Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 223

Archive 220

Archive 221

Archive 222

Archive 223

Archive 224

Archive 225

→

Archive 230

List of European countries by average wage mistakes

User:TechnicianGB added in the article List of European countries by average wage a reference of Eurostat.

The article requires in a clear way ONLY net average wages and not the earnings working full time 100%.The average net wages are calculated considering all the net wages (part time,helps to families,invalid benefits and so on).In this reference there is nothing of all this.Italy and Spain haven't references from statal statistic agencies with official data about net average wages like others.TechnicianGB made so a creative editing inventing net and gross wages.His reference and so the data he posted are totally wrong in the article. They must be deleted.Thanks.Anioni (talk) 14:40, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

References

This article is a minefield. If adding something from Eurostat is problematic in an article about Europe, we have to wonder why. Can you justify the way it is currently put together, with so many sources, that may not be compatible? Itsmejudith (talk) 20:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Here it's all well explained [[1]]

For the ways this user acts, the english spelling he has, and the accusations/arguments he does i'm every day more convinced that's a sockpuppet user of User:Sad9721 and by consequent User:Mediolanum, an user with 60 potential sockpuppets which always acts the same, spells the same and edits the same topics.

This user edited with laugheable sources and non trustful/redundant sources (which even were talking about other thing) the article List of European countries by average wage which was edited a long time ago (and not by me, I just put the data another user wrote as it's the official EUROSTAT data) and "Anioni" started with those editions on 28th February, when all of this started.

He accuses me of "vandalism". Of being "anti-italian". That "I don't know what i'm doing". "I just write fake data". I'm really amazed how this user already can keep doing those kinds of editions on Wikipedia after it's clear which kinds of editions does and it's a clear clone of permanent banned wikipedia accounts (like User:Ambidibody or User:Sad9721) as acts exactly the same, replaces the same articles with fake data and wrong sources and then accuses anyone else which reverts his articles for "vandalism". --TechnicianGB (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to say! I didn't edit nothing. He started to change the page for redundant sources in 28th of February. Here is the proof [[2]] and now he tells that "I added a reference" while that reference and source was from many months ago. Funny! I won't even keep being a part of this discussion. I'm really amazed how far this has went after it's all clear. This user started to edit the page for his own likings and from 1 week he just accuses me of "vandalising" and "doing changes" when I keep reverting the aspect that the European average wages page achieved a long time ago! Just because I didn't let him to make what he does in the page and to put redundant sources which talk about other topics he now even believes he has done something good and I did something wrong. Whatever... my time is not deserved for this. --TechnicianGB (talk) 23:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

This could potentially waste a lot of people's time, but it seems that some things have to be sorted out. You were advised on ANI to take out a sock puppet investigation. You need to do that or stop making allegations of sock puppetry. Here we can only advise on sources and I will do that now. Eurostat is the best source for comparative statistical information about European countries. Indeed it is pretty much the only source unless you go to wider international bodies like the UN or OECD. Making up tables from individual countries' data is likely to count as Original Research for the obvious reason that the methods of counting may be different. A Request for Comment might be useful, and if the article can't be improved so that it is better founded in reliable stats it might have to be deleted. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:37, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

He tries to avoid the main point that caused this situation with non sense answers or not sharp answers about the numbers of reference with Eurostat data.I think User:Itsmejudith is right writing about the field full of mines and about the use of one method.Or people delete Eurostat data of Italy and Spain because reference can't be compared with other references( that derive generally-not all- from statal statistic sites and not official tax calculators) or Eurostat data net earnings for full (100%) workers must be set for all the states for which Eurostat provides the data.The article should be renamed "List of European countries by net earnings(wages) for full time workers".In this case naturally all data of states without data in the Eurostat table must be deleted.The third option could be to delete the data of Italy and Spain and to add below another table with only Eurostat data for full time (100%) net average wages.Anioni (talk) 09:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Most of your editions are redundant. What do you not understand about the sources you used are not useful in any case? I'm not the only one who told you that, even a wikipedia administrator told you that in your talk page.

Yes, I opened a sockpuppet case. Btw "Anioni" you misunderstood itsmejudith, Judith was saying to delete the entire article because it's always a mine field because many users edit it with unuseful sources or vandalize it. lol

You try to avoid anything and try to defend yourself with something which can't be defended. You changed the consesus old source and data to a data which you invented from an unuseful source. End of the story. Don't try now to mix up the things.

You are a brand new editor here very suspicious and which always edit the same topics. I've been caring for that page a long time before you made your 1st edition on Wikipedia so anytime when you call me a "vandal" I can't make nothing more than laughing. You also threatened me. You also talked any kind of bs you wanted. You called me "anti-italian" when I shown you sources. You called me that "i'm an ignorant and I not know nothing about statistics" and now called me "psichiatric case"[[3]] in your page because I put a suspicion on you to be potential clone of many permanent banned wikipedia users. And you also deleted your warns about the vandalism on the page of Italy which another user made to you! So conversation closed by my part.

You readed the entire comment of Itsmejudith? Partially says the same as me. EUROSTAT is the most useful source. Doesn't matter if other countries haven't got those data, because other countries have got official data. If you want seek by yourself in the Eurostat reference and add the Eurostat data for Belgium. The thing is here that both Italy and Spain have their Eurostat references and data so you can't say nothing more. Try evading now, as always. Not a reason anymore, stop putting Belgium as an example, you have a problem with Belgium data, then, edit it by yourself, I don't have any problem with it so I will not edit it. But I will keep the official sources for Spain and Italy. And EUROSTAT is the most useful. --TechnicianGB (talk) 18:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Those where the sources you used, not useful sources as other people told you, not only me a source talking about the politicans wages. Then a "net calcullator" page Then another redundant source which wasn't even good referenced

I just returned the consensual aspect of the page as the source was totally redundant/unuseful for Italy and with totally fake data, this one was the source a source which references this same Wikipedia article with fake data! A source which uses this wikipedia article as their main source. You know what Wikipedia rules are? One of the rules is clear. You can't use Wikipedia to reference another Wikipedia article. This is the same even being in another website! An anonymous user has maded that change and remained it, I just removed it to the official/real wages. As that page references Wikipedia, and the article of List of European countries by average wage was vandalized hundreds of times anytime it becomes unprotected... --TechnicianGB (talk) 18:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

References

You last in talking without aiming to solve the situation. The fact IS that for all the states must be used the same criteria and method.It isn't scientific setting on Italy and Spain Eurostat data of full time workers only and on other countries statal sites or not official sites references (with not official calculator tax aside).Changing only Belgium the whole situation doesn't change.An average net wage includes all kind of workers (e.g. part time) ,invalid and families benefits and so on.Eurostast 100% AW publishes only a kind of net wage so it's wrong in that article.Sometimes repetita iuvant.User:Itsmejudith is right about the possibility of deleting all and to use eventually only Eurostat data. 1)In this situation it needs italian and spanish statistic data published by their statal agencies and Eurostat reference must be deleted .People can post anyway a table with 100% (full time)net wages for all coutries based on it. 2)Another possibility is that reference of Eurostat with full time (100%)net wages is set for all states.In this case countries that haven't data provided by Eurostat or are deleted or are set aside with a particular note.

Belgium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_average_wage#cite_note-13 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_average_wage#cite_note-12

Estonia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_average_wage#cite_note-31 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_average_wage#cite_note-30

Czech Republic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_average_wage#cite_note-27 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_average_wage#cite_note-26 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_average_wage#cite_note-25 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_average_wage#cite_note-24

Even 4 references for Czech Republic of which 2 for wages.Useless to say that all tax calculator references aren't official like exchange rate sites (theoretically people should use the average exchange rates of the considered period published only by the ECB). It's impossible set in the same table Eurostat data and these ones.I already posted some ways to solve the disaster in that article.If there are better and rational ideas are welcome to solve this situation that derives from creativity .Anioni (talk) 09:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Let me make myself 100% clear. Eurostat is a very reliable source for statistics about Europe, which was the question asked. I went to look at the article and wished I hadn't because my brief comments are now giving rise to long acrimonious screeds. I think there may be underlying problems with the article. I don't think it probably needs deleting but may need a complete rewrite. I suggest that you go to a relevant wikiproject and ask for help. And stop arguing with each other. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree User:Itsmejudith.If i well realize people can rewrite all the article using only Eurostat as reference (may be explaining that reference reports full time workers net wages without considering benefits or other things and changing what it needs).I'm just waiting User:TechnicianGB to act as you suggested.Anioni (talk) 14:22, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

lol that's what I've said many days ago. If you have any problem with the source of another country edit it according to Eurostat. Already Italy and Spain and a few other countries have it. Feel free to start editing.

There are countries with official data from their governments, those ones shouldn't be changed. But in cases as Spain, Italy, Belgium etc which haven't got official government sources it's better EUROSTAT. --TechnicianGB (talk) 23:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok,i'll follow you User:TechnicianGB.I'll set Eurostat data for all the states that haven't references with official data from public statistic agencies .I'll do the same also for all the states that haven 't official statistic agencies taxation references or references that can't report average exchange rates reffered to a period.I'll add for states, that aren't expressed in Eurostat and that haven't average exchange rates references or taxation reference from official agencies ,that their data have these limits so not trustble like the Eurostat ones. What do you think about this agreement User:Itsmejudith?Anioni (talk) 09:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad you're starting to make an agreement. We always have to be careful when taking data from several sources that they are compatible. You might consider making a request for comment. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:33, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Where and when could ask me and User:TechnicianGB this request for a comment User:Itsmejudith?

I can see for some edition of 2016 when another Wikipedia user changed all the countries according to the EUROSTAT data. Want me to edit that? (unless the countries which have actual official data from their own governments) or you want to do it @Anioni: ? I don't have any problem. --TechnicianGB (talk) 22:10, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

User:TechnicianGB you can start editing immediately reference with Eurostat data where you like.Eurostat reference will ban a lot of every day vandalization and creativity from that article because in Eurostat all is official,net and with real average exchange rates.Thank you for asking me this.At the beginning of the article people must report that only net wages full time are considered.I'll add Eurostat data to all the states that haven't official references from their national statistic agencies or from official national taxation agency sites or average exchange rates.Gross wages can't be considered in this situation (with Eurostat).I checked references for all states in the article and the greatest part of them will be changed with Eurostat data.Even this morning for Czech Republic and Slovakia were edited data without official taxation and average exchange rate references.For states that haven't Eurostat data i'll warn about this in the article and also about their eventual limits for this reason, not official taxation and exchange rates.Thank you again.Anioni (talk) 09:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@Anioni: you're welcome, I don't have time to make such a big edition of the page until the next Sunday, if you want feel free to start adding it, I will do it by the Sunday if not. Regards --TechnicianGB (talk) 21:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Don't worry ,i'll wait for you to rewrite the whole article that now is disaster.See you .Thank you again by Anioni.

Carsalesbase.com

The site carsalesbase.com (or its former name, left-lane.com) has been added to a large number of articles mostly by a single-purpose account. The only information about the site is from the about page, where it says the author is Bart Demandt in the Netherlands, and he has worked in car sales. In other words, it's a personal blog.

The reason why this particular personal blog might be a desirable source is that it contains lots of vehicle sales figures, which are generally proprietary data. Bart tells us "Sources: Manufacturers, ANDC" for the Toyota data cited here in Toyota 4Runner. The ANDC is probably the New Automotive News Data Center ($159 per year), "manufacturers" is vague. I assume Bart is getting this from internal sales documents from one or more car makers, either about themselves or their competitors. Regardless of where Bart gets his data, it's still self-published. Here's all the artiels that have cited this site:

If Bart were to edit Wikipedia himself, and cite his sources directly, that would be fine. And it would be great if WP:The Wikipedia Library could get access to ANDC, ACEA, JAMA and other proprietary car industry databases, but citing some guy's personal website isn't really a substitute for a reliable source. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Mondoweiss again

This is getting farcical. I add material from Israel-advocacy mags like The Tablet (which hosts commentators I regard as inflammatory rightwing zealots] like Liel Leibovitz) or The Forward and, from the other American Jewish anti-Zionist perspective I cite on occasion material from Mondoweiss where appropriate. No one objects to my use of pro Israeli mags: the objection is to my use of a perfectly respectable magazine that hosts views from the other, balancing perspective. This has been repeatedly challenged but in the past years the verdict has been Mondoweiss is not revertible on sight, as was frequently done in the past. The most recent instance is here Notwithstanding the RSN verdict, opposing editors still insisted that I gain their consensus to reintroduce the edit. One can also consult this, where two sockpuppets, User:Averysoda and User:Brad Dyer, weighed in negatively. The independent advice from User:Rhoark allowed its inclusion, depending on context. This discussion was again disturbed by a pro-Israeli sockpuppet User:Epson Salts. In the present case, we are talking about Mondoweiss for an absolutely innocuous piece of independently verifiable opinion, in an article that has nothing intemperate or controversial.

The advice is again being ignored. At Michael Sfard, User:Shrike, with the above judgement fresh in mind, immediately reverted out an wholly innocuous addition sourced to Mondoweiss. Maybe true but you have to find WP:RS that tells in this WP:BLP

What was the putative WP:BLP violation?

'Michael Sfard (is) - - the grandchild of Holocaust survivors. His parents had been expelled from Poland for their activist work on behalf of democratic ideals.(Robert Herbst,'Unfortunately there are many more decent than brave people,’ Mondoweiss 12 March 2017)

Why on earth is it a violation of a person's biography to note his grandparents survived the Holocaust? Wildly absurd.

The editor states that he had done a google search to verify if this innocuous statement was true or not before reverting, but could find no evidence of it and hence had WP:BLP worries.

• Saying a human rights lawyer’s grandparents were holocaust survivors nowhere violates BLP, and this is therefore a false edit summary.
• The simplest google checks yield numerous citations in other sources for this fact. (Michael Sfard+holocaust+grandparents, or variants).

Once more could neutral editors clarify if, as looks to be the case with a group of editors, regular or sockpuppets, Mondoweiss is absolutely under ban on wiki, as Shrike and others keep apparently insisting by reverting it on sight? Nishidani (talk) 18:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Mondowiess is WP:SPS and not secondary source and can't used in WP:BLP.Your statemement contain WP:BLP violation I suggest that you will fix it.--Shrike (talk) 07:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Please don't comment if you ignore reading the links above, which show neutral editors have not determined Mondoweiss is WP:SPS. User:Rhoark indeed denied it was any such thing, replying to a number of sockpuppets who assert it is. One cannot repeat a charge in an edit summary that ignores what informed external opinions on the RSN board variously state.Nishidani (talk) 10:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can see Mondoweiss is not case of WP:SPS, as it has an editorial staff and infrastructure of small news portal. However not being WP:SPS doesn't it make a reputable or reliable news source yet. Considering that the site is somewhat controversial (at least to many) and not mainstream news either, I would avoid using it if possible and try to source the content in question by other means.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

And we talking here about WP:BLP so we should carefully choose our sources.--Shrike (talk) 12:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, WP:BLP suggest additional caution, however the content that is sourced here seems completely uncontroversial afaik.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• 1. Yes its a BLP so we should be careful. 2. Mondoweiss is not an SPS but may be problematic with controversial content in the IP area. 3.I cannot see any BLP issue that would prevent noting this subject's grandparents survived the holocaust (unless we were perhaps inferring they survived due to untoward reasons). 4. Taking into account the previous, imho Mondoweiss is reliable for the content sourced in that article in this instance. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:47, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The problem it is about I/P conflict this information meant to give more positive light to the political activist in question.And according to the blp policy it doesn't matter really " that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable"--Shrike (talk) 14:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The problem it is about I/P conflict this information meant to give more positive light to the political activist in question

So you are saying you excised mention that Michael Sfard has forebears who survived the Holocaust or Polish anti-Semitism because this human rights lawyer, in your spin a political activist because, if this is added, it would make themn appear in a more positive light? Do you realize the implications of what you wrote here? I.e. that you edited out information of critics of Israeli policies regarding Palestinians whenever it shows them in 'a positive light', let's say, their human dimension or the motivation for their humanitarian causes?Nishidani (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Shrike. It took me 3 seconds, and the other editor no doubt not much more time, to verify that the information given was corroborated. He said the correct procedure was to google round. You said you did before reverting. That means, if true, that you couldn't google the simplest request. In your edit summary you allowed it might be true, so you reverted not because the information was a BLP violation, but because you dislike Mondoweiss for its 'controversial content'. All sources on the I/P conflict are controversial, including the New York Times, as scholars have repeatedly shown. That goes for the many Israeli sources, which comprehensively give as facts what turn out to be direct transcripts of army bulletins. No one objects to this partisan sourcing for those reasons. Watchdog mags like Mondoweiss, and +972 magazine are necessary to balance the WP:Systemic bias we have in our news circuits. They report what the corporative news outlets often miss, ignore or traduce. I don't use 99% of the material I read on that, or most other outlets. I use my judgement as to the appropriateness encyclopedically of the information given, and if it is uncontroversial matter from a minor but significant source, as in this and several other cases recently, I include it. None of the regular reverters has challenged my use of Mondoweiss at Taha Muhammad Ali here, and rightly so. Nishidani (talk) 15:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I pretty much read that the same as Nishidani, if you are seriously making the argument that because including details of his grandparents (alledgedly) paints him in a positive light, it shouldnt be included, I am pretty sure thats a non-starter. Its neither a reliability issue, nor a BLP issue. At best its a NPOV issue and even then I doubt that will get any traction. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

New Observer

I'm surprised something about this site hasn't come up yet. I'd like to get some form of consensus on the general reliability of The New Observer. (It may be down today but most of its articles are viewable via Archive.org. The few reliability checks I've found so far include one from Media Bias/Fact Check, a site that so far seems dead-accurate in its judgments, and calls the New Observer a questionable source, with "extreme right wing bias. Publishes stories that are simply not true (fake news) and uses racist language." Snopes also describes a fake story the New Observer reported as fact. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 05:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Does nobody know more about this or simply not care? As it stands now, based on the material I've found, I would label it generally not a reliable source. I'll treat it that way, until or unless someone says otherwise here. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 12:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• Could you give us some context? Many sources are reliable in one context, but unreliable in a different context... and this may be one of those. Blueboar (talk) 12:34, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Sure it's based on my diff removing content from this article, which doesn't appear to be supported by and contradicts more reliable sources it seems. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 12:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

That would be a correct removal IMO. In this context the New Observer's opinion on right-wing issues would not be considered reliable. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:50, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Since we cannot access the journal and the archive isn't working, here's a sample of their journalism: ""Donald Trump is making a “mistake” by continuing to have an “adversarial relationship” with CNN because that network “shapes [his] perception in capitals around the world,” the chief Jew in charge of the media giant has warned." While being right-wing is not a bar to being a reliable source, the sources promotes conspiracism and has no record for accuracy or professionalism. TFD (talk) 03:08, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Hindawi journal and WP:MEDRS

This is about [4]. The source is not WP:MEDRS compliant on several counts:

• it is not a review;
• the journal is not MEDLINE indexed;
• Hindawi was called "a borderline case" by Jeffrey Beall. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

This is PMID 22505818 . The bigger problem is that it is a primary source used to support WP:Biomedical content. Yes not MEDRS and MEDRS is needed. A recent review from a good journal. Jytdog (talk) 05:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Branimir Štulić

A spokesman for the subject has made a request at WP:BLPN which alledges a number of issues, primarily "Most of the references taken as a sources for this article are fabricated fake interviews which was a very common practice among journalists in a communist society at that time (also after Yugoslavia's breakup)." Could someone who either has experience in the area, or speaks Serbian and/or Croatian please take a look at the article and opine at BLPN. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Cary Grant middle name-reliable sources?

