of you previous to this. No longer. Now it's obvious you're just another of the shark-like rabble who circle and pounce opportunistically. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 13:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• "He is newsworthy because he is probably the most flamboyant (for better or worse) politician in Greece." Actually he was newsworthy before going into politics. He rose to fame as a manager for several notable singers and actors, with frequent appearances on television, and the gossip press publishing rumors and speculations about his personal life. He then turned up as a television star in his own right, and actually got decent ratings.

He is not the first Greek celebrity who decides to switch careers to politics and actually manages to get elected. Over the last few decades we have had actors, singers, and even a few athletes getting elected as Members of Parliament. Fame results in making them recognizable and gets them votes. Not that all of them manage to have enduring political careers. Some of them only serve one or two terms and then vanish from the political scene.

The one career that I have trouble understanding is that of Adonis Georgiadis. Before becoming a prominent politician, his main claim to fame was presenting telemarketing shows and trying to convince people to buy whatever book he was peddling that week. Both as a telemarketer and as a politician, his main style of speaking is shouting at the top of his lungs. I find it annoying, but he keeps getting elected. I wonder what is the appeal. Dimadick (talk) 11:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)