Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 228

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 225

Archive 226

Archive 227

→

Increase in cow-protection related violence since 2014

Latest comment: 7 years ago18 comments5 people in discussion

In the article Animal protection-related violence, I have added the following passage:

Recently there has been an increase in cow vigilantism in India, especially after Narendra Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government came to power in 2014.

To support this passage, I have cited these sources:

New York Times: "Cow protection groups, known as gau rakshak, have proliferated in recent years, since the Bharatiya Janata Party of Prime Minister Narendra Modi came to power. These vigilante groups have carried out violent attacks on Muslims and, more rarely, low-caste Hindus suspected of slaughtering cows."
Reuters: "Hindu hardliners and cow vigilante groups have been increasingly asserting themselves since Modi's Hindu nationalist government came to power in 2014."
The Sydney Morning Herald: "Ever since Narendra Modi and his Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) came to power in 2014, Hindu cow vigilantes have been in the news."
Deutsche Welle "Many observers believe that the extremists were boosted by the election of Indian nationalist Narendra Modi in 2014."
Huffington Post: "Such attacks on religious minorities have increased across India since Narendra Modi was elected prime minister in 2014, backed by the Hindu nationalist BJP."
Asia Times: "Ever since Narendra Modi became India’s Prime Minister three years ago, attacks from so-called “cow vigilantes” have been increasing, with the victims mostly Muslims or lower caste Hindus."
BBC News: "Vigilante cow protection groups have mushroomed. They claim to have a strong network of informers and say they "feel empowered" because of the ruling Hindu nationalist BJP government in Delhi."

Ms Sarah Welch has argued that the above sources are "primary news sources" and not reliable enough to make this statement as written above. I understand that these sources are not as reliable as a journal article or a book, but given they are talking about recent events (post-2014), most of the sources on this topic will be newspapers and magazines. The discussion is here.VR _talk 14:08, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Vice regent misrepresents my concerns and the issue, though correctly acknowledges my comment about primary news sources. I have proposed the following alternate which primary sources support:

Media groups state that cow vigilantism in India have increased after Narendra Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government came to power in 2014.[55][56][7] Many cow vigilante groups say they feel "empowered" by the victory of the Hindu nationalist BJP in the 2014 election.[39][54] The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) is another Hindu nationalist group active, with a history of cow protection-related vigilantism.[39]

I object to the following and related paragraphs Vice regent has created:

Recently there has been an increase in cow vigilantism in India, especially after Narendra Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government came to power in 2014.[65][66][67][68][8][69][excessive citations] The frequency and severity of cow-related violence have been described as "unprecedented".[70] (...)

The version by Vice regent includes conclusions and statements, relying on primary news sources / opinion columns, that secondary sources / peer reviewed scholarship do not support and contradict. WP:Primary sources can be reliable but need care in their use. If we use opinions in primary sources, we must quote exact and attribute the opinion to the source, not imply that it is generally accepted statement or mainstream conclusion based on secondary sources. We can mention post-2014 recent events, but any analysis, causal connections, anthropological/religious and historic claims need secondary sources. Please see page 161 of the Judith Walsh source, for example, for evidence why the opinion articles / newspaper articles such as Al Jazeera / Atimes.com / etc are not reliable source of history / anthropology / etc. Please also see this section for further concerns and comments on RS and NPOV issues created by Vice regent edits in that article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:40, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

MSW said above that "The version by Vice regent includes conclusions and statements, relying on primary news sources / opinion columns, that secondary sources / peer reviewed scholarship do not support and contradict" (emphasis added). Can you provide any secondary sources that actually "contradict" the content I have added?VR _talk 17:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Read the reply above for the link with the page number! I already explained this earlier on the article's talk page. See the other peer reviewed scholarly sources I have added for more. I can't help if you refuse to read the sources, or keep cherrypicking sources or content guidelines. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:51, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

page 161 of the Judith Walsh source talks about cow-protection violence happening the 1800s. It doesn't contradict (or even talk about) cow-protection violence increasing after 2014. I don't see where the contradiction is.VR _talk 02:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