Cary Grant

Sources

• Free BMD UK
• Find A Death

The article was written and approved as a Good Article with his middle name as Alexander. It has now been changed to Alec on the basis of these 2 sources. Grant's US naturalization documents list his birth name as Archibald Alexander Leach. We hope (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

• See Alec - its a shortening for Alexander. So both are likely correct depending on where used/at different times. A formal government document is more likely to have the longer formal name (hence Alexander on his naturalization documents) while a more relaxed usage might be Alec. Generally for forenames, we go by the name they are commonly known by (see Alec Baldwin) but for middle names I dont think there is a naming guideline? Apparantly its at WP:MIDDLENAME - which to my reading would indicate Alexander as I do not consider the two above sources 'reliable' for biographical material. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, neither did I. Now what to do about the changes and those who are sold on "Alec" without needing to have an RFC? We hope (talk) 18:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Cary Grant: A Biography by Marc Elliot, p. 390: "Archibald Alec Leach. Alec is the familiar form of Alexander (as Dick is to Richard) and is the way the name appears on the birth records.". [5] - Nunh-huh 18:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

The sources above include actual scans of two different official birth records, both of which confirm what that Elliot source says (i.e., that "Alec" is what appears on the official birth records). I think it's therefore very clear that his middle name at birth was officially registered as "Alec". It's possible that most people in 1904 (and even in 1942 when he filled out his naturalization papers) didn't think the difference between Alec and Alexander as a middle name was worth a lot of fuss, but his official middle name at birth was clearly Alec. Note that his original name is prefixed by the word "born" in the lead, so it should reflect the name used when he was born, not whatever alternative form he may have also used later in life. There was also a prior discussion (now at Talk:Cary Grant/Archive 1#Middle name) that settled on "Alec" as the birth name. We don't really seem to have any dispute here about the basic facts. The article includes a mention that when he filled out his naturalization application in 1942, he listed his middle name as "Alexander", so no information is being suppressed here. In my view, it is important to note that it is not the reliability of the source articles that is under discussion, but only the reliability of the scanned documents that are depicted in those articles. Unless someone faked the scans, which is extremely unlikely, the scans should be considered OK. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure why anyone thinks there is only one "correct" middle name, or that it's up to Wikipedia editors to choose it. According to the sources, his middle name was Alec at birth, and he used the middle name "Alexander" on his naturalization form. So both were used as his middle name. Why not give his name at birth, with a footnote indicating his later use of Alexander? - Nunh-huh 20:42, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done. I just did that in the article; let's see what others think. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:10, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Journal of Hebrew Scriptures?

Re This is from the Journal of Hebrew Scriptures, which is open access, and therefore not a reliable source.

Does this journal meet RS? Should it be removed summarily, as here? Are open access journals implicitly non-RS?

Is Journal of Hebrew Scriptures open-access (whatever that is meaning here), how are its articles selected or reviewed and does this meet RS?

The problem with this edit and source removal is that it appears to be based on the hypothesis that all open access journals fail RS, presumably because some free-to-read open access journals are funding themselves by paid publishing from the authors and an uncritical acceptance policy. At least from the evidence here, there's no reason to extend that (which is a real problem with some journals) to Journal of Hebrew Scriptures.

I'd note that the article content was also removed when the source was removed. There is no indication the content was incorrect, breached BLP or couldn't be sourced otherwise. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I can't speak specifically as to the Journal of Hebrew Scriptures, but Andy is clearly correct that open-access journals and predatory open-access journals are not the same thing. Many open-access journals are perfectly legitimate, and it's improper to remove cites or text solely because it is published in an OA journal. It requires a little bit more thought than that.

Some criteria can be seen in Tom Hill, Identifying legitimate open access journals: some suggestions from a publisher, Learned Publishing 28: 59–62, doi:10.1087/20150109. Hill's criteria are very straightforward: (1) does the journal serve readers, and not just authors? Does journal "provide services that are not directed towards attracting submissions, and ... publishing fees"? Does the journal have a "policy on publication of corrections, expressions of concern, and retraction"? (2) is the journal indexed (i.e, included in respected bibliographic databases)? (3) does the journal show awareness of ethical and legal issues? Does it have policies on plagiarism, declaring funding sources and competing interests, and ethical requirements in research? Is it a member of a body such as the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association that requires compliance with ethical rules? (4) Is the journal pay-to-publish or not? Does the journal demonstrate independent editorial decision making and peer review? Neutrality^talk 15:54, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the "predatory" link, I hadn't noticed we had the specific article, but that's just the distinction I was thinking of. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

And BTW, I can't find Journal of Hebrew Scriptures on Beall's List. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Beall has not updated/maintained his list for quite awhile and as far as I know has now actively withdrawn it. Treat that as you will. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

By "quite a while" I presume you mean January? I have laundry that's older than that. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Second time I have had to trout myself today, I read it as Jan 2016. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Many open access journals republish articles, which should be weighed based on the original publication. This article for example was written by a renowned Old Testament scholar,Gordon Wenham, and published by the reputable Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge,[6] and therefore passes rs. TFD (talk) 03:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Geology Underfoot in Death Valley

Is https://books.google.it/books?hl=de&id=EvfgqYRyCUAC&q=lake#v=onepage&q=manly&f=false a reliable source? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Its publisher, Mountain Press Publishing Company, appears to be a legitimate book publisher, one that has been around for nearly 70 years and is independent of the author, and not just an e-book imprint or an operation run out of the author's own spare bedroom. So I would treat it as any other book: probably reliable, but details depend on what it's being used to source. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

The authors have been favorably reviewed for another of their Geology Underfoot series in The Journal of Geology (University of Chicago Press) [7]. I think it is fair to conclude they are a RS for Wikipedia. - Bri (talk) 23:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Now putting that source to use... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:40, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Bill Cunningham

Hi. Hopefully someone can me with this. During a GA review some more biographical information on Bill Cunningham (rugby union)'s family was requested. Some information was added but I have questions regarding some of the sources.

• Cunningham was the son of Hera (Sarah) Ngaihika Halbert and her second husband, James Cunningham.[2] Hera was the daughter of Thomas Halbert, a whaler and trader who landed in Poverty Bay in about 1832, and his fifth wife, Keita Kaikiri, who belonged to the Rongowhakaata iwi. Hera later remarried Paratene Tatae,[2]
  • [2] links here cerberuscoins.wordpress.com
• Cunningham married Ethel Minnie Dance of Waihi on 23 September 1907.[5][6] The same year, Ethel gave birth to their son, William Henry Cunningham,[7] however he died at only a day old.[8] This was the only child the couple had and never had anymore.
  • [5] -- I am happy with this reference.
  • [6] -- "Marriage search – use Cunningham in 'Groom's family name' field, and 23/9/1907 in 'Search from date' and 'Search to date' fields". Internal Affairs. Retrieved 19 January 2016.
  • [7] -- "Birth search – use Cunningham in 'Given name' and William Henry in 'Family Name' and 'Ethel' in 'Mother's name' field, and 01/01/1907 in 'Search from date' and 'Search to date' fields". Internal Affairs. Retrieved 27 December 2016.
  • [8] -- "Death search – use Cunningham in 'Given name' and William Henry in 'Family Name' field, and 01/01/1907 in 'Search from date' and 'Search to date' fields". Internal Affairs. Retrieved 27 December 2016.

My questions are, is [2] reliable or not, are [6]-[8] too primary? I may take this article to WP:FAC at some point so any help from the experts here would be appreciated. Thanks. -- Shudde ^talk 09:19, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't use the BDM index searches as references - they're as much primary sources as the registration entries themselves. This might also be an 'original research' issue. That last statement is unreferenced (and cannot be referenced from BDM because births after 19th March 1917 are still embargoed as at now). I'd suggest going to Papers Past and looking for obituaries; and if obituaries (or a published book on his life, if one has been written) don't mention all of these events, the ones not mentioned are probably not important enough to be included. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Further comment - the birth and death registration references don't work anyway (I've just tested them). Daveosaurus (talk) 04:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@Daveosaurus: Okay thanks. Any thoughts on the wordpress source?

Is Wikipedia a reliable source?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Wikipedia has identified several well-known publications, including long-established newspapers, as "unreliable sources". I suggest that Wikipedia needs to publish structured criteria for evaluating reliability of a source, and to evaluate wikipedia itself against these criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.145.255.62 (talk • contribs)

 Done Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source Mduvekot (talk) 21:36, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Mduvekot, I see what you did there. Traveling back in time seven years to answer a question before it was asked. Pretty cool.

109.145.255.62, obvious Daily mail shill is obvious. Tell your buddies at the Mail to read WP:DAILYMAILRFC for a comprehensive list of reasons why Wikipedia considers TDM to be an unreliable source. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Guy Macon, WP:NPA applies to IPs too. That particular IP geolocates to Thornton Heath, not Kensington, so I fail to see how obvious Daily mail shill is warranted, even if the IP is quite probably a troll. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I stand by my comment. I am seeing a pattern of comments, all from the UK, all with similar "well-known publication / long-established newspaper" language, all failing to mention "The Daily mail" by name, and all repeating the bogus argument from The Daily Mail that implies that one has to be a reliable source in order to identify a reliable source. None of them ever respond when someone points out that Wikipedia explicitly claims not to be a reliable source. I hear a WP:DUCK quacking. Calling an obvious TDM shill an obvious TDM shill is no worse than calling an obvious troll and obvious troll. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

They might also want to read blacklisting and Godwin's law before telling anyone that blacklisting is a term which in its modern context was popularised by the Nazis. Also, as the Mail said, it "should be noted here that, ironically enough, the Mail wrote to all its writers and reporters three years ago instructing them never to rely on Wikipedia as a single source, such were the concerns about its accuracy." Which implies that up till 2014 they'd failed to read Wikipedia policy that Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, and were happy to print any old rubbish unchecked. Which they still do, but not plagiarising it from the 'Pedia, we hope. . . dave souza, talk

Wikipedia is not a source for Wikipedia content. Period. For any other uses, it's caveat emptor - but at least, unlike the DM, it is free! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:29, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

In fairness, Wikipedia is a tertiary source, and for some topic areas it's been examined and found about as good as some other tertiary sources. Against that, some editors just make stuff up and article improvement grinds slowly, so at any moment it can be unreliable. Citing reliable references makes WP a good starting point for checking with better sources., this noticeboard helps . . dave souza, talk 07:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

As stated Wikipedia and other online encyclopedias, such as Encyclopædia Britannica, are good for general information and a starting point, but are not WP:RS sources in and of itself. Kierzek (talk) 15:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

That's not quite true or at least a bit misleadsing. Reputable tertiary sources (such as the Britannica) may be used as sources Wikipedia however may not.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fox/ScienceNews/JerusalemPost/Phys

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is a rather quick question to a more experienced editor regarding what can be considered a reliable source. Do any of the following qualify?

1. http://www.foxnews.com/ -- Fox News

2. http://www.jpost.com/ -- Jerusalem Post

3. https://www.sciencenews.org/ -- Science News

4. https://phys.org/ -- Phys

If there is another place in Wikipedia where I can simply ask others regarding whether Wikipedia has determined a reliable source in the past aside from RSN, I'd like to know too. Thanks.Korvex (talk) 22:04, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

We can't really answer generalized questions like that... reliability always depends on context... and a lot depends on exactly what information you are trying to support by citing the source, and how you phrase it in the article. So... if you could give us that context, it would help. Blueboar (talk) 22:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I just meant that, if by definition, one of these websites simply would not be allowed to be cited (or something similar to what happened to Daily Mail, is what I'm trying to get at). Korvex (talk) 23:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2004 open letter from business school professors about the Bush tax cuts

I have found this open letter about the Bush tax cuts co-signed by many business school professors (including his alma mater the HBS). This seems notable, especially their contention, "Nearly every major economic indicator has deteriorated since you took office in January 2001. Real GDP growth during your term is the lowest of any presidential term in recent memory.". However, I don't think that this is an RS (it's apparently taken from an e-mail thread). Is anyone able to find a better format for this please?Zigzig20s (talk) 21:05, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

A Google search of the first few sentences pulled up one possible RS. There's a quote of the letter in this book, but not all of the pages are available in the online preview, so you'd need to track down (someone with access to) a physical copy. None of the other results looked reliable, which included a politics blog hosted by the Seattle Times website. Alcherin (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Refs for "liberal bias"

An editor has tried to suggest that the following pieces are reliable sources for a recently added section to both the CBC News and Canadian Broadcasting Corporation articles (it's identical in both) that the broadcaster or news is somehow shows a liberal bias. I argued that most were opinion pieces on unrelated content and that there was one throw-away statement made to that effect. None actually discuss the claim. And the CBC Help Desk FAQ statement only states that it's a complaint levied against them, not that they are. Could someone please review the refs to determine which hold water for making the claims that the are supporting?

1. "CBC: Not the public's broadcaster after all". National Post. December 11, 2014. Retrieved March 15, 2017.
2. Blaze Carlson, Kathryn (March 31, 2011). "CBC's Vote Compass accused of bias". The National Post. Retrieved May 20, 2011.
3. Hopper, Tristan (September 23, 2015). "CBC tries to hide its happy face as Liberals and NDP vow to pump up funding for public broadcaster". National Post. Retrieved May 26, 2015.
4. LaPointe, Kirk (June 21, 2011). "Review: Vote Compass survey during federal election campaign" (PDF). CBC Office of the Ombudsman. Archived from the original (PDF) on November 10, 2012. Retrieved September 25, 2011.
5. "Complaints about comments made by Frank Graves, President of EKOS Research, about a possible strategy for the Liberal Party" (PDF). CBC Office of the Ombudsman. Archived from the original (PDF) on May 11, 2011. Retrieved October 9, 2010.
6. Bolen, Michael (December 14, 2011). "Vote Compass: See The Story Of The 2011 Canadian Election In Two Minutes". Huffington Post Canada. Retrieved December 22, 2011.
7. Tencer, Daniel (September 18, 2015). "CBC President Hubert Lacroix: Public Broadcasters 'Risk Being Boiled To Death'". Huffington Post. Retrieved May 26, 2015.
8. Duncan, Zoey (March 27, 2012). "CBC's Vote Compass is back for the Alberta election, with less Liberal bias". OpenFile. Retrieved December 6, 2012.
9. Houpt, Simon (April 4, 2011). "Sun burns CBC in bid to hype tabloid TV". The Globe and Mail. Retrieved December 22, 2011.
10. Martin, Pierre (June 3, 2011). "Canada's 'two solitudes' emerge inside the NDP". Toronto Star. Retrieved December 9, 2012.
11. McGrath, John Michael (April 7, 2011). "Is the CBC's Vote Compass skewing left-wing? (Or, Internet survey produces dodgy results. The Sun is there.)". Toronto Life. Archived from the original on May 27, 2011. Retrieved December 22, 2011.
12. Butler, Samantha (March 29, 2011). "CBC's voter quiz tool flawed, prof says". The Toronto Sun. Retrieved May 20, 2011.
13. Potter, Andrew (April 6, 2011). "Sun family values". Maclean's. Retrieved December 22, 2011.
14. "Canadian Federal Election Respondent Results". Vote Compass. December 4, 2011. Archived from the original on January 7, 2012. Retrieved December 22, 2011.
15. "Amiel: Why the CBC needs new blood - Macleans.ca". June 18, 2015. Retrieved August 30, 2016.
16. "CBC to study whether its news is biased". Ottawa Sun.
17. "Why is CBC so biased?". Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Archived from the original on March 15, 2017. Retrieved March 15, 2017. {{cite web}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; March 16, 2017 suggested (help)

When I look at the CNBC article, there is one sentence with a clearly defined debate on the subject not three paragraphs with the vague references above. It feels WP:UNDUE and poorly sourced to me. Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:42, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

The national post stuff is all opinion, and not useable for statements of fact. The openfile link is user-generated content (and doesn't work, anyways so it's not verifiable). The "Why is CBC so biased?" links to a statement that the CBC is not biased (it's primary, but still). I haven't looked into the rest, but I will say that if HuffPo accuses them of a liberal bias, they're probably liberally biased. HuffPo is (aside from some pretty good non-political reporting) pretty much the Fox News of liberalism/woo medicine. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Even though those are opinion pieces, it would be sufficient to have a section about attributed claims of liberal bias in the CBC, and the CBC's response (if there is such, I'm not sure) to those claims. The question becomes if this appropriate per WEIGHT or not, and I don't have enough knowledge to speak on that. --MASEM (t) 23:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

A subsection or a paragraph or two under the appropriate section might be more WP:DUE, given the amount of material provided, but all in all, that seems to be a good way forward. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree it's undue, conservatives in Canada often claim that CBC has a liberal bias, but there is no real consensus that that's factual. Others disagree, and the media outlets & writers that make these claims tend to have a strong pov themselves. This should be presented briefly, and as an attributed claim - not treated in such length or presented as fact. Fyddlestix (talk) 23:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Cincinnati Police Department#Shooting of David Hebert

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Cincinnati Police Department#Shooting of David Hebert. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Battle of Barking Creek

Battle of Barking Creek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There's some problems with references on this article, and it's hard to figure out. Wyresider (talk · contribs) has explained the issues on the talk page, under Talk:Battle of Barking Creek#Lucking was not OC 56 Squadron.

(Actually, he posted his questions there 6 months ago, but nobody answered; he's asked again today on helpdesk)

Can anyone help out? 86.20.193.222 (talk) 00:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

@Wyresider:, @86.20.193.222: Are your concerns addressed? It looks like you have a discussion going on over there already. It looks sufficiently complicated that I am choosing not to dive in. I'm glad you posted over at WikiProjecft Military History here, which I am guessing is where you found (expert?) editors interested in fixing up the article. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:37, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@David Tornheim:, @86.20.193.222: Yes, thank you David. As you will see from Barking Creek's history page, there has been a lot of activity since 86.20.193.222 called in the experts! Wyresider (talk) 20:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

missing persons

both www.findthemissing.org and this [8] are being used over at Disappearance of Dorothy Forstein as sources, despite numerous attempt's to remove them one user keeps saying that they are fine to use, are they?Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

The first one allows the "general public" to register and add names, details, etc. So, no. If a person is missing, and it is notable, it will surely show up in a reputable newspaper. The second one is basically a blog site with one writer. No editorial oversight or reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Very strong no. First Light (talk) 14:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

And to preempt it's reinsertion, just noticed this one as well [9], I am gona guess this is not RS.Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Heh! Noooooo, not even close :-) 20:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

NOPE. InsertCleverPhraseHere 20:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

The Academy, Volume 41

A bit of an unusual question. I’m looking for a reliable source of the origin of Baccarat (Baccara). Pages 207-208 in this 1892 doc [10] appear to be the best on the subject available. But, I have no idea if this would be considered RS. It refers to Firmin Didot’s Dictionnaire de la Conversation et de la lecture published in the 19th Century. I cannot find a copy of it. Not a big deal. Just would like to put something in the Baccarat articles that explains what has been widely published without any reference. Perhaps it could be included as a cite with some qualifications. Objective3000 (talk) 00:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

This source seems reliable enough to me. it would be good to find a copy of Dictionnaire de la Conversation et de la lecture, but this source also seems usable. InsertCleverPhraseHere 01:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Scotland and the Daily Record

Re Natalie McGarry, a Scottish MP:

• John: removal "no tabloids on BLPs please"
• AusLondonder: restored "Find another source then. Please don't do drive-by removals of content."
• John: removed again (no explanation, just reverted)

This was then followed up by John's inevitable patronising treatment of another editor, as if they were utterly unaware of our sourcing standards and only he were able to do so.

So, are tabloids permissible on BLPs, or not? Is there really the blanket ban that John is claiming to cite here? I would note that even the Daily Mail does not have such a blanket ban (try it - remove a DM ref and see how fast it's restored). Where WP does uses tabloids, and it certainly does, then it is mostly for just this sort of BLP issue.

The challenged content is fluffy, but uncontentious. Star-crossed lovers from opposite ends of the political spectrum meet across a heated despatch box. Their marriage is already in there, from an unchallenged source, this is just expansion of background. It is precisely the sort of low-drama "human interest" that the tabloids do cover as their bread-and-butter trade. There is no challenge to the accuracy of the reporting here.

Is the Daily Record, a deeply average tabloid format newspaper of largely unquestioned veracity, to be treated specifically?

Why does John always behave in this way, although that's a question for another place. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Presumably this is a reference to WP:BLPSOURCES "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources". I think that's a pretty sound rule of thumb. The rationale includes both reliability and noteworthiness: as you say this is 'fluffy' and I think the removal is probably justified for the latter reason. Of course it would be a good idea to cite the reason in the edit summary. shellac (talk) 13:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Likewise per above. Saying that the basic details of notable person's serious relationship is almost always included in their biography. There is little controversial about "The couple had been together since 2011 and announced their engagement shortly after she was elected as a MP." unless there is some indication it is untrue. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

The trouble with these is that this just isn't how WP works, and an unclear policy is a bad policy. As our own tabloid journalism article recognises, "not all tabloid-size newspapers engage in tabloid journalism". The Daily Record is a long way from the National Enquirer (and the Mirror or Record from the Sun), but this isn't recognised by a lot of US editors, who see "tabloid" and think "US supermarket tabloid".

Picking the 'first bio from TOWIE' as a random article, we get Lauren Goodger (the existence of TOWIE is about the limits of my knowledge or interest here): Daily Mail, Metro and the Mirror as sources. Along with unsourced promotional weaseling like "successfully launched" for their cosmetic line. It's simply untrue to say WP doesn't use tabloid sources for BLPs, yet it still gets used as an excuse for aggression to other editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Beyond that, if their objection was only to the source, they should have done at least a basic search to find better sources - the statements are uncontroversial, so I don't see the need to immediately leap to removal without even doing a basic bare search to see if they can be sourced elsewhere. In particular, half the deleted sentence was unambiguously sourced in the cite immediately above it. I agree with working to improve sources and remove bad ones, but it's important to do it with at least some care rather than just blindly removing stuff that can clearly be easily cited to a better source. (Of course, this is true when you object to a removal, too - if something takes out a part of an article because they object to the source, the easiest way to resolve the dispute is to do a quick search and find a better source, then put it back in with that rather than just blindly reverting.) --Aquillion (talk) 17:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

The Daily Record produces tabloid journalism similar to the Daily Mirror, Sun, etc. Those should not be used in BLPs, except for unusual circumstances, such as relying on a tabloid article written by the BLP subject. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I would have to disagree with that comparison. IMHE, the Record or Mirror are both tabloids that are generally accurate, with caution. The Sun though is another matter. The problem I mention above is to conflate all tabloids as being equal, when they're anything but. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

You don't have to disagree, Andy Dingley. Nor do you--in a discussion about sources--have to patronize the other editor with whom you disagree. Drmies (talk) 03:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

How so? I have no intention of patronising Sarah here, nor do I see that my comment is doing so. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I think we all unfortunately know that John is a bit of a patronising arse who point-blank refuses to engage with other editors. Many newspapers publish in the tabloid format that does not automatically equate to poor or sensationalist journalism. I am not convinced the Daily Record should be totally prohibited. In any case my feeling is certainly that instead of removing relevant content if an editor objects to the use of a source it is their obligation to look for another. We are here to build an encyclopedia not bring it down over office politics. AusLondonder (talk) 17:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

The information in question seems to come from a feature/interview piece in a mainstream newspaper and a direct quote from the partner in that piece. I can't see how that fails sourcing requirements. The use of tabloid sources should definitely raise flags – both because they can be a bit cavalier with their reporting and because much of what they report is trivial and irrelevant for an encyclopedia – but everything depends on context and a bit of intelligent judgment. Policy is to bar tabloid journalism, not tabloid papers per se, and this kind of kneejerk action can, and does, lead to absurd situations where information is blindly removed, or sources removed and information left unsourced. I've even seen erroneous information in a BLP actually retained and given more prominence because it happened to be from a broadsheet paper, even though it was from a jokey "10 things you never knew" piece probably written by the summer intern, while attributed comments in a serious on-the-record interview conducted by the paper's political editor refuting the claim were struck out because they happened to be in a tabloid. Nearly everyone on the talk page agreed that was daft, but one editor (already mentioned on this page) insisted that they and they alone understood the sourcing rules and persisted in trying to make the page more inaccurate that it need have been, based on their misreading of both the letter and the spirit of policy. N-HH talk/edits 18:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

We are here to build an encyclopedia, not bring it down by insulting other editors? But agree about confusing format with content. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• The Daily Record has a pretty good reputation for Scottish issues, doesn't it? Guy (Help!) 20:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
• Difficult to generalise here. There are times that the Record will cover things when the Herald and The Scotsman have not, e.g. [11]. The Vow is a prominent example of The Record indulging in "creative journalism" [12] It isn't politically neutral, but has survived the decline of the Labour party in Scotland, even winning paper of the year in 2016 [13]. The Daily Record doesn't always agree with other tablods, e.g. [14]. The Daily Record is owned by the Trinity Mirror group. In Scotland there has been a general decline in the circulation figures of the print media and Trinity Mirror (as with other media groups) have reduced the number of journalists that they employ [15]. The Daily Record website is now also used for the publication of articles from some local titles, such as the Stirling Observer. The article that triggered this discussion, Natalie McGarry has needed protection on several occasions, due to trolling. The Record has published several articles on aspects of her personal life- her relationship with a politician from another party. This coverage of her personal life hasn't occurred to the same extent in the broadsheets. Of course, when she turned up to a vote the House of Commons in a wedding dress, that led to her relationship being reported more widely (the division bell rung while she was wearing the dress and having the marriage blessed on 10 June 2016). In summary- The Record has a tabloid style and has maintained a mass readership over many years; it will publish details about subjects that other titles do not, but caution should certainly be used when considering these, especially around BLPs. Drchriswilliams (talk) 09:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Thankyou, as I think that nuanced description is spot on. So are you seeing a blanket "no tabloids on BLPs" ruling here, or a "summary removal of any Record refs and the associated content" justification? As they're the issue that first kicked this off. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I can understand the clear desire to avoid the use of sources where there is a history of the publication having a sensationalist language and style. The first article on the couple published by the Record in June 2013 was more than a year ahead of the Referendum on Scottish Independence. The article itself gives the impression of being based on the couple being interviewed together. It consists mainly of text in quotation marks, which appears to be their long responses to questions. The article also has photos of the couple too. Perhaps the "couple from the two sides of the divide" aspect to the June 2013 story was sensational enough to allow this approach [16] The article from July 2015 announcing their engagement is very different and more tabloid in style. McGarry was now a MP and the article has the appearance of the publication of unconfirmed gossip- aside from the engagement aspect of the story, the rest of the article could have simply been pulled together from old material and there does not appear to have been any direct contemporaneous comment from either of the couple [17]. So I think the removal of the July 2015 article could be justified on the grounds of being likely to not meet required standards. In comparison, the June 2013 article seems fairly benign. Drchriswilliams (talk) 17:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I think we also need to look at the nature of the information that's being sourced to the Record. In this case, that's the date Ms McGarry got together with her now-husband. I'd observe that this is a long way away from political debate or defamation, so the consequences (to her or to us) if we mistakenly include it aren't particularly significant. By contrast, if (hypothetically) the Record were the only paper to report that she had separated from her husband, I would be more worried about relying on that as the consequences of us repeating an inaccurate report would be greater. However, the flip side of this is that the particular detail we're looking at isn't particularly important to an encyclopedia article. So I'd be inclined to leave it out, on balance, until/unless a more authoritative source for it can be found. The Land (talk) 13:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Two sources in the lede of Alkaline diet

Source: https://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/DSH/coral2.html
Article: Alkaline Diet
Content:

The idea that this diet can materially affect blood pH, or treat a range of diseases, is incorrect.

This doesn't seem near to being a reliable source to me but I was reverted and told that it is a "reliable source on quackery" by Dbrodbeck.

For the second source:
Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20150327162238/http://www.intelihealth.com/article/alkaline-diets-and-cancer-fact-or-fiction? Alkaline Diet
Content:

Due to the lack of credible evidence supporting the benefits of this diet, it is not recommended by dietitians or other health professionals.

This one seems borderline, especially as it is currently being used in the lede of the article as an anchor to the hard criticism of the first paragraph.

 InsertCleverPhraseHere  19:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not seeing what the problem is. Quackwatch "cites peer-reviewed journal articles and has received several awards" according to the article about it. I don't know about intellihealth and it would be a pity to cite an archived page in the lead but the article is by a proper nutritionist at a hospital. Perhaps you could be more specific about what the problem you see is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by dmcq (talk • contribs)

I think this (QW) has discussed quite a bit. [18]. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't see too much of an issue using Quackwatch but I would at least attributed that statement to Quackwatch - it would be similar to sourcing a urban legand to Snopes.com, which has recognition in that area, though not the utmost authority. The other source seems fine. --MASEM (t) 19:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, seems like a good analysis. It is a reliable source but we should use better ones if available. It seems a bit much there the insistence of some in that discussion of ultra high standards for Quackwatch but not for the proponents of fringe ideas. I would say if the OP has more reliable sources for Alkaline diet either pro or anti then produce them otherwise why are they complaining about Quackwatch? Dmcq (talk) 20:05, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

On the point of any actual science in the article I believe it would come under WP:MEDRS which is rather more rigorous than the standards applied anywhere else in Wikipedia. I'm not sure how they cope about things that don't have much written about them. Dmcq (talk) 20:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

"[T]he insistence of some in that discussion of ultra high standards for Quackwatch but not for the proponents of fringe ideas" – I've been involved in that discussion and I don't think anyone is insisting on that. The discussion isn't about sources that are "pro" or "anti", but rather which sources help most in writing a neutral and impartial description of the topic. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll just assume you were born yesterday. Dmcq (talk) 23:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

• Quackwatch is fine RS for health fraud/quackery/pseudoscience, as has been discussed here many, many times before. Facts should be WP:ASSERTed not attributed. Alexbrn (talk) 06:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Source has been discussed to death here, as already linked above, in the context of this kind of FRINGE-y health stuff. It is our go-to source for stuff where there is lots of discussion say in popular media about some health thing but the actual biomedical literature doesn't discuss it much and we don't have standard MEDRS refs to use. it is excellent in that context. In this case there are apparently 7 reviews ranging from 2009 - 2016 and it shouldn't be necessary to use QW. The content it is used to support seems to match what most of these reviews say (which is what we expect) so no great harm in citing it. But probably not needed. Which I know is a different question than what has been asked. The answer to the question is yes. Jytdog (talk) 07:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers that have come in, I wasn't aware of Quackwatch's reputation (though it seems that we have better sources to use for the lede in any case). From what I read in the links to previous discussions however, it is a partisan source, and therefore should probably be attributed.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  09:05, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

There is no such thing as partisanship with regards to "accepted facts" vs. "fringe theories". There is no need to create a false balance, and pretend the existence of fringe proponents means there is some kind of scientific debate. In the interest of parity of sourcing, we can cite Quackwatch, and make statements of fact without attribution. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm with Someguy and Jytdog on this. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:ASSERT is quite clear. Do NOT attribute facts as this has the effect of making them seem disputed, which is NNPOV. That the notions behind the alkaline diet are nonsense is a fact, and Wikipedia has to say so. Sheesh, the quack-apologists on this topic sure are wasting a lot of time: I'd like to seem admin attention soon if this continues. Alexbrn (talk) 14:42, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

From what I've had to read on this, medical experts and the like generally agree that there is very little likelihood of any of the claims are valid. It's a very much the case that most of these experts thus agree it junk science. But importantly, this is their theory that the diet is bogus, it is not 100% validated. That does not make it a fact, and thus we should not be treating "the alkaline diet is nonsense" as a fact, but should still be attributing the statements to the groups making the claims. --MASEM (t) 14:58, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Wrong. The idea that eating alkaline food can effect the acidity of body (whatever that means) and so somehow cure cancer is nonsense. In Wikipedia terms it is a fact because it is not seriously disputed in RS. We assert such facts. If you want to change WP:ASSERT by all means try, but don't misrepresent it as this just enables POV-pushing (see the numerous arguments about there being "doubt" over aliens beings, conspiracy theories, holocaust denial, etc. etc. etc.). Alexbrn (talk) 15:06, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I am confused. The reason I am confused is that the only scientific review article that I found on the Alkaline diet article is this one, and its abstract ends with the statement "There may be some value in considering an alkaline diet in reducing morbidity and mortality from chronic diseases and further studies are warranted in this area of medicine." This has led me to the conclusion that the consensus isn't nearly as polarized in the medical field as many of you suggest (this viewpoint is not represented in the lede at all). Given these different opinions, there seems a genuine need for attribution of QW to me. Perhaps I got it wrong, or this source is inappropriate?  InsertCleverPhraseHere  20:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

See Hindawi Publishing Corporation. Reaching a "conclusion" from fringe journals is not wise. So yes, you've got it very wrong. What'll you be doing next, popping up saying the Holocaust is not 100% certain to have happened so we need to qualify mentions of it? Alexbrn (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Again I am confused, the article you linked doesn't say that the journal is a 'fringe journal', and even Jeffrey Beall didn't consider it a predatory open access publisher, though he did call it a 'borderline case'. This is one of the 7 review articles linked above by Jytdog, and the only one that looks at a broad review of literature about the diet in a range of contexts (the other articles are all about one specific aspect, such as "bone density", this one is the only one that is comprehensive). This review article has been cited 46 times according to google scholar, and this source is also used in the article itself. I've only read the source's abstract before now, but the source does agree with many other sources that the main claims of proponents are largely false, but outlines a number of other benefits of the diet, including at least one benefit to chemotherapy patients (see the conclusions section of the source). This is backed up by other sources such as this one that point out that, while the mechanism of the diet is bunk, the diet is actually quite healthy. On a more personal note to Alexbrn; what the hell is up with the holocaust strawman mate? I am not a proponent of this shit, I just stopped by to help after seeing the notice over at the NPOV noticeboard.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  20:59, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

You keep saying you're confused. Using "borderline journals" and websites to try and make major health claims is not how things work here. It is not a strawman: you are proposing qualifying accepted knowledge because you - in your admitted confusion - think you can find some "doubt" about it from shit sources. It's a pattern we see from POV-pushers all over Wikipedia. You have been alerted to discretionary sanctions in this topic area. Alexbrn (talk) 21:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

When was I alerted to discretionary sanctions on this topic?  InsertCleverPhraseHere  21:19, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Can we please have some discussion about this source and its reliability for Alkaline diet?  InsertCleverPhraseHere  21:19, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I see your DS alert was over gamergate; I have notified you about altmed too. I have no more to say about Hindawi: read WP:REDFLAG. Alexbrn (talk) 21:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I tend to avoid HIndawi journals, especially when what is in an article published in one, is out of step with the rest of the literature. Sorry about this, writing about health requires some sophistication dealing with the biomedical literature. Jytdog (talk) 02:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog The HIndawi source really comes to most of the same conclusions as the rest of the literature. As I have pointed out here, the review article largely agrees with the results of most of the reviews by dietitians and doctors from various sources around the internet, that the theory that foods can change your blood PH is BS, but that the diet itself, and its emphasis on fresh vegetables and fruits is actually relatively healthy (unlike many other fad diets). I admit that I am new to biomed articles and sourcing, but nothing jumps out of this source as unreliable (and certainty not to the degree that Alexbrn has asserted). Moreover, it is the only comprehensive scientific review on the topic.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  03:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Nobody is interested in "dietitians and doctors from various sources around the internet".

some key points - the subject of the Alkaline diet article is the fad diet that healthy people use to try to prevent disease. Diabetic ketoacidosis is a real, life threatening thing. There have been some recent hypotheses that the Western pattern diet (a real thing) generates some "mild acidosis" or "latent acidosis" which in turn is hypothesized to contribute to the development of diabetes. In this hypothetical set of ideas, a Healthy diet ( a real thing) doesn't do that, and may help reverse that. This is all hypothetical and unproven. A healthy diet is not an alkaline diet. PMID 26363101 (one of the 7 reviews) goes through all that and some other stuff and concludes: "It remains unknown however, whether a low dietary acid load (or alkaline diet) can buffer mild metabolic acidosis, improve insulin sensitivity and reduce diabetes risk." PMID 24094472 and PMID 21529374 and PMID 19754972 all look at whether "alkaline diets" (the first actually uses scare quotes) or other related interventions can prevent bone loss; kind of relevant to the subject of our article, and they say - no evidence and are dubious of the premise. PMID 24403443 (available free from the journal here is about fad diets in people with cancer; it finds zero clinical studies on the alkaline diet in people with cancer. In any case this is about people with cancer and not healthy people. Of the others, PMID 24721651 is about studies of ion channel in mouse models, not relevant. And we have PMID 22013455, the hindawi article, already discussed. So the MEDRS sources line up with Quackwatch. Jytdog (talk) 09:16, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above, not sure why all of it needed to be said here. You seem to think that I am a proponent of the diet or something and am arguing against this stuff, but that's not the case. Clearly this discussion has gone off the rails into territory that is not overly constructive or a good use of anyones time. I call for a close, my questions seem to have been answered the best they are going to be, more or less.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  10:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

So i hope you are hearing that Quackwatch is very reliable for content about quackery which includes fad diets. That is the answer to your question. Jytdog (talk) 23:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I thought it was rather clear up above where I thanked you guys for clarifying that for me. But yes, to make it clear: there have been numerous discussions that have decided that QW is a reliable source for these sorts of articles. Whether attribution is advised is still up for debate (as Masem has just raised again below) but I will not push the point. The Intelihealth source was briefly discussed, and it seems to be in the camp of 'ok but we could do better'. As for the hindawi review article that I asked about, there isn't a lot of clarity here, but this is probably because I didn't specify any specific edits I wanted to use it for on this page. I don't really agree with you and Alexbrn's assessments of the journal, and personally it seems reliable enough to me, but again, not going to push for inclusion in the lede (the article has been used as a source in the body for quite some time however). In summary, yes I have received the answers I came for.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  00:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Coming back to a point made by Alexbrn above: Wrong. The idea that eating alkaline food can effect the acidity of body (whatever that means) and so somehow cure cancer is nonsense. In Wikipedia terms it is a fact because it is not seriously disputed in RS. We assert such facts. This is not true, in how WP handles things. (And to disclaim I completely agree that the alkaline diet is a bogus idea). It is impossible to prove a negative, here the negative being that there are zero beneficial effects of the alkaline diet towards preventing cancer. Medical studies can achieve a rather high confidence level in many things, including that the alkaline diet can't prevent cancer, but that will never be 100% because of the types of impractical/impossible analysis and studies that would have to be done to eliminate all possible cases. As such, there's a very slim chance that these studies are wrong; unlikely, but that's the whole point of confidence levels. So it should not be presented as solid fact, because it's simply not a fact yet. It's a strongly-backed theory and thus should be presented with the necessary attribution that medical professional believe there is no validity to the diet's reasoning. To the point, this is where it seems fine to say "According to medical studies collected by Quackwatch, the science behind the alkaline diet has no validity towards its proposed benefits." in the lede, recognizing that QW is completely valid as a RS here. --MASEM (t) 23:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

This is not community practice working on FRINGE topics, Masem. The practice of just being clear on this FRINGE stuff arose because this being "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", all kinds of lunatic charlatans come here and edit fiercely to abuse WP to promote their ideas. So things have evolved to being crystal clear when there is no scientific basis for things. The kind of GEVALish content you are advocating for here just opens the door wide to more woo in WP. There are legit issues where solid sources show differences of opinion (like whether Theraflu Tamiflu does a damn thing) and we happily attribute there. Not in FRINGE stuff. where woo-pushers look for any ray of light to push harder to validate their trash, like "may be effective but more research is needed" which is classic sucker-born-every-minute advocacy to waste more money on quackademic research. (Jytdog (talk) 01:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC) (redact to fix drug name Jytdog (talk) 02:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC))

To be fair, sometimes we have issues with truth crusaders from both sides of the fence, not just fringe proponents. But I agree mostly that the main issues are with proponents.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  02:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

No, not really. We have RSes that support the evidence the diet is bogus through either sound scientific theory or through reasonable testing. So anyone wishing to push the fact the diet work is going to have to produce an RS as good in quality (and as recent) as the existing ones to counter that. Which I don't think exist from what I've seen, so there's no danger of proponents being able to insert seemingly equivalent factual data (All the aspects of why the diet claims to work can be put in as supposition and with all the necessary skeptism that is needed to assure readers don't take it as factual). But we still should be careful to assume stating that the concept of the alkaline diet is flat out nonsense, given that this simply hasn't been proven. Do we need to include any counterpoint here? Nope, just appropriate attribution of whom has asserted the diet is bogus to avoid it being said as fact in WP's voice. --MASEM (t) 01:58, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@Masem There is a discussion on the talk page discussing a similar issue that is unrelated to the Quackwatch source (using 'false' in the first sentence in WP's voice) that is pretty relevant to this comment.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  02:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Masem there are a zillion ludicrous things that "haven't been proven" and never will be; you are making no distinctions between legit things and FRINGE things. I am not going to waste more time on this discussion. Jytdog (talk) 03:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Masem, it's a little more complicated than that. The theory of the diet (changing your diet changes your body's pH, and changing your pH has health effects) is universally recognized as bogus by everyone except its proponents. The actual diet – high vegetable, high fruit (minus peaches, plums, and cranberries) but low in refined sugars, grains, dairy, meat, and processed foods – is one that I think any registered dietician would be fairly enthusiastic about (although they'd think it was odd to exclude peaches, plums, cranberries, and walnuts). WebMD puts it this way: "Does It Work? Maybe, but not for the reasons it claims." WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

My issue is that coming from a scientific background, there have been zero reports based scientifically sound evidence that the diet can affect blood pH, and that based on the combined human knowledge to date, the likelihood that a temporary change in stomach pH will affect blood pH is very very low, but key here is that that is not irrefutable zero chance. Medical people and dietiticans will say this is effectively the same as being fact, which to their credit to make sure people eat healthy and don't screw up their bodies, is important, but scientifically, it's not conclusive. Hence, we should at least be using language that identifies who and to what degree they consider the alkaline diet as BS. It would be similar how Global warming is presented, citing the bodies that have declared the phenomena likely occurring but avoiding the extreme case of calling it a fact. --MASEM (t) 01:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Can I suggest that you guys take this argument to the relevant section on the talk page as it has strayed well off the topic of reliable sources and into POV concerns.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  02:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• The bottom line, as noted above, is that you shouldn't cite Quackwatch if peer-reviewed articles cover the same topic effectively. My major problem with Quackwatch is that the articles generally cite zero sources (as with the one above), making it impossible to verify and trace the ex cathedra claims, and generally lack any nuance whatsoever - ignoring anything that might distract from their thesis. Even with a publisher like Hindawi, at least the articles have references. In this case, Gabe Mirkin, the author of the Quackwatch article, has zero references. QW focuses entirely on implausible cancer treatment claims while completely ignoring the substantial literature on the topic which is discussed in, e.g. Diet-induced acidosis: is it real and clinically relevant? (2010) with 94 references as well as position papers (e.g., Institute of Medicine's Food and Nutrition Board publication "for many years it has been hypothesized that the modern Western diet could induce a low-grade metabolic acidosis that in turn could induce bone demineralization, osteoporosis, and kidney stones ... results of several recent epidemiological ... studies support this hypothesis"). It's misleading to suggest that everyone who talks about an "acidic" diet has claimed cancer cures when supporting discussions around osteoporosis have come from literally most prestigious nutrition body in the United States. Granted, if I recall correctly the evidence supporting osteoporosis prevention looks slimmer now than it did in years past... II | (t - c) 21:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Addition of content based on nonreliable, and in fact *non existant* sources

Hi, could someone point me in the direction of guidance as to the reliability of links to a site that used to exist as 'akufu.com'?

Two users, User:David.moreno72 and User:Gilliam are repeatedly insisting on inserting these links into the article on Siri, a high-importance iOS article. The site that the references link to would seem to have never been a reliable source and does not even exist anymore, if one attempts to actually look into them.

Could I get some peer review as to whether these garbage references should be repeatedly inserted into key articles? 203.109.212.42 (talk) 09:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

This is frankly a bit silly and I didn't even bother to research whether akufu.com is reliable or not (judging by the name i'd guess it's not), because the dispute is about rather harmless and largely uncontroversial content that easily can be sourced by other sources (quick googling provides reliables sources right away). So don't waste time on pointless bickering but simply use an alternative source (I went ahead and added 2 already).--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:19, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Muslim Council of Britain, Policy Exchange, International Business Times

Opinions welcome at Talk:Muslim Council of Britain#Policy Exchange. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:12, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Non-English sources

Although, this is not a question about whether a source is reliable, it seems the best place to ask the question regarding how to properly cite non-English sources:

I looked around and could not find much information on how we handle citations for foreign sources. There is WP:NONENG and a brief mention in WP:CS at Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Additional_annotation. In particular, it seems to me that a citation should include the correct non-English title -and- the translated title, and even better we should include a link to Google translate of the article. This should probably be done by template, but I don't see any. Are there any? Are there any articles filled with non-English sources that have done an excellent job in their citations?

I did find this template which is what I am hoping to find for a citation template to a foreign source:

{{Expand German|Wikipedia|date=March 2017}} becomes:

I asked this same question here: Wikipedia talk:Citation_templates#Non-English sources. --David Tornheim (talk) 14:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

One conversation in one place please. I have given a first answer at the other location. Conversation should continue there.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

A correct citation afaik doesn't require any translation, i.e. you can simply provide the original title and/or its transcription. Offering a translation or a google translate link are optional and just a convenience addon to the actual reference/citation.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

• (I'm responding to the OP comment and nothing else. I have not read much of what followed.) Non-English sources are allowed, and in some cases their use is preferable to English sources. The preference for English-language sources assumes all other factors (reliability, relevance, etc.) remain equal. Giving translated titles is nice, but in many cases does not add anything: for example, one of my main sources for the Li He article was the one I called "Ueki et al."; but, to someone who doesn't read Japanese, knowing that the title of the book translates to "Encyclopedia of Classical Chinese Poetry" and the title of the chapter translates to "Lives of Poets and Poems" does not make the content any more verifiable. Seen from another point of view, providing a translation of the title of the source instead of the untranslated title would get in the way of verifiability; yes, since the names of the authors and editor, the publication date, and the page number are all clear, it would still be possible to figure out what book I was citing, but giving the original published title is far-and-away preferable to giving a translation.

Since Wikipedia does not have a uniform house citation style, any of these methods of formatting the refs would be theoretically acceptable in a given article.

If a source has been published in English translation, giving the title of the published translation when the original edition was what was consulted would be a clear violation of our sourcing policy; I would say don't even give the title of the English translation unless said translation is the source you consulted.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

US Uncut

Is the defunct liberal news site US Uncut a reliable source for straightforward statements of fact? It is currently used this way in several articles, such as Salman of Saudi Arabia and 2017 Women's March. Based on US Uncut#Criticisms and my general impression from other sites that discuss US Uncut, I'm inclined to think it's not reliable for these kinds of statements, but I'd like to get other editors' opinions before I remove the citations from those articles and others. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

You would get more responses if you would provide actual bits cited to it. Jytdog (talk) 07:05, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

For example:

• this is used to support the statement "During March, Sanders raised $44 million from a donor base roughly twice as large as Clinton's." at Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, 2016
• this is used to support the statement "His mother stated that he aimed to be a lawyer when he finished studying." at Ali Mohammed Baqir al-Nimr
• this is used with other sources to support the statement "On August 10, 2015, in accordance with Shkreli's business plan, Turing acquired Daraprim (pyrimethamine), a medication approved by the FDA in 1953, from Impax Laboratories for US$55 million." at Martin Shkreli

—Granger (talk · contribs) 14:04, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for providing examples. I would avoid that source like the plague, as it is the website of an activist group. We can do better.

• i would avoid making hard comparison on numbers of "unique donors" as they are hard to track per this; that source and this one did make it clear that Bernie had raised way more $ from small donors than Clinton had by March. "She has raised only 18 percent of her money from donors giving less than $200, giving her a narrower fundraising base than Sanders. Sanders’s campaign has raised 66 percent of its money from donors giving less than $200, according to The Hill’s analysis of FEC figures." That is very supportable, from better refs. But if you really want the "roughly two to one" thing, this WSJ article says "" Josh Schwerin, a Clinton spokesman, said a recent surge in contributions put the campaign over the one-million-donor mark a few weeks ago. Sanders campaign officials said they have received contributions from about two million donors."
• for the ali mohammed al nimr, the reference does not support the content. the reference says that it was a friend of the family, who said that the mother said, that he said that if he got the chance to live, he would want to become a lawyer or political activist. so the content is no good. i don't know that our article should report 3rd level hearsay this way. I didn't find any other sources for it.
• if there are other sources already, ditch this one, assuming that the others are stronger.

There you go. Jytdog (talk) 05:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Not a reliable source for the reasons outlined by Jytdog. We can do (much) better. Neutrality^talk 05:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• Many thanks, Jytdog and Neutrality. It seems my initial impression was right. I'll start making some edits accordingly. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Is ghosttowns.com a repatable source

Hi, I write about Florida historical topics; specifically ghost towns. I sometimes do find it is quiet hard to get information and this website here [ghosttowns.com]. (Cass) 17:32, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Cassini127, I took a look around the site, and I'm not entirely encouraged by what I see. Two of the staff members are college professors. However, their site encourages public submission of ghost town information. It is unclear what measures the staff takes to verify the content of these public submissions. Therefore, I would say that ghosttowns.com would not be a reliable source, as there is no evidence of oversight for the user-submitted content. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 18:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I think their is a few people that do submit quite reliable entries. A lot of them are questionable. (Cass) 21:11, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Input requested on Jimbo's tkpg with regard to when and if new articles pass wp:GNG, etc.

... here: User talk:Jimbo Wales#Suggested fix.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I.e.: Is Matthew Grow, editor of The Council of Fifty, Minutes, March 1844–January 1846 (The Church Historian's Press, which is an imprint of Deseret Book; 2016), notable? Is Benjamin E. Park, who reviews him here: "The Mormon Council of Fifty: What Joseph Smith’s Secret Records Reveal" (Religion & Politics, September 9, 2016)? Please chime in on a way to determine such questions in a much more consistent manner than at present...here: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Suggested_fix.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• WP:FORUMSHOP. Suggest close. Alexbrn (talk) 19:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

He's giving notice of a discussion occurring elsewhere and inviting participation. Keep your hat on. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:40, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Soviet economy

The text contains pro-Soviet phrases: [19]

It allegedly reviewes Robert C. Allen’s Farm to Factory: A Reinterpretation of the Soviet Industrial Revolution.

The last phrase is “To say that socialism doesn’t work is to overlook the fact that it did work for hundreds of millions of people.” by Parenti. There is however no Communist country in Europe. Xx236 (talk) 09:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Disbanded?

Please could someone post an opinion at Talk:ZE:A#Remove_mentions of disbandment to help gauge consensus on this issue? Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

More questions on reliability

Is https://books.google.ch/books?hl=de&lr=&id=JEbLBQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA105&dq=%22acay%22+monzonite+OR+%22nevado+de+acay%22&ots=zROHz7o04V&sig=ieXZ02i6dfEN7oid2YwFw-omXbc#v=onepage&q=%22acay%22%20monzonite%20OR%20%22nevado%20de%20acay%22&f=false a reliable source for the establishment of a protected area? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Same question but for https://books.google.ch/books?hl=de&lr=&id=Y6ql7CIbJV8C&oi=fnd&pg=PA26&dq=%22acay%22+monzonite+OR+%22nevado+de+acay%22&ots=na7ZoBx9Nr&sig=OKGjs7-ul5ESNizZ8bmppfFgbbM#v=onepage&q=acay&f=false and for that hydrographic map. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:57, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

That first one is incomprehensible, or I forgot how to read English. Is it a machine translation or something? First Light (talk) 17:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

...yeah, it kind of looks like a machine translation. Prolly not a good source then. (At the risk of overloading: https://archive.org/details/memoriadescript00solgoog and https://archive.org/stream/memoriasobrelas00bertgoog are also things I am wondering about) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

High Fructose Corn Syrup

I'm writing you to receive guidance in how to deal with a dispute I have with the editor Zefr regarding my contribution to the High-fructose corn syrup article. I have attempted to resolve this using the High Fructose Corn Syrup talk page and Wikipedia’s third opinion, with little success and now would like to turn to you for help.

In the past weeks or so I have tried to contribute multiple times (March 8, March 11, March 14) to an article about High-fructose corn syrup in the section titled "Safety and Manufacturing Concerns" (original title was Manufacturing Contaminants). This section discusses the possible of mercury contamination of HFCS. I tried to remain neutral’' in my contribution by presenting "all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic" In this case it was towards contamination of mercury in products that contain HFCS. I wrote about research that both has found traces of mercury, as well as research that has found no traces of mercury. The research that found traces were conducted in 2009 [20] [21] and 2010 [22] and were supported by Scientific journals’’ . The research that has found no traces of mercury is the "Duke study" [23] The "Duke study" is A) a Popular press’’ and not Scientific journals’' B) not the most recent study in this debate C) Somewhat biased for it was commissioned on behalf of the Corn Refiners Association. I have tried multiple times to add meaningful contribution to this article that takes all this science into account. Yet at each time an editor by the name Zefr would revert my work (reverted on March 8, reverted on march 11,reverted on march 14). I will admit that initially I added a lot and went into details about the studies, and I understand that Wikipedia is not WP:NOT#JOURNALISM. But I thought my most recent contributions was succinct and addressed all concerns brought up by Zefr on Talk:High-fructose_corn_syrup. Yet each time he reverts my contribution with the exception of the Duke study [24] which is I contend is biased, not recent and not supported by a proper citation.

He recently redid the entire section changing the name from “manufacturing contaminants” to “safety and manufacturing concerns”. He has added the Duke Citations to the text twice, with a preface that HFCS is safe for consumption, and has added text that is not supported by citations. He won’t allow me to add peer-reviewed studies with relevant information to this article.

Why is Zefr Popular press allowed but Scientific journals not? Why is Zefr allowed to contribute to Wikipedia but what he adds is not backed up by their citations? And what I contribute that is back by citations is not allowed? Thatwhoiswise (talk) 19:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

The issue here is not sourcing, but interpretation. Other sources also note the contamination but say that it isn't significant. You are trying to suppress this and emphasize sources that omit that assessment. Mangoe (talk) 20:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@Thatwhoiswise: Your logic looks sound to me. I reviewed Zefr's analysis that said the studies should be excluded because of determinations of safety by the FDA and CDC. That makes no sense--those agencies are highly influenced by industry. We use top quality secondary sources by independent scientists. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

As Mangoe points out, the sources are reliable (including FDA and CDC), this is the wrong place to discuss them, and the issue is interpretation. To summarize, tiny amounts of mercury have been found, but these do not appear to pose a threat to health. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

There is a difference between quantifiable/significant and "health threat". It would be WP:OR to claim there is no Mercury just because the FDA and CDC say it is "safe". After all, different countries have different regulatory safety standards. The U.S. usually has fairly lax standards compared to other industrial countries, such as in the E.U. that uses the Precautionary Principle: considering something like Mobile phone radiation and health, where I know the E.U. has much tighter standards. I have not looked up the standard in E.U. compared to FDA on Mercury, but I have a hunch the FDA's permissible level on Mercury is significantly higher. Consider for example, the highly politicized Mercury issue with Bush [25]EPA Ignored Science When Regulating Power Plant Mercury Emissions. Again, the regulatory agencies are highly politicized. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not hard to find the EU information, and I note that they conclude that "Taking into account the outcome of the SCOOP-task 3.2.11, EFSA concluded that the levels of mercury found in foods, other than fish and seafood, were of lower concern." (from here) In another publication they say, "Food sources other than fish and seafood products may contain mercury, but mostly in the form of inorganic mercury. Based on the available data the contribution to methylmercury exposure from these foods is considered to be insignificant." (See here) There's no reputable source that says the mercury contamination is significant. Mangoe (talk) 13:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

David Tornheim: It's ridiculous to suggest the CDC and FDA are influenced by industry or do not apply the highest scientific standards. By contrast, the CDC monitors and expertly studies diseases worldwide and the FDA regulates industry for public safety. You'll need more rigorous secondary sources to support such assertions, and you won't find them. These two agencies and their scientific processes are also the highest standards represented in Wikipedia Medicine guidelines for sourcing, as they are integrated into the pinnacle for sourcing in the WP:MEDASSESS pyramids shown here. Turning to the issue of mercury levels in HFCS - which I will take up with you or Thatwhoiswise at that article - no one is disputing that mercury was found in isolated samples of HFCS years ago (before 2008 manufacturing). There are no reports of it since the report on 2008 samples. My edits of possible prior contamination acknowledged those previous findings, as stated in the article today. The dispute with Thatwhoiswise is not about whether mercury was found, but rather about that editor's insistence to editorialize per WP:SOAP and use other sources (one merely an opinion comment) to reference the same finding as the one analytical source used. Lastly, I agree this is the wrong forum for discussing these issues. No one is disputing the reliability of the current sources used in the HFCS article on safety and manufacturing concerns. That the CDC and FDA do not discuss safety risks from manufacturing of HFCS means the product is safe to consume, plain and simple. --Zefr (talk) 14:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The absence of a statement about safety risks from the CDC or FDA does not mean there are no safety risks. (You can't prove a negative). I support the idea that CDC and FDA are not going to be significantly influenced by corporate measures and thus are generally high reliable sources, but their absence of mentioning manufacturing risks should not be taken that there aren't any. --MASEM (t) 14:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Disagree. When there is a safety concern about elemental mercury in the food supply, it is quantified (usually by the USDA), then reported to the FDA who make a safety statement to consumers as exists for mercury in some seafoods. In the HFCS article, we cite the FDA's statement on HFCS where no mention is made about mercury risk. That is the main point of the current manufacturing of HFCS is safe and not mercury-contaminated. --Zefr (talk) 14:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I would need time to review how the FDA or CDC present safety information about food safety and if it is done in a standardized way, as the closest think I can compare to would be MSDS sheets for chemicals and the like, and here there are "required" elements to be considered a proper MSDS sheet, such as known LD50 information, for instance. In such cases there is strong clarity (or at least, there should be strong clarity) between where an LD50 value is not yet known because such tests haven't be carried out, or where there is no LD50 value because the chemical is safe at extremely high levels. But in either way, the safety relative to LD50 is addressed. What I am reading from this discussion is that neither the FDA or CDC reports address the safety, even if just to say "there are no known safety issues with the manufacture of HFCS", which I would expect that if they had a standard form/template, would be included. So the absence of these statements does not allow us to presume that the FDA/CDC have concluded there are no safety issues; that's basically SYNTH research. (Also just trying to search, there's clearly an issue with junk science around this based on a 2009 study, and claims the FDA is hiding this).

That said, there do appear to be legit papers that warn that mercury could enter into the production of HFCS via the caustic soda. [www.academicjournals.org/journal/BMBR/article-full-text-pdf/41CAC0411547], and the 2009 study at least is a data point to be made that one test in 2009 found several sources with trace mercury levels. It's also probably necessary to point out what the manufactures said in response to the 2009 study (Eg [26]) that they have switched away from the chlor-alkyl source of caustic soda to one that would be mercury-free. What I can't find is any recent study to affirm if current products of HFCS have mercury or not, with most all relaying on the 2009 study. Hence, this is an area to take caution: It would be improper to say HFCS is factually safe, but it would also be improper to say all HFCS contains mercury. It is probably best to take a median ground here. --MASEM (t) 06:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Masem: FYI, that source is unreliable - academicjournals.org is a predatory open access publisher. Guy (Help!) 14:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

We do not have the absence of a statement: the EU source I cited specifically denies a significant risk. Basically the argument here is around substituting lay fears and analysis of the result for competent, official sources. We don't do that. Mangoe (talk) 12:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, not really. First, that EU report was in 2006 (if I'm reading it right), and it doesn't specifically call out HFCS so while not as much an OR violation as assuming absence of safety warning = safe, it's still making some assumptions; the report that sparked the issue (which I'm not saying is necessarily right) was 2009. I think it is factually appropriate to say that HFCS made from caustic soda that is produced from chloro-alkyl plants may have mercury in it, but organizations like the EU have said that the levels are well below risk levels in humans, and that the manufacturers of HFCS have switched off chloro-alkyl caustic soda to further eliminate any possible mercury contamination. And then discussion the 2009 "scare" from the IATP report. --MASEM (t) 13:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

• This is a mess. Reviewing the OP's OP and the three diffs they cite, it seems that they want to add content about mercury in HFCS, and the dangers of that mercury, based on the following four refs, which I have taken the liberty of formatting with pmid etc to the extent they are available.:

• • Dufault, R; LeBlanc, B; Schnoll, R; Cornett, C; Schweitzer, L; Wallinga, D; Hightower, J; Patrick, L; Lukiw, WJ (26 January 2009). "Mercury from chlor-alkali plants: measured concentrations in food product sugar". Environmental health : a global access science source. 8: 2. PMC 2637263. PMID 19171026.
  • Wallinga, David (2009). "Not So Sweet: Missing Mercury and High Fructose Corn Syrup" (PDF). Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy.</ref>
  • Rideout, Karen (21 July 2010). "Comment on the paper by Dufault et al.: Mercury in foods containing high-fructose corn syrup in Canada". Environmental Health. Retrieved 14 March 2017.
  • Dufault, Renee (2015). "Blood inorganic mercury is directly associated with glucose levels in the human population and may be linked to processed food intake". Integrative Molecular Medicine. 2: 166–179. Retrieved 8 March 2017.

First ref is a primary source that is 8 years old. Not MEDRS.

2nd ref is a white paper by Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, an advocacy organization. Not MEDRS.

3rd ref is a letter to the editor. Not a MEDRS source.

4th ref is a primary source published in a journal put out by a predatory publisher. ("open access text" was on beall's list). It is also not MEDLINE indexed. Not MEDRS by miles.

None of that is OK. Maybe there are other sources i missed. Jytdog (talk) 05:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, checking above, the 2nd ref is rather key - even if it is not MEDRS, as it started this "scare" of mercury in HFCS in 2009. It needs to be mentioned in that context, but it can't be used to state factually about mercury content or the lack thereof in HFCS. --MASEM (t) 06:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

so if somebody wanted to add content that the white paper kicked off a controversy, they would need a reliable secondary source (not MEDRS) for that.. ideally a NYT article or the like. The white paper itself couldn't be used to support that it itself started a controversy. Jytdog (talk) 23:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• This whole situation is descending into a sticky mess. (I know how corny that is and I really don't care.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:41, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I made that crack at ANI last week . Come up with your own material, smartyPants. EEng 11:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Stealing jokes is a longstanding tradition among comedians and internet jackasses. Besides, I added to it with the parenthetical. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

The Inquisitr

Is the Inquisitr a reliable source? I ask in relation to this. DarkKnight2149 00:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

As far as I am aware Inquisitor is a news aggregator and does not produce any original content itself. So any source used should be from where they stole borrowed it from. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Strangely, the link that the Inquisitr provides doesn't confirm the cast member. The user that listed the source has been trying to add the cast member to Hellraiser: Judgment for a while now. Do you think I should remove it again or add a "Better source needed" template? DarkKnight2149 13:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Information not supported by source? Remove it. If it was a case of just badly sourced, you can be justified in asking for a better one if its not really contentious. If the source itself doesnt support the information at all its essentially unsourced. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Given the actress concerned has only one ref and links to IMDB and facebook on her biography, I feel better sources may not be forthcoming. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I meant that the Inquisitr says it, but their source doesn't. Does that qualify as the source supporting it, or would it be better to still remove it? DarkKnight2149 20:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind. She's listed on the cast at Rotten Tomatoes. I'll just use that. DarkKnight2149 15:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Kate Mulgrew

Hi I attempted to add a quick line on Kate Mulgrew's reuniting with a child she gave up for adoption. User User:Bbb23 keeps reverting the line out though I added one citation and then 2 more. This is my last edited page on Mulgrew, [Kate Mulgrew; personal life section]. Another user User:ScrapIronIV has since edited the line out as well. The information is no secret, she mentions it in a memoir in 2015 so it is public knowledge. Koplimek (talk) 21:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

IOC President?

Is an IOC President reliable when he prizes Olympics co-organized by the IOC?Xx236 (talk) 10:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the question. Presidents of large international organizations are only reliable for statements of fact in a narrow range, such as "my organization has X number of employees" (and maybe not even then -- it depends). Presidents of large international organizations are notable, so their opinion in various things might be worth stating, depending on what it is, as an opinion. "My organization is a fine thing and its outputs are great", probably not. "Over my years as a notable person in this field, I have sadly seen such-and-such trend grow", quite possibly. If this doesn't help, perhaps you could be more specific? Herostratus (talk) 19:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

The President said that he organized fanstastic Olimpics. The statement is quoted here as reliable. I would prefer neutral opinions about the Olimpics.Xx236 (talk) 05:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Again, please be specific. At least mention the Wikipedia page where this is quoted, because it's impossible to discuss this without any context. --bonadea contributions talk 07:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Russia#Sports Commentators evaluated the Games as having been an overall success - is an IOC President a commentator?Xx236 (talk) 07:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

2014 Winter Olympics#Concerns and controversies Xx236 (talk) 08:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Sochi Olympics postscript: The whole thing was a fake Xx236 (talk) 08:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• This edit is probably the relevant one. The 'successful' comment was referenced with this and this. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

There are hundreds of sources about corruption and doping at Sochi. Hello!

Xx236 (talk) 05:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

The next step

Olympics History Rewritten: New Doping Tests Topple the Podium

has been removed being allegedly part of irrelevant addition containing errors.Xx236 (talk) 06:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't call the IOC president a "commentator". Also, to present one POV, that the games were a success, without including mention of the doping scandal, probably violates NPOV. Felsic2 (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Not a disagreement, but: the problem is not so much that the IOC president is or isn't right to say the games were a success (that's NPOV and balance issues to make sure that the conclusion is shared by an overwhelming majority of RS). The problem is that the IOC president will never say the games were a failure, because he is not an independent "commentator". If a well-known editorialist wrote the games were a success using exactly the same words, it would be a proper source, but the IOC president is not. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Right, which any reader would realize if they were given the information. In fact, I think anyone who wrote this properly, such as saying, "The IOC president called it a success", would immediately rethink the issue. It's OK to say it, but it's so obvious that it's essentially pointless. The more Wikipedia way would be to include both POVs. Something like, "The games, called a success by some, were marred by a doping scandal among Russian athletes." Felsic2 (talk) 16:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Rachel Caspari: as a source on the satus of race in contemporary biology

At Caucasian race I am discussing whether Rachel Caspari, who is a physical anthropologist and current president of the American Association of Physical Anthropologist, is a reliable and objective enough source for describing the general view of contemporary anthropologists regarding the use of the typological view of biological race.(Caspari, R. (2003). From types to populations: A century of race, physical anthropology, and the American Anthropological Association. American Anthropologist, 105(1), 65-76.) Another user is arguing that since she represent the world's largest professional organization of physical anthropologists her summary of the status is likely to be biased in against race. I argue that it is absurd to propose that a professional distinction could be used to disqualify a scientist, and that she is of course entirely able to describe the development of the discipline in a neutral and objective fashion (the article is a review article of the history and the changing positions of the American Anthropological Association). ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

A president of a scholarly association is a good source for the state of scholarly opinion in the relevant disciplines. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• "Another user is arguing that since she represent the world's largest professional organization of physical anthropologists her summary of the status is likely to be biased in against race." You are right, that is obviously absurd. It essentially requires that you think the professional organisation is biased for some reason in the first place, or has some underlying monetary interest in pushing a particular viewpoint. If there actually is evidence the AAA has a view that is different from anthropologists (outside the US) in general, this might be an issue, but as far as I am aware they do not. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Need to show scientific doubt about kratom use and liver toxicity.

...and citing the DEA goes the wrong way. Start here... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mitragyna_speciosa#DEA_not_a_reliable_scientific_source Kolyvansky (talk) 21:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

4thMedia

This source has been questioned, is it subject to pertinent questioning? 187.104.26.6 (talk) 03:23, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Don't know what you mean by "pertinent questioning," but that source doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards for Reliable Sources. It is not neutral, objective, has no reputation for fact-checking and reliability, etc. It's just one of many extremist partisan websites on the internet. If the statement that you are trying to support is true, then there will be reliable mainstream sources that support it. Please read WP:RS if you want to know how Wikipedia works regarding sourcing. First Light (talk) 03:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree with First Light - it is absolutely unreliable. It's a shadowy website that advances various fringe ideas and conspiracy theories; has none of the traditional characteristics of a reliable source. Neutrality^talk 03:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Link searches

Consider naturalnews.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com . This is, by common consent, one of the most unreliable sources of health information on the net. I check special:Linksearch/*.naturalnews.com periodically, it takes an age, for reasons which will be obvious when you click the link.

For a brief while we had the ability to filter link search by namespace. It went away again. I think the habitués of this board would agree, being able to filter by namespace would have immense utility. Or am I wrong? Guy (Help!) 00:00, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

The ability to filter linksearch by namespace would be immensely helpful. Neutrality^talk 22:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

oh heck yes. pinging the liaison for WMF discovery, User:CKoerner (WMF) Jytdog (talk) 05:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, thanks for the ping. This looks like a common request. I just discovered it was in the top 50 of the Community Wishlist for 2015. I'll see if I can find the right person to help. I added a note about this request to the existing phab task on this subject. The good news is that the API already allows this, but the Special:LinkSearch feature does not expose that via the UI (due to performance concerns). CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 16:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the pleading at the phab, and your reply here. Jytdog (talk) 06:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@Guy: Meanwhile, if wanted I could use a script I have to list articles where naturalnews.com is used. As you are doing that periodically it may not be particularly convenient, but I'm happy to do it, say, once a week. If wanted, where would I post a list? A subpage in your userspace? Johnuniq (talk) 07:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes please, user:JzG/HealthDanger - or send me a copy of the script, that would be very handy. Thanks.

I created the page; there are currently only two articles. I'll update it each week or so, or ping me anytime, particularly if I forget. If there are more links you want to monitor, add them here or to the page (which I'm watching) and I'll add them. The script is based on stuff I have developed over several years and is not easy to package for someone else—let's see how this goes for a while. Johnuniq (talk) 04:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Ripoff report

In this edit summary a Ripoff Report link is removed with a reasoning that (to me) makes no sense in a Wikipedia context. It looks very much like a representative of the company named in the report wanting to remove the bad rep. The same editor had changed the reference to a different Ripoff report - but when that was reverted, the user suddenly started claiming that Ripoff reports are not useful at all.

However, even if this is is an attempt at whitewashing, it is possible that this particular link is not in fact the best source here. The information being sourced is "The great majority of the complaints and discussion about companies that cold-call and offer "technical support" report them as being not merely incompetent or ineffective, but actively dishonest, doggedly trying to convince the victim of non-existent problems by trickery, and when possible damaging a computer they gain access to." and the reference is this one. I don't think ripoffreport.com is a poor or unreliable source (and the "rebuttals" on the Ripoff report page are a bit silly), but is it really consistent with good sourcing practices to use a report about one specific company to show something about complaints and reports in general? The same thing probably applies to another reference for the same sentence, namely this one. Thoughts on this? Something obvious I have missed, perhaps? --bonadea contributions talk 09:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

The Ripoffreport is the place where everyone can register and leave any opinion without any evidence needed. The Wikipedia should not use it as the trusted source or reference. The Ripoffreport URL added on Wikipedia with the title wording may also be confused and seen as a misleading information of the company among other references.

Furthermore, the Ripoffreport page is clearly not a customer review or a trusted review:

1. Everyone can leave an opinion on Ripoffreport even a malicious-on-purpose one without any evidence backed; Ripoffreport is very controversial website; please see the Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ripoff_Report

In 2015, the United States District Court for the District of Utah stated that, although the Ripoff Report homepage shows the tag lines "By Consumers, for consumers" and "Don't let them get away with it. Let the truth be known", the site allows competitors, and not just consumers, to post comments. The Ripoff Report home page also says: "Complaints Reviews Scams Lawsuits Frauds Reported, File your review. Consumers educating consumers", which allows a reasonable inference that the Ripoff Report encourages negative content. Moreover, Ripoff Report's webmaster affirmed that positive posts about a company are not allowed in the website. Therefore, the court concluded that the website's owner is not a neutral publisher, because, through large fees that companies must pay for the website's advocacy programs, it has an interest in, and encourages, negative content.

2. The Ripoffreport (as well as the one Bonadea just posted) can most likely be a fake one:

  * the user leaved opinion without any screenshot,or order#
  * the user can't provide further details after the employee rebuff with 'No Davy' agent in the company & asking for the order# on this case
  * the user is leaving an opinion for the service offered in the company's physical operating location, however the company is providing services online only (when publishing on Ripoffreport, there are options whether it is for physical or Internet online; the html title of the page is with the company's physical location while not the 'Internet' wording); both of the reference links on that Wikipage as well as the newly one just posted by Bonadea are left with the opinions on the physical location 
  * there are good reviews also left by other users on this page
  * the user will be offered with a full refund if the issue can't be fixed on this page.

These are my concerns regarding this reference link, which could be a fake/not trustable review on the controversial Ripoffreport website.Johnwiki23 (talk) 11:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Random online user-inputted reviews or complaints are pretty much never going to be a reliable or authoritative source for anything, and should rarely if ever be cited on WP pages, surely. Even if they were, in this case, as noted, there's the additional problem that one such review is being used to support a generalised statement about what typical criticism consists of. N-HH talk/edits 13:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, the Ripoff Report reviews/complaints are (purportedly) vetted by the website staff so it's not just some general forum or Wiki style website with no editorial oversight. I think I'd still prefer to remove that reference and the mywot one (my second link above) simply because they only discuss individual companies. The remaining reference should be sufficient, I think. --bonadea contributions talk 13:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Possibly cursory "vetting" or checking of online content submitted by anonymous/pseudonymous members of the public is not the same thing as fact-checking and formal editorial oversight of professional, expert writing, which is what the RS policy generally calls for. Neither Ripoff Report nor mywot appear to be much of a step beyond a forum tbh. Even if there are other reasons for removal here, that point shouldn't be dodged, for future reference. N-HH talk/edits 14:11, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• This is a clear exclude. The link seems designed to crowbar in mention of YooCare, whicih Dr. Google informs me is indeed an amazingly bad company, but this article is not about YooCare. Guy (Help!) 10:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Marginal Revolution (blog)

An editor wants to include two references to Marginal Revolution (blog) and its "Marginal Revolution University", a free market education project, in Rent-seeking. I think use of blog posts and primary self-published sources are an issue when the source has a clear POV, as this one does, and the sources are redundant to more reliable ones, but it may be that this blog is reliable for this content. Please see Talk:Rent-seeking. Guy (Help!) 19:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Tyler Cowen is a notable guy and his blog is notable, if you want to include his thoughts about possible solutions to the tullock paradox based on the blogpost, then quote him somewhere (with attribution that these are his thoughts) somewhere in the body. More weight should be given to published peer-reviewed research on the topic, and there's no reason to cite MRU or MR for uncontroversial stuff like the defition of the paradox when better sources available. NPalgan2 (talk) 20:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Bleacher Report

Bleacher Report is a content farm that produces content just to be SEO Optimized, with no regard for the truth. Editors are encouraged to use hyperbole and misleading headlines to get more views on their writing. There are thousands of Wikipedia articles using them as a source, and these are either junk sections that should be removed, or news that should have an actual, reliable, source rather than Bleacher Report. http://www.bleacherreport.com

Chin_(combat sports) -- This article is chock-full of click-bait "listicles" about "fighters who have good chins" from Bleacher Report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warshington (talk • contribs) 06:31, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Samaritan Pentateuch translation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi,

My name is Aleksandr Sigalov.

I would like to dispute the Samaritan Pentateuch article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaritan_Pentateuch

In this article, the editors give credit to the Ben Tsedaka for being the first who translated Samaritan Pentateuch in English. This is not true and I request that you give me credit for being the first who translated the Samaritan Pentateuch in English AND Russian (Russian translation is also first in the world).

I am the expert on the Pentateuch (over 10 years of experience). My Russian translation of the Samaritan Pentateuch is also first ever made. The English translation of my Pentateuch was published in April 2012. ONE YEAR before Tsedaka's! Not to mention that my work is superior in all ways.

In fact, Tsedaka translation is made according to the Samaritan tradition, therefore he mistranslated many words in his primary translation and even added words to the Torah text which is prohibited. See his translation of Exodus 4:25 as one of the best examples. My translation, on the other hand, faithfully shows the Samaritan Torah text as it was WRITTEN.

Tsedaka is not even fluent in English so I question his ability to translate anything at all in English.

I understand that it is a self-published source but I request that you make an exception because my work was too big to be published on paper. Also, very few serious scholars nowadays read paper books so I do not see any sense in this rule in my case.

My translation is the only one available on the Internet for free use and if you will Google "samaritan pentatuch" you will see that my web site comes up first. Over 22k people read the translation since it was published.

My translation was also published in many free and commercial Bible study software packages such as TheWord or BibleWorks, STEP Bible also. Samaritans themselves link to me in their Newspaper. http://shomron0.tripod.com/2013/novdec.pdf

Also, I my translation is being used/quoted in the article I am disputing and other Wikipedia articles.

The editors of the article have been extremely hostile to me, so I am appealing to you. My numerous attempts to get credit for my work got rejected for no reason. Also, the editors even removed my site from the External Links section, that was there for years, as a retaliation and without giving me the opportunity to respond.

Please help me out with this issue. I would like to get credit for my hard work.

My work is published here: https://sites.google.com/site/interlinearpentateuch/

Thank you.

For us, there are various questions. One is whether the Tsedaka and Sullivan edition is reliable as a source for the article. Then if it is reliable is it notable enough to mention. Then the same can be asked about your own work.

What we can't do is to take up a plagiarism case for you. If you want to do that I would suggest writing to the publishers.

So, on the face of it there are no problems with the Tsedaka and Sullivan edition. It is from a publisher which has been publishing religious works for many decades. So I think we have to count it as reliable. If at any point there is a plagiarism challenge we would have to revisit that. Then your own work. There is no problem with online-only publication, if it is on a well established site that would be considered to be a reliable publisher. My Google search throws up BibleWorks, which is well established, but it is not clear that it operates in the same way as a publishing house. Step Bible looks to be well established as well.

Perhaps someone who knows a lot more about the Bible than me will come along to give further advice. For now, it seems that both versions are OK, either to use as a source or to mention briefly. It is a complicated question, though. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Itsmejudith. All I want is either to get credit for my work. Or, if you can remove the reference that Tsedaka's work is first, this will work too for me. I am very flexible. Plagiarism is a separate issue and this is not why I am here. Also I would love to see my link back in the External Articles section. It was there for many years and it was not harming anyone. Regardless, I would really appreciate if you can help me with this issue. Did you see the Samaritans linking to me link above? Thanks. Please note that Tsedaka's work is absolutely unreliable. His translation is really really bad and inaccurate. 172.58.19.15 (talk) 18:34, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Aleksandr Sigalov's translation of the Samaritan Pentateuch is not mentioned in any scholarly source, anywhere, as far as I can tell. All sorts of stuff finds its way onto various free online software packages. He self-published it, and despite his frequently repeated claim that he is "the expert on the Pentateuch," no actual Pentateuch scholar ever interacts with his work. This should be a strong red flag. I strongly recommend that his work not be treated as reliable on Wikipedia. The fact that he is referenced on a website associated with Samaritans is irrelevant for our purposes, because there is not a single actual legitimate scholar of Hebrew (Samaritan or otherwise) who considers Mr. Sigalov a reliable source. Personally, I've looked over his work, and it has serious deficiencies. Now, it's true that I'm just some guy on the internet. But so is Mr. Sigalov. When a blogger calls himself "the expert" on an academic field of study, and no academics concur, this should be a pretty much open-and-shut case against using him as a source on Wikipedia. Alephb (talk) 17:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

PS. To untangle what's going on with the BibleWorks mention, see here, where you can see that Mr. Sigalov's work is included via a "User-created database." In other words, a Bibleworks user took Sigalov's work and simply reformatted it so that it can be read using the BibleWorks software. This sort of thing should not be confused with anything resembling academic peer review. All sorts of interesting stuff finds its way into the User-created modules category, and it's not filtered for reliability in anything like the Wikipedia sense of the term. The unofficial Bibleworks blog even includes instructions for users who want to create their own modules/databases. It's pretty much an unfiltered process. Alephb (talk) 17:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Those are important considerations. Are we just talking here about the quality of the translation? Because even a poor translation could be worth an external link, if it is convenient, and if it passes the minimum standard of not being actually misleading. Or is there another issue at stake? Itsmejudith (talk) 19:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I had been under the assumption that external links were held to WP:RS standards. Maybe I was wrong about that. If not, I'm not sure where the minimum cut-off is. Definitely the transliterations of Hebrew words given at Sigalov's site throughout are idiosyncratic to the point of being misleading for 99% of readers. Just taking Genesis 1:1, for instance, he reads bareshet/bereshit as b_raShit, bara as bra, elohim as alhim, etc. etc. with virtually every single word given a very strange rendering. His "Modern Literal Torah Translation" is (to be perfectly frank) bewildering and often borders on nonsensical (see here). His translation style is filled with severe and repeated misunderstandings about how the verbal system of biblical Hebrew works, including for simple verbs like "to be." And, whichever of his websites we link to will be full of statements by Mr. Sigalov promoting his eccentric interpretations of biblical passages, and passing himself off (wrongly) as the expert on the Pentateuch. On the list of external links we shouldn't have on Wikipedia WP:LINKNO I think it's pretty clear that points #2 and #11 apply to Mr. Sigalov's websites. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh. Alephb (talk) 21:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Sir, I do not know why you have a grudge against me, but you are clearly mistaken. You obviously did not even bother to read the "About Translation" page on my web site and I also suspect that you did not even see my English translation of the Samaritan Pentateuch. Also, you judging me as some kind of "expert" while your user page states that you not even fluent in Hebrew (most certainly NOT in Torah Hebrew). Please see this link and please tell me what problems do you find with my translation? https://sites.google.com/site/interlinearpentateuch/online-samaritan-pentateuch-in-english/genesis 172.58.19.156 (talk) 03:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not a matter of a grudge. Your website contains a variety of things, and as far as I know I've seen all the various translations: there's an interlinear, a "literal" translation, and then one based mainly on the KJV. The first two are baffling. For example, here's where you go word by word through the Hebrew text [27]. Anyone who wants can follow along. For the first word in Genesis (Masoretic bereshit, Samaritan barashet) you translate it "in_beginnings" although it should be singular. The third word in Genesis (Masoretic elohim, Samaritan Eluwwem) you translate as "strengths" when it means "God." The fourth word, et, you translate as "with" which is not its meaning in this verse or in most places; it's a less common meaning only found elsewhere. It's usually the objective case marker. In Genesis 1:2, you translate a word as faces_me which means surface of. In Genesis 1:3, you translate Let there be as he-is-becoming. And so on. There's misleading translation choices in every single verse I've looked at so far. More broadly, you translate wayyiqtol verbs as if they're equivalent to the English present tense. So it's not a matter of a grudge. It's a simple disagreement, and disagreements happen on Wikipedia all the time. You think your work is scholarship, and I don't. It's not a personal thing. To avoid disagreements like this, Wikipedia has a set of guidelines about what should or shouldn't go onto the external links section of a Wikipedia page. That guideline is WP:LINKNO. It's criterion #11 eliminates personal websites like yours. Alephb (talk) 19:13, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Are you high? Why do still continue to discuss different translation? And you still did not read the About Translation page on my site, which is why your assesment of my translation does not make sense at all. We are discussing my Samaritan Pentateuch translation and so far you have not told me one single thing that was wrong with it. Please follow the link I provided - you are clearly confused which translation we are discussing here. 172.56.44.139 (talk) 20:23, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

No, I'm not high. If you're talking about this About Translation page, I've read it. We are talking about whether we are going to direct readers to your site, which contains multiple translations, some of them clearly very bad, and serious accusations against other people. For example, from your "About Translation" page that you keep accusing me of not reading: Please note that I was the FIRST IN THE WORLD to publish Samaritan Torah translation in English and Russian. Samaritan Ben Tsedaka's translation was SECOND after mine. He is a liar and a thief because he stole credit for my hard work. Not only he published his translation 1 year after mine, but he intentionally mistranslates the text and even ADDS words to the Torah. See Exodus 4:25 for example. His translation is of extremely poor quality and it does not faithfully represent Samaritan Torah text as it was WRITTEN. Not to mention that Tsedaka is not even fluent in English. So if you are looking for accurate translation of the Samaritan Torah text in English, please read my translation. In light of WP:LINKNO, criteria numbers 2 and 11, that's why I'm not recommending your site for use on Wikipedia.

You still have not told us why you think my SP translation is bad? Please be specific! Here is the direct link again just in case you got lost again: https://sites.google.com/site/interlinearpentateuch/online-samaritan-pentateuch-in-english/genesis 172.56.44.139 (talk) 00:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I realize that you think the discussion over the "SP" translation should be a different question from the issues with the "Literal" and "Interlinear" parts of the site, but I disagree. I really don't think we can separate the one translation from the other two for the purposes of deciding whether to link to your site. The link you gave tohere, for example, lands the reader smack-dab not just in the content on that specific page, but with a navigation bar to the left where all the easiest material to access is from the highly unreliable interlinear. Up above is a link to the "Modern Literal Torah" translation, where the reader can see what happens when a translator misreads how constructs work and treats wayyiqtol as if it were equivalent to English present tense. In other words, I don't think we can effectively separate the English-only text you're asking about from the rest of the site. The moment a reader clicks a link to his left to find another passage, he's smack-dab in the misleading "Interlinear" for instance. The moment a reader clicks the About Translation link, he goes straight to a page which accuses a published scholar of being a "liar and a thief" without citing where this person is said to have lied or stolen. The context in which we're presenting the "SP" translation matters. And even if we don't count any of these things against the site, there is the unfortunate fact that the site still does not meet the "recognized expert" burden set by the Wikipedia WP:LINKNO policy page at bullet point 11. If the other editors on this site think that WP:LINKNO doesn't apply here, and if they don't think the other material on the site is at all a problem for Wikipedia linking to it, I will defer to their judgment. But that's how I see things. I think me and you should wait and see what everyone says now instead of discussing it further. Alephb (talk) 03:21, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Here is the a more or less honest review of Tsedaka's book on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R3ANMI9140EDG8/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0802865194 172.56.39.182 (talk) 05:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

My first reaction is more or less like Itsmejudith's, that I see no reason in what is written above not to have the translation as an external link. Debresser (talk) 12:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, man. I appreciate your understanding and support. 172.56.44.139 (talk) 15:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Debresser, what about criterion #11 of WP:LINKNO? Is that not relevant in this case? Also, the threading here is gotten kind of weird, but I've just added a comment above that works through the first couple verses of Genesis, if that helps. Alephb (talk) 19:16, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Debresser, he is at it again. He is clearly biased against me so please disregard his statements. He also continues to discuss completely different translation and he still did not tell us a thing wrong with the one that is in question here. 172.56.44.139 (talk) 21:00, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Here is my bibliography in print so you know that I am the expert:

09/2012 “The Corner Boards of the Tabernacle” article and illustrations. Published in Jewish Bible Quarterly journal, issue 40:3 July-September 2012. Republished on Amazon Kindle (ASIN B004QOASUI). Also published as a Google eBook.

09/2012 “Dimensions of the Court of the Tabernacle”. Google eBook.

10/2013 Illustrations of the Menorah and the High Priest for the article by Rev. Robert Hinckley called “Adam, Aaron, and the Garden Sanctuary”, published in LOGIA: A Journal of Lutheran Theology, Reformation 2013, Volume XXII, Number 4

03/2014 Illustrations of the Utensils of the Altar of Burnt Offering of the Tabernacle for the book “The Mystery of Tabernacle”, Jeyoung Publishers, Korea. 172.56.44.139 (talk) 15:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

When it comes to this "bibliography in print" I think a couple comments are in order. For the second entry, the eBook, was it peer-reviewed or discussed by any scholars? The last two entries would speak more to qualifications as an artist than any scholarly material. And the first entry did make it into an online journal called Jewish Bible Quarterly, but it's also available online here [28]. Jewish Bible Quarterly, as far as I can tell, makes no claim to be a typical peer-reviewed journal either, and I haven't been able to find any regular biblical scholars who make any comment on the corner boards article. Alephb (talk) 19:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

It looks like nothing is good enough for you. Maybe problem is you? As far as I can tell you simply attacking me for no reason because you obviously have a personal bias against me and my work. 172.56.44.139 (talk) 20:23, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

None of this is personal. I'd appreciate if you don't speculate about my motives. Wikipedia has a policy called "assume good faith" WP:GF, which says that I should assume that you are making your arguments in good faith, and you should assume the same about me. This is a simple disagreement about whether or not you are an expert source on the Samaritan Pentateuch. Disagreements are fine -- they happen all the time on Wikipedia. I'm trying to determine whether your blog can meet the hurdle established by criterion 11 of WP:LINKNO. That's why we're discussing whether you have a "recognized expert" status on the topic of the Samaritan Pentateuch. It's not that "nothing is good enough for me." It's that we need to find some evidence that you are "the expert" as you keep claiming. A good start would be at least one mention, by one real scholar, anywhere in the world, who agrees that you are an expert source. That's all. That's not a high bar, and an expert on the Pentateuch should be able to cross it easily. Otherwise WP:LINKNO #11 applies in this case. Alephb (talk) 21:05, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Now you are talking. Thank you. I already cited the link from Samaritans to my translation: http://shomron0.tripod.com/2013/novdec.pdf. As far as scholarly mentions - I do not have one and maybe you can tell me why? My work had been publicly available on the internet since 2012 so I have no idea why no scholar ever mentioned it. I got a lot of emails with thank you's for my work and over 22k unique users with 150k pageviews. Will this work for you? Other than that, my translation is mentioned in Wikipedia on many pages, including this one. Is this what you need? As far as being the expert source, the only thing I can cite to you is my translation itself. If you claim to know Hebrew like you say you do, you should see that my translation is accurate and true to the text. And you can compare it with Tsedaka's one and see for yourself that his translation is absolutely unreliable and incorrect. See Exodus 4:25 in his translation as a good example. STEP Bible is another place where my work is published (you kinda missed it too). As far as other material on my web site...Why does it matter? As far as I know, we are only discussing the English translation of SP. And the translation that you have been criticizing is not even supposed to be used. It is for reference use only, like my About Page states. But you did not read this part, right?172.56.44.139 (talk) 00:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

My position is similar to that of Alephb. This seems to be a writer who has taken "idiosyncratic" to an art form. Also, none of the four publications have any bearing on the ability to translate. For all I know, this writer's translations are entirely right and everyone else's are entire wrong, but we can't make such decisions and I don't think it belongs even as an EL without the positive judgement of an independent expert source. Zero^talk 03:00, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey, Aleksandr Sigalov. Are you the same as the Aleksig6 who is banned indefinitely for abusively using multiple accounts, and who also made edits to the Samaritan Pentateuch page in favor of including Aleksandr Sigalov's work? Alephb (talk) 06:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

See Talk:Samaritan Pentateuch#Self-published sources where the previous identifies himself as the operator of Sigalov's websites. Alephb (talk) 07:06, 1 April 2017 (UTC) And this: Aleksig6 claiming to be Aleksandr Sigalov [29]. Alephb (talk) 07:15, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

There is no point to further responding; the IP is socking through a ban. Please just allow this to drift into the archive. Jytdog (talk) 08:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree and have blocked the current IP. Doug Weller talk 10:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I do not want to respond any further to the accusations of "Alephb" and "Zero0000". They clearly have personal and religious bias against me and my work, which AFAIK is prohibited by WIkipedia rules. They most certainly NOT acting in good faith. They have not told me still what is wrong with my SP translation. Not to mention that "Alephb" completely misunderstand and misrepresents my other work without even bothering to read the description that was provided on the web site. My translation is absolutely accurate and as I have stated it was published in STEP Bible and Samaritan Newspaper, not to mention that my translation is being used all over wikipedia. After spamming the whole discussion, "Alephb" still have not provided a SINGLE example of what may be wrong with my translation.

As far as Tsedaka work...Please note that even though it was published by what you call a "reliable source", his translation is garbage and absolutely inaccurate and misleading. I have provided the example above many times - See Exodus 4:25 for example. In this verse he grossly mistranslated primary text and even ADDS words to the Torah while passing it up as a legitimate translation. This is most certainly very poor scholarship and anyone with half a brain should see it.

And now they also want to accuse me of sockpuppeting. Great. I have no idea who that user is!

Last, but not least, my work is most certainly notable by the internet standards. Like I posted above, my Samaritan Pentateuch was read by over 22k users with over 150k pageviews, which is quite a lot compared to how many people read the work of those who you call "experts". My work was publicly available on the internet for many years unlike the work of those "experts" that is NOT available for anyone. I have no idea why it was not reviewed by any of them. I am assuming they do not want to give me credit for my work, just like the users above who criticized me. I do not believe Wikipedia rules require me to have a world-wide recognition. I am an independent scholar and my work is very different from traditional Biblical Studies. However, it does not mean that my work is bad or somehow any worse than any other scholarly work.

Please restore my link in External Links section and please give me credit in the article. 172.56.16.13 (talk) 14:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Well I was in favour of your work being linked to but now it seems that you are more interested in criticising the other translation than in proposing your own one. This is very disappointing. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Please folks, ignore the IP sock puppets. Doug Weller talk 06:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Source for Rivington Village

Could I ask opinions please as to the use of:

Source

Rivington web page. A site dedicated to the Rivington and it's history, a village of Rivington, Lancashire.

Booklet published by David Owen M.A Rivington And District 1823 To 1865

Article Rivington

Content

Three engineers Thomas Hawksley, Mr Cubitt and Mr Rendel were employed to draw up proposals in 1846. (section Reservoirs)

Also

The early 16th century chapel was rebuilt in 1666 and internally altered and restored in 1861. (section Religion)

--Pennine rambler (talk) 18:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

rivington.byethost.com is a wiki set up on a free web host. Editing appears to be restricted, but I can't find any information about who actually is editing. So WP:SPS applies: I don't think that this should be considered reliable. However, it does have references at the end of every page, so it might be useful for finding actual reliable sources.

Rivington And District 1823 To 1865 is a collection of extracts of newspaper articles which mention the town, as far as I can tell. The clippings themselves may well count as WP:PRIMARY sources, so are suitable for citing simple statements of fact but not anything requiring complex interpretation. I haven't checked any of these clippings, so you would also be going on faith that the transcriptions are accurate, though I can't see any reason why they would not be. I would cite them in the form: "$Newspaper, $Date, quoted in Rivington and District 1823 to 1865".

I can't see any support for your first statement in the newspaper quotes, but the restoration in 1861 is mentioned, so you could use it as a source for that. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:11, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

marxists.org

• marxists.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

We have a lot of links to this website, almost all of which seem to be material that was collected and published on the website but did not originate there. The site clearly advances an agenda, though there is less of the overt editorial advocacy than some comparable sites. Is this a problem? Is it link spamming? Should we be citing the books themselves, and not the mirrors on the MArxist site? I would certainly argue the last. Guy (Help!) 19:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Paging Carrite to this one, since he's connected to the site and probably has a better idea than most as to which elements of it are legitimate sources for a particular historiographical view and which elements are glorified blogging. (This isn't outing, before anyone starts shrieking—the association is disclosed on his WP userpage.) In principle I agree with the second statement about citing the originals rather than mirrors, but in practice a lot of this material probably only exists in print form other than on this site, in which case it's more of a service to the reader to indicate where they can check a Wikipedia article against the source material with a single click, than to just direct them to books which have been out of print for 50 years and only survive in a few specialist libraries. ‑ Iridescent 20:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

It's a fantastic resource. Obviously we usually cite the text itself but can add the Marxists.org URL for convenience. I don't think there's much blogging. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly the right play. If there's no easy link to the book at Archive.org, putting up a link to the html text at MIA is a good second choice. Carrite (talk) 01:46, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

• (Full disclosure: i'm a volunteer at MIA.) Marxists Internet Archive is a one-stop source for writings by radicals of all stripes (and even a few conservatives). It is completely non-commercial just like Wikipedia is non-commercial, so I wouldn't be worried about link spamming — there is no financial motivation. There's no "agenda" beyond the fact that volunteers at MIA (50 to 100 around the world, working in multiple languages) tend to be......... Marxists. I'd guess that probably half or two thirds are Trotskyists of some stripe or another; I'm a left social democrat; there are Stalinists and Maoists who have been there, Che Guevarra enthusiasts, and so on and so forth. So there's really no "political" agenda in terms of promotion of a party or any specific ideology. Now, putting on my Wikipedian hat. MIA is to a large extent based on the transcription of books and articles and the best footnoting would certainly footnote back to these original hardcopy works, perhaps with a link to the MIA text if there are no linkable editions of the source in question. If one has energy, going through there and improving the links would be a good thing, just so long as we're not losing weblinks for unlinked books, if you follow me. Carrite (talk) 01:38, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Regarding copyright: MIA's entire wealth in this world is something like $6,000 (which is probably what WMF spends on company lunches each month) so we are very, very careful not to get sued over copyvio. There have been one or two instances in the last decade in which a copyright holder or claimed copyright holder has grunted at us for this reason or that and the contested material is made to go away very fast. So it is not a warehouse for copyvio material — one lawsuit and MIA dies, gotta be careful. Not stupid megahyperovercareful like Wikimedia Commons, but follow-the-law-of-the-United-States careful. Carrite (talk) 01:52, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the situation is as simple as Carrite implies. The website contains short biographies and summaries, apparently written by the site's volunteers, with no clear statement about who wrote and checked them and where they got their information from. These are not RS. The website contains English-language versions of texts originating in other languages. Some of these translations were made and published in the past, and presumably would qualify as RS if accurately transcribed, and some appear to be newly made by site volunteers, in which case they are not RS. The website contains web versions of English language texts. If these have been validated against the source material then they could be used as RS. However the process of conversion is unclear and hard to assess (there is no mention of the specific edition or copy used, the method of transcription, the name and date of the process, what QA checks were carried out). So if there were a quotation drawn from the text on the site, Wikipedia editors and users could have no certainty that the wording as presented was in fact an accurate reflection of the printed text. Martinlc (talk) 13:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I think we can use MIA with the important proviso that the note must specify both the original source and the MIA link, not just the original title. I agree with Martinlc that there is some risk, but this is also true with printed sources. On balance, the risk is acceptable. ch (talk) 21:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Bakitzur

Is Bakitzur, apparently published by the Mateh Yehuda Regional Council, a RS? I think not, but User:Davidbena disagrees. It was suggested used on Husan, a Palestinian village on the occupied West Bank, to source this, Huldra (talk) 20:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Our co-editor, Huldra, is referring to an edit in the Wiki article Husan, where it was written: "In the months of January and February 2017, regional highway 375 nearest Husan was again the scene of frequent stone-throwing at passing-by Israeli motorists with some injuries reported, which prompted the IDF to take measures to ensure the safety of all motorists." The source given was: Bakitzur - Mateh Yehuda Regional Council Weekly, Issue 387 (16 February 2017), p. 22 (Hebrew).

Huldra contends that a publication published by a government-sponsored Regional Council in Israel is not reliable. Of course, we disagree with that view. Then again, there are other sources as well. You may wish to check this one, here. Then, you have this article: IDF Protects Israeli Drivers in West Bank. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I would say it's ok for that. It's similar to a police blotter.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:35, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Congressweb

Do other editors think that Congressweb (specifically, this link) is a reliable source for BLPs about politicians (specifically, Hunter Hill (politician))? Everymorning (talk) 23:14, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

"Chart Attack"?

Dear editors: I have been working on expanding and improving stub articles about Canadian bands. There are a lot of these from the early days of Wikipedia. I frequently come across reports of these bands in an online magazine called Chart Attack. The older articles are quite gossipy and don't name the author of each article. The site's "About" page indicates that there are regular staff as well as volunteer contributors. They also say they accept press releases, but don't say if they print them or just use them for story leads. Because the magazine focuses on stories about local and regional bands, it often contains articles about early concerts and recordings of bands that aren't covered by newspapers until later in their careers. Is this a reliable source? Is some of it press releases, and if so, is there a way to pick these out?—Anne Delong (talk) 10:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Does the website/magazine indicate editorialship? If not, generally unreliable. If you can't distinguish between the staff contributions, and the press releases and volunteer contributions, it's probably also unreliable. Cases where you can isolate the article authorship to the staff, can you say that those cases are high-quality? --Izno (talk) 12:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I've done some research into chartattack.com using the Wayback Machine. It was started in 1996. A version of the "About" page from before 2011 makes the claim that the website is "the premier Canadian music content supplier to The Canadian Press", although that's not a neutral evaluation.

Yes, Izno, the publication has an editor. Their current "About us" page says that they have a staff writer, a photographer, "freelancers" and "contributors". I misspoke by calling them "volunteers", as I don't know if that's the case. There is a request that potential contributors send samples of their work, so they don't publish just anything people send in. It also says that they will read press releases and watch video streams, but doesn't indicate that they will (or won't) publish them or rely on them.

In 2011 the company which owned chartattack.com was sold and the people operating it had to reboot with new web software, causing the older pages to display badly. By reading to the bottom of the page and ignoring some funny characters, I have discovered that most of the articles do have the author's name. This makes me feel less leery about citing them because I can do a web search to see if the author has a COI. So far I haven't come across any instances of this.

About quality of the articles: They are rather chatty and do contain opinion ("Band Q's dreadful screeching..."), and a lot of information about upcoming events ("Band X is gearing up for a tour of New Zealand" or "You can catch them at the Pickle Club on Thursday"}, but it's easy to avoid citing stuff life that and concentrate on facts ("Their third album "Hopscotch" was released last week.", "Band Y played the opening set at the Flooglehopper concert, to a sold out crowd."). The articles are pretty good about using quotation marks to indicate information that has come directly from band members, etc. I think I will continue to cite Chart Attack as a source for non-controversial facts, and to show general notability, but not rely on it for anything that may have BLP issues.—Anne Delong (talk) 12:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

We've got an article about it: Chart Attack. It's a former print magazine. It's listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources, and I've cited it a few times myself. I'd say it's generally fine, but it never hurts to be choosy when you're writing BLPs. If you don't like Chart Attack, Exclaim! is a good source for Canadian bands. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:10, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source?

This one. I am not finding much commentary on the publisher. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:10, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

It depends on context. Which article are we talking about, and which specific statement within that article? A source may be reliable in one context, and unreliable in another context. Blueboar (talk) 11:43, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I am thinking mostly of the geological information on the Olca volcano, as well as the geothermal information. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Are left-anarchist sources reliable for an article on such a group?

In the lead on Anti-Fascist Action is the claim "It was notable in significantly reducing fascist street activity in Britain in the 1990s", sourced from the anarchist publisher Freedom Press. Justeditingtoday reverted me, calling it "perfectly reliable", which seems laughable: surely on a group from 20 years ago in Great Britain there is a scholarly source not from a biased niche publisher? Will we end up using Neo Nazi publishers as "perfectly reliable" sources for the "success" of Combat 18?

There have been prior queries over this reference, all of which have been ignored so I came here. There's also a reference from Red Action on the article: not only were they a violent extremist group but they were a major part of AFA. I haven't removed that reference but if I did and it got reverted I would be...perplexed Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 13:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

They are a RS for what they believed, on the whole, but any subject is rarely in the best (or any) position to gauge their own effect on events or their broader influence. Having said that, the question here is to what degree the Birchall book lacks independence or distance from its subject matter. — O Fortuna ^{velut luna} 13:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• Given its age and pedigree, Freedom Press seems to easily pass the bar to be considered "published", so we can cite them; however, they are also very obviously a WP:BIASED source. What that means is that we can cite them (and often they're a good source to use if we want to know what the Anarchist perspective on something is), but that they should usually be referenced using inline citations along the lines of eg. "According to Freedom Press, an Anarchist publisher, they significantly reduced fascist street activity in Britain in the 1990's" - we shouldn't just report what they say in Wikipedia voice if it's likely to be controversial, but we should report it if it's relevant. Basically, if you feel that a source is clearly biased, but they otherwise meet the reliability criteria, you should insert something to make it clear what perspective they're writing from (and make it clear who is saying this rather than reporting it as unvarnished truth); but you shouldn't necessarily remove them entirely unless you're concerned that eg. they're being given WP:UNDUE weight - which is a WP:NPOV concern and not a WP:RS one. --Aquillion (talk) 00:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I can't agree. We can't use sources like this for statements of fact. There are a lot of different things we look at for vetting sources, and bias is probably the biggest deal-killer. "It was notable in significantly reducing fascist street activity in Britain in the 1990s" -- maybe that's true, and maybe it isn't, but whether it's true or not Freedom Press is going to say its true, if it suits them. (I'm not saying they are bad people, they have a job to do -- their job is advocacy, not neutral reporting.)

It's like we wouldn't say "According to Ford Motor Company, the Lincoln Continental is the best value in its class". Maybe the Lincoln Continental is the best value in its class, and maybe it isn't -- but Ford Motor's opinion on the matter adds nothing useful to the conversation. What we want to know is what Motor Trend has to say. Simply tacking on "According to Ford Motor Company..." makes the following assertion less misleading, but still misleading, and no less useless.

If 1) fascist street activity in Britain in the 1990s really was significantly reduced, and 2) the entity "Anti-Fascist Action" really did contribute materially to that, then the Guardian or the Economist or the BBC or whomever ought to have reported on that, and I want to hear it from them, not an interested party. Herostratus (talk) 07:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

BuzzFeed yet again

Buzzfeed had repeatedly been found to not meet WP:RS. At Talk:John Searle the following claim is made, however:

I've restored the Buzzfeed Citations. I suspect they were removed in response to User:Maineartists saying "...the sources (such as Buzzfeed) are not that reliable" at the BLP noticeboard. However, as noted above, while Buzzfeed may be low-quality in general, this specific article appears balanced and also links to the filing, which would be useful to people interested in further reading. I would argue that specific should be preferred over general, and thus the citations should remain in this instance. Finally, citation removal is contrary to WP:NOCITE Inkypaws

I would like to suggest that a "content guideline" does not and can not override "policy." Nor does WP:NOCITE apply where a source has failed discussion at WP:RS/N. [30] etc. are clear. BuzzFeed is the "least trusted news source" according to a Pew poll. Has this now been changed at WP:RS/N? Collect (talk) 15:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Buzzfeed has improved in the last year or so with regards to its editorial practices - to the point where some articles are useable depending on content, material being sourced etc etc. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• I would always be surprised to see Buzzfeed "home of the clickbait list" passing WP:RS, but this does seem to be one of those rare cases [31][32] when it's trying to play being a real news site. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

---

This cite is reliable for this statement. Buzzfeed News has (kind of shockingly) developed a legitimate news operation in recent years, with actual journalists, separate from its better known listicle/clickbait side. Notwithstanding its reputation for "light fare" (which does reduce reader' trust levels, see this piece in Columbia Journalism Review):

1. Buzzfeed has a professional journalistic staff (editor in chief is Ben Smith, formerly of Politico; the head of its investigative unit is Mark Schoofs, formerly of Pro Publica, and a Pulitzer Prizer-winner).
2. Buzzfeed received its first-ever National Magazine Award in 2016, in the public-interest category (see here, also mentioned in the CJR piece)
3. They formed an investigative unit in 2013 and has done original reporting, with a fairly robust WP:USEBYOTHERS: see, e.g., Associated Press (meeting between U.S. senator and White House official "first reported by BuzzFeed"); CNN (layoffs at Guardian Media Group "first reported by BuzzFeed"); USA Today (customer data breach at Saks Fifth Avenue "was first reported by BuzzFeed"); Washington Post (controversial USDA science non-disclosure order "was first reported by BuzzFeed"); LA Times (authenticated leaked Colin Powell emails "were first reported by BuzzFeed News").

So it's not the New York Times or anything, but it is certainly usable in many cases. Neutrality^talk 16:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Check out the more recent threads in the archives here concerning it (here and here are just two of them): Yes, it's been found to be unreliable in the past, but the pendulum of consensus is slowly swinging the other way in recent months. I agree, it's shocking. Usually, we see RSes descend into unreliability, but wrt their actual news ventures, they're not all that bad these days. Even when they publish highly partisan stuff like that Trump dossier (for which they have been endlessly lambasted by the more mainstream press), they filled the subtitle with disclaimers about how unreliable the dossier was. That being said, I'd still be cautious and not use them for contentious BLP statements or the like, because while they're moving in the direction of reliability they haven't yet clearly established it beyond any reasonable doubt yet. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Caucuses Times (Russian language)

• Source: https://caucasustimes.com/ru/v-chechne-nabljudaetsja-vysokaja-stepen-r/
• Article: Chechnya
• Content: [Islam is] practised by 95% of the population [of Grozny] -- and any future content that other users may glean from the source and insert into the article.

Can anyone advise whether this is a reliable source for info like this? A newspaper poll, it seems? --BurritoBazooka ^Talk Contribs 23:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

no. The source says that 95% of respondents to a survey were practicing Muslims. That isn't the same thing as the statement above. Find an official demographic source for a statement like this. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 23:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Nolo.com

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• nolo.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Nolo.com is now on the spam blacklist, pursuant to MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/March_2017#Immigration_law_refspam_round_3. I was wondering, could Nolo.com ever be a legitimate reliable source, or a useful external link? N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 15:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• Well, it was blacklisted because it is 1) a store, which 2) somebody was spamming into a bunch of articles -- not because their material is necessarily unreliable as to facts (I'm not saying it is though).

You can ask for that site to be used in an individual article as a reference on a case-by-case basis, see MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist for procedure. I wouldn't recommend it because it seems to be mostly summaries of laws and stuff, which you ought to be able to get from another site. And we don't know anything about their fact-checking operation, or if they even have one. But they do credit their writers, and if the writer has a good rep... and if you can explain why the info isn't available elsewhere for some reason, you might get permission.

Absolutely not for external links, though. External links are more or less for "hey, here's a site with extra enrichment info you might find helpful", and we don't want to point to a site that been generally banned for trying to corrupt our date for their own pecuniary benefit under that circumstance. Too much trouble to separate the wheat from the chaff. Herostratus (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I thought in the case of Vipul, it was unclear exactly what his agenda was, or who his customers were? I've speculated that perhaps he was hired by Nolo's competitor to linkspam to Nolo and then reveal to the world that he had linkspammed to them, so that they would get blacklisted. I'm not sure why else he would linkspam a bunch of stuff and then say, "Here's all the places I linkspammed" as an invitation to revert and blacklist. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 02:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

This is the reliable sources noticeboard, not a forum to speculate about websites or editors. Editing shows a page notice pointing out that a source and article and content are needed for a discussion here. Johnuniq (talk) 02:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I was directed here by a sysop, in response to my query "Aside from the refspam issue, could Nolo.com ever be suitable for citations or external links, e.g. as a source of general overviews on legal topics?" N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 02:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• Reliable Nolo.com is a reliable source for law for lay persons. I can't believe it was blacklisted. Clearly an oversight. Yes, there are better sources in hornbooks, but these may not be available on-line and will be harder for the lay person to read. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) @David Tornheim: It is not an oversight that it was blacklisted. This, and a good number of other sites, were blatantly spammed by multiple editors (one of them got blocked after a rather unanimous !vote at AN/I, another is known for paid editing/pay other editors for editing). Blacklisting does not make any judgment about reliability further than 'it is a totally unreliable blog anyway', it judges whether it got abused beyond control, like here through paid editing and SEO techniques. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

You are honestly going to tell me that Nolo Publishing owned by a joint venture of the esteemed legal giants of Martindale-Hubbell and Lexis Nexis is a "totally unreliable blog"? Seriously? --David Tornheim (talk) 04:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: And you honestly are reading from my post that I say that nolo.com is a 'totally unreliable blog anyway' .. wow. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Beetstra: I did have trouble understanding what you originally posted, which is why I asked. You said, Blacklisting does not make any judgment about reliability further than 'it is a totally unreliable blog anyway....' The further than seems to say that this is the minimum level of judgment of just how bad a source is, but it may be even worse than that. Did you mean Blacklisting does not make any judgment about reliability further than 'it is a totally unreliable blog anyway', but instead it judges only whether it got abused beyond control...making no comment whatsoever on the sites' reliability.? Again I don't know anything about the blacklisting procedure other than the famed RfC that killed that U.K. tabloid. I would assume blacklisting does pass judgment on a site's reliability. It would be nice to see some WP:PAG on blacklisting to help clarify what the term and the procedure means. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: my apologies if I was unclear. Your rewrite is basically correct, we judge bad-faith addition against good-faith additions, and when the bad-faith additions 'overwhelm' the good faith, we are more likely to blacklist. If the good faith additions turn out to be utterly misjudged because the site is rather unreliable, we accept more good-faith additions and still remove them and blacklist. Same goes when the good faith additions are easily replaceable (one of the sites hosts a lot of copies of material that is out of copyright and which could even go onto Wikisource and sourced there). So we do judge reliability, but we generally do not blacklist because of reliability (only)'. (the tabloid RfC was used to override the 'we do not blacklist because of lack of reliability (only)'). Note that we also do not care who abuses the link, we (generally) do not know who adds a link - a good example are the mainstream, notable porn-sites, they get abusively added several times a day by what are likely schoolkids, some of those sites have never been spammed to Wikipedia.

To bring it back to the situation of the links here - some of them have a proper use here and there on Wikipedia, however they were added 'where-ever possible' by a handful of accounts (a certain group identified on User:Vipul's userpage). Some were also spammed independently. At some point you will have to accept that legit use needs to be controlled through the whitelist - we may now need to whitelist 10-20 full links on this website, and some on the others, so that some selected re-addition is possible. Re-opening the floodgates does not seem a good idea, people watching these articles did not notice the spamming that was going on (and we have seen that with similar cases). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Beetstra: Thanks for clarifying, although by saying So we do judge reliability, but we generally do not blacklist because of reliability (only)', there seems to be the implication that reliability was a factor in blacklisting Nolo.com, although I can't tell. Was it? It's especially hard to tell when there are no formal declarations of fact when the articles are blacklisted, but just association with "bad" editors who might be refspamming reliable sites. If a highly reliable site such as the U.S. Federal Register's site https://www.federalregister.gov/ or Code of Federal Regulations were inserted everywhere by a gang of nationalistic American teenagers who fell in love with American government, would it too be blacklisted?

If the claim is that the insertion of Nolo.com was inappropriate, please look at this removal by JzG. The Nolo article referenced "Ending a Lease or Rental Agreement FAQs"is good WP:RS for the material:

"In the United States, it is common to require key money in the form of a security deposit. The tenant pays one or two months' rent up-front. These funds are then held in escrow and are used to offset delinquent payments or damage to the property. If neither happens, the money is refunded (typically with statutory interest) when the tenant vacates."Ending a Lease or Rental Agreement FAQs", Nolo.

Although, I agree with the editor below that Nolo.com is not great for complex legal issues, that it is an excellent source for lay persons and removing all the Nolo links needlessly causes that section of the article to return to the state of having ZERO references. Allowing Nolo does not "add the floodgates" but strips our legal articles of one of the more useful sources IMHO. I think this was an inadvertent negative side effect on our legal articles from the paid editing fiasco by editors who probably didn't know our sourcing rules and mixed good and terrible sources. I agree most of the sites blacklisted probably should have been, but not Nolo.

If this is the wong place to raise this issue, where is the correct forum? --David Tornheim (talk) 15:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

This is a problem I have often seen when removing links to predatory open access journals. In the end, if the only source is not a RS, then the material doesn't belong. Any genuinely valid content will be capable of being sourced elsewhere. Guy (Help!) 15:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• Not very reliable. It's a commercial website; there's no indication about the extent, if any, that scholars actually review its content; nor is there substantial evidence of high-quality editorial control. It's like citing WebMD for a medical claim — it's probably correct, if simplified (and almost certainly not dramatically wrong), but it's written for the layperson and there's no guarantee that it's up to date, carefully worded, etc. Legal claims should be cited to one of many secondary authorities available (i.e., treatises, law reviews/law journals, encyclopedias such as Corpus Juris Secundum, etc.) or to journalistic sources quoting legal experts. There is virtually no situation in which a Nolo claimed is useful where another, more reliable source is not. Neutrality^talk 03:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Neutrality: I agree with you that there are better sources, and that Nolo is not a scholarly or academic source. But sources like Corpus Juris Secundum are not available on-line and the law reviews--if you can find them--are not updated either. There are on-line dictionaries like Cornell's LII, but they are sparse of information. How many Wikipedians (or readers) are going to go to the law library to look it up if they don't have an account on Lexis-Nexis or Westlaw? How many ordinary readers even know where there is a law library? I have Lexis-Nexis through college, but I don't feel it is fair to readers to cite there. At least with Nolo, people can learn more, given the sorry state of our legal articles, many of which have zero or very few references: e.g. Licensee,Condominium, Bundle of rights, Petit jury, Implied-in-fact contract, Mortgage law#Equitable_mortgage, Concurrent estate, Accord and satisfaction,consideration, Pacta sunt servanda. I wouldn't recommend Nolo to comment on a statute or case law, or anything highly technical, but I have found it quite useful in legal classes for simple legal concepts in real estate and probate for example--far more useful than most of our legal articles, except cases and statutes. It's hard enough to improve the sorry state of our legal articles as it is, and then taking away Nolo will just make it even harder. It would also undo the work I already did to try to add refs to our unreferenced articles. What sources available on-line do you propose we use if we do not use Nolo any more? And no, I am not an attorney nor do I have any affiliation with Nolo or the other corporations mentioned. Are you? --David Tornheim (talk) 04:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

There are, unfortunately, many areas for which the vast majority of material is offline, or online but behind paywalls. However, HeinOnline, a major legal database, has a partnership with Wikipedia that allows a limited number of editors to access the database: see Wikipedia:HeinOnline. Neutrality^talk 04:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll look into that. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This question is moot, whether it is reliable or not is not a question for the blacklist - whether a website is reliable depends on the context of use, and for many sites on the spam blacklists there is possible reliable or proper use. The sites that you are discussing, User:N I H I L I S T I C, often do pass the bar of being reliable sources and being useful, however the abuse has (had) to stop. For the cases where the omission of links is detrimental to a subject on Wikipedia, whitelisting of specific links can be considered, and when those requests are made after consensus for those specific links has been gained here, those specific links would be whitelisted rather fast. However, I would object against blanket de-listing / blanket whitelisting of a whole domain/site based on a discussion here, especially if there is (was) significant abuse. (I added tracking above, so any admins handling future whitelisting requests will easily find this discussion as an aid in determining a proper decision) --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

superdataprofiles.com

A reader contacted Wikimedia (OTRS ticket:2017041110014372 ) concerned that a recently added footnote (purportedly to support the birth date), also included home phone, home address and personal email address.

The article is Dimitri_Simes, the footnote is the first one. [edit - has now been removed by Kirill Lokshin]

Obviously, our policies do not permit the direct inclusion of that information in an article, but I do not know what our policy is regarding a footnote to a reliable source. (I plan to check into that separately, if anyone knows where I should look don't hesitate to let me know)

A separate issue is whether the site qualifies as a reliable source. I did a search and the site: superdataprofiles.com

did not generate any hits. Does anyone have knowledge of the site and whether it should qualify?--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

No way is that a reliable source. We also take care to not publish links containing the address and telephone numbers of people. Govindaharihari (talk) 16:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

WD-40 - evaluate conflicting sources

Article: the WD-40 article used to credit Norman Larsen as inventor of the product. This was recently changed to Iver Norman Lawson. The change was noted at the Reference Desk (permalink after April 13, 2017: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2017_April_7#Who_invented_WD-40.3F) by тнояsтеn, who asked for references in either direction.

Source: the Ref Desk found these sources in favour of Larsen:

• WD-40 company website [33]
• Two pre-internet books [34], [35]
• New York Times: [36]
• (these are in addition to the source the article had used in its former state: Bobby Mercer (March 18, 2011). ManVentions: From Cruise Control to Cordless Drills - Inventions Men Can't Live Without. Adams Media. pp. 181–. ISBN 978-1-4405-1075-5. Retrieved June 28, 2013.)

and this source in favour of Lawson:

• Journal of San Diego History [37]

Question: Please evaluate these sources and decide what information should go in the article. If they are all reliable, both men should be mentioned, yes? That is how I have edited the article for now. Your help is appreciated. 174.88.10.107 (talk) 12:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't know. I can't make head nor tail of this.

None of those refs are really very good. Yes, you'd think the WD-40 official site would be good, but... we don't know when these are thrown together by an intern with no fact-checking. I was just working on Duncan Hines and concluded after looking at all sources that the official Duncan Hines website is just plain wrong on the name of Hines's wife/collaborator, a key data point. So...

The New York Times piece I consider an OK ref but not that good, because the article is not about Larsen but just mentions him in passing, and since there're apparently two possible names out there... I'm not 100% confident. If it was Larsen's obit, that'd be different: the Times is not going to get the wrong name for the subject of an obit. But I can't find an obit for Larsen anywhere.

Books are not usually good refs because trade books are not generally fact-checked. You're basically just trusting the author, who may be in a hurry and not much care about details like that. The other refs aren't too good either.

But... Googling it, there are a lot of refs using "Larsen", and they don't seem to be copying from each other, not mostly. Here is one, from the California State Library (which sounds impressive and is, but doesn't prove they've actually had someone check it). But it's the weight of all those "Larsen" refs rather than any one ref that makes me think "Larsen" is more likely

Against that, you have the San Diego History Center. Again, "Oooh a museum" does not mean they have anyone actually checking their facts. But they are out front: We are right, the internet has it wrong. And they cite some sources. They sound very confident and authoritative. They have details; it reads like they working from a real source.

And it doesn't look like to be just a typo thing: Larsen/Lawsen or whatever. We have "Norman Bernard Larsen" versus "Iver Norman Lawson". It appears that there are actually two different people here. "Lawson" may have been born in 1892 (San Diego Museum has that date) and "Larsen" in 1923 (we have that date). It's a head-scratcher and no mistake. Herostratus (talk) 00:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Read the history on the company website again, more closely... it does not actually say that Larsen invented WD40... it says that Larsen was the one who had the idea to put WD40 in an aerosol form. On that point, it actually agrees with what the San Diego Museum history says. Blueboar (talk) 03:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Maybe... it says "In 1953... Rocket Chemical Company and its staff of three [worked together to create WD-40]", then says "Rocket Chemical Company founder Norm Larsen experimented with putting WD-40 into aerosol cans". If Larsen was the founder, he must have been one of the "staff of three" so he's a least a co-inventor. According to that site, which mentions no person named Lawson.

It seems that it is possible that three people -- Norman Lawson, Norman Larsen, and a third person who I gather was name Ken East -- created the formula together. OK, I can see how "Norman Lawson" and "Norman Larsen" could get confused. Sand Diego Museum says the inventor was just Lawson, but also has "according to his family", which of course is a chilling passage you seldom want to read in a source when figuring matters like this. I think the "one man’s conviction that if he kept trying..." angle is suspect as being based on interviews with family members. Family stories are terrible sources.

It's starting to sound to me like it was a three-person job, and we should credit all three. Or absent than, not credit anybody. Herostratus (talk) 04:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• The article posted by the museum is the best source by miles. It is from a bona fide journal (not a great one, but a real one), and by a bona fide scholar, Iris Engstrand ( i just created that :) ) But really people use should high quality sources and refrain from making shit up. The invention here, is the formula. The formula is a trade secret that belonged the Rocket Chemical company. Keeping it as a trade secret, means they never filed a patent on it, on which they would have needed to publicly list "inventors". If you want to give a definitive answer, say something like "The formula for WD-40 was created by founders of the Rocket Chemical Company". If you want to be more precise, you could add, something like "some sources credit the president of the company and a founder, Norman Larsen, as the inventor, while others credit another founder, the engineer Iver Norman Lawson, as the inventor and also say that the names got mixed up in the oral tradition" or the like. Jytdog (talk) 06:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I tend to to agree with your general conclusion, and solution: "The formula for WD-40 was created by founders of the Rocket Chemical Company" (who we can then list I guess), or something close to that. I think that's as close as we're going to get. It would take a real historian going thru source documents to truly answer the question, and that's beyond our ability or remit. We also need to bigly fix Norman Larsen (that lede, "[H]e had an insatiable desire to create things that would help make life easier for people. In his later years, his love of history inspired him to seek techniques to preserve antiquities, saving many treasures" actually made my eyeballs bleed).

I'm not as sold on the San Diego Museum piece. I don't see why you're defending it, since it contradicts what you're saying (it says "The history of WD-40... is the incredible story of one man's conviction... Iver Norman Larsen, the person who devised the formula..." and so forth). Iris Engstrand may be the cat's meow generally (and thank you for the new article!) but she dropped the ball here when she decided to give too much credence to the reminisces of family members, as shown in her footnotes. Family reminisces are generally bad sources, and execrable for statements of the nature "My pappy is the real hero of Event X, he told me so himself".

One thing I hope readers can take from this is: there is no such thing as a truly reliable source. Here we have the New York Times, the flagship of American news journalism, flat-out making the statement "Norm Larsen, the Rocket Chemical technician who invented WD-40...". I've had plenty discussions with editors who consider a source like that to be lights-out case closed: "The Times is a very reliable source, so our thinking job is over here: it's Larsen, period, end of discussion". But the statement appears to quite possibly not be true, not as stated ("the" inventor). Just saying. Herostratus (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

bigly! (it is kind of a sweet word)

i do think the SDJH ref is the most reliable and the author did go beat the bushes for primary sources which is what we look for historians to do for us (and yes footnote 1 is funny!) , but we cannot be the arbiters of Truth here. I would probably cite the SDJH rev for that view, and the NYT obituary for the other, and leave the other refs out of it. (with regard to the NYT even they are prone to mistakes on this kind of peripheral matter - you can bet they got nothing wrong about they subject of the obit. But you know what, i am going to email them to see if they are willing to correct that, on the basis of the SDJH history article!) Jytdog (talk) 22:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you all for your help, I learned a lot from this discussion. And the article turned out better! 174.88.10.107 (talk) 11:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you also from my side! --тнояsтеn ⇔ 17:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

On Mortal Kombat soundtrack being went platinum

I don't really know whether it is right place or not but i still write here.

Source in question is this one: "Search Results for Mortal Kombat". Recording Industry Association of America. Retrieved 2011-04-19..

Articles affected are:

• Mortal Kombat (film)
• Mortal Kombat: Original Motion Picture Soundtrack
• Fear, Emptiness, Despair
• Grindcore
• Control (Traci Lords song)

Problem is next one: this link is DEAD.

P.S. Sorry for my not so good English Sincerely yours Gleb95 (talk) 12:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC).

Here is a newer version of the page: [38]. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 17:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to you. Gleb95 (talk) 06:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

organicconsumers.org

• organicconsumers.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

We have a lot of links to this advocacy organisation. I do not think it is a reliable source for statements of fact other than about itself. Guy (Help!) 22:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes and no. Some of the links appear to be from articles that cover the anti-GMO stance - and an organic consumer organsation being used to say organic consumers dont like GMO's/why they dont like GMO's is perfectly reasonable. Even if the reasons they dont like it are misguided/bogus. On the other hand it is being used at Monsanto to say they (Monsanto) started manufacturing DDT in the 40's. Which while it may be true, they are not a reliable source for. Is there a way to filter out the user/talkpage links from the linksearch? As a lot of those are probably relevant in dicussion (but not in the article). Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure, but that would be a primary self-published source for anti-GMO comments, and should not be used. I think that if a reliable independent source has not covered the Organic Consumers comment on some aspect of GMOs, then we should not be reporting it at all. After all, the organic industry has long funded astroturfing to undermine GMOs and all other forms of industrialised farming. Guy (Help!) 10:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

• obviously unreliable for any assertions other than of mundane facts (and then decent sources should be readily available). Alexbrn (talk) 11:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Is a BLP's own Instagram a RS??

Article in question: Russ (rapper)

Diff in question this one

Instagram was brought up at RS in 2016 Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources/Archive_52#Instagram

WP:RS/SPS doth state For that reason, self-published media are largely not acceptable, but that is not in regards to a BLP subject saying something, and it being used a source.

Other editor's response: @L3X1: I have re-added the RIAA Gold certification because obviously you haven't checked the source and had instant doubt when you saw that the source was Instagram, literally Russ himself posted it on this account and its a verified profile, so its no excuse to remove it, thank you. Bloomdoom2 (talk) 22:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Is this an acceptable case of social media being used as an RS? L3X1 (distant write) 22:51, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

No, that's not RS. Material sourced only to the subject's own social media account would qualify as "self serving". If it made gold, there should be a better source for it somewhere. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

"Material sourced only to the subject's own social media account would qualify as "self serving"" Oh no...that is not self serving means.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, if this is an Instagram that makes a claim about themselves that is accurate, it is not what self serving means. We may use a subjects social media posts about themselves to reference information about the subject that is non controversial like date of birth current name they go by etc..--Mark Miller (talk) 06:20, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn't realize until after reading your reply I didn't write what I intended to write. "[Impressive claims] sourced only to the subject's own social media account would qualify as 'self serving'." We're not talking about the subject's birth date, we're talking about how well his singles have performed in sales and charts. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Someguy1221. It is ok to take personal biographical information from the self-published sources of a notable person (birth, family, education etc.) but not awards and recognitions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I suppose you could say "X has made this claim, but that is about it (and many still be pushing it a bit).Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

As long as the information is not self serving in that it makes claims about themselves, that only serve to promote their own self interests and is presented in a neutral manner, I could see this added next to any actual sourced information on the actual sales and chart information. It really comes down to whether the information is purely self serving like "Come see my next concert" or "Buy my latest CD". Sales and chart information is statistical and being commented on by the artist. There may be some encyclopedic value there...depending on how notable the information is and how notable the figure is.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, I don't know about "only", but claiming high sales figures certainly can be in ones own interest. And if the information really is of encyclopedic value, I would expect to be able to find sources other than the artist's instagram to support it... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• For uncontentious info only. Certainly not for statements about record sales etc. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
• OK for some noncontroversial detail like a birthday only. Not anything substantial. Please base substantial content on high quality sources -- if it is not in a high quality source it is probably UNDUE.Jytdog (talk) 14:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)