It does, and it is strange that you don't see the Walsh discussion on the severity of 1880s and 1890s cow-related riots. See the Thursby source at pages 79-88, and other sources in the article for more. You wrote above "given they are talking about recent events (post-2014), most of the sources on this topic will be newspapers and magazines". But for anything beyond the simple quoting of basic info about alleged attackers, alleged victims and alleged motives from primary news sources, why can't we wait a few months or few years till peer-reviewed RS – e.g. journal articles or books by academic publishers – become available? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 06:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

"why can't we wait a few months or few years..." Because that's not how wikipedia works!! If there was a notable event yesterday, then wikipedia will have an article on it today. Most articles on recent events have absolutely ZERO books or journal articles as sources and rely entirely on newspapers. Take 2017 Sichuan landslide or 2017 Bahawalpur explosion, for example.VR _talk 07:26, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment - "Unprecedented" is either rhetorical, in which case it has no reason to be duplicated on Wikipedia, or it is a historical claim, for which news sources are not reliable. In either case, it should be thrown out. Other than that, there is not much here that is of relevance to RSN. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:25, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, that is exactly my point, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:35, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

So this can be resolved by removing one word... "unprecedented"? Blueboar (talk) 13:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

...and similar rhetorical / historical claim language or words! That is what the replacement para tried to do, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:28, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Wait a second. The "unprecedented" part is actually sourced to a journal article in Politics, Religion & Ideology, which is a scholarly source. Kautilya himself called it a "good quality" source. @Blueboar: The use of the term "unprecedented" was only one of MSW's objections. The other objection is whether we can state the following sentence as fact: "Recently there has been an increase in cow vigilantism in India, especially after Narendra Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government came to power in 2014." VR _talk 00:59, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

If the rest of the article is sourced from journal articles, well founded books, etc. - qualifying the statement by "some news reports" or "some media groups" would be in order - to differentiate that this isn't as well founded in comparison to the rest of the article due to this being a "currentish" event count.Icewhiz (talk) 13:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Most of the article is not from journal articles and the contemporary cow-protection violence can't be expected to be from journal articles, because it documents very recent events.VR _talk 00:59, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Icewhiz. The article is in a flux! in this version, if I counted right, the majority is peer reviewed RS. As Kautilya3 hints above that we need reliable sources, and the talk page discussion suggests the same, despite some opposition, we are trying to get more peer reviewed, high quality RS into the article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

The sources Ms Sarah Welch is referring to are about facts that have occurred long ago. For example, Hinduism's stance on the cows, the Cow Protection Movement of the 1800s, the legislation of various Indian states with regards to cattle slaughter etc. But the truth of the matter is that there are very few, if any, books or journal articles on recent cow protection killings. And one of the journal article I found did call the violence "unprecedented", something that MSW removed in her edit of the material.VR _talk 14:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Then attribute the "unprecedented" to whomever said it - don't put in WP's voice. It needs to be qualified - unless you have actual studies and this is a clearly established fact accepted by all major researchers. Recent events are indeed mainly covered by news articles - the question is how reliable they are in relation to a wide-spread phenomena and measuring its rate (and historical references - news sources don't always look 200 years back for comparison). Some of your sources only claim that "groups have proliferated" - but not that actual acts have. It seems from quick look at these sources that you could easily say "multiple media reports indicated an increase is cow protection violence" - but it would be best to qualify this.Icewhiz (talk) 14:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Just want to clarify that there are two claims being discussed here. #1 is that violence increased after election of BJP (2014) #2 is that current level of violence is "unprecedented". Obviously claim #2 requires a more scholarly source that can look back at history, whereas for claim #1 current newspapers should suffice.

Discussion on claim #2: "unless you have actual studies and this is a clearly established fact accepted by all major researchers." What do you mean by studies? When historians write history they don't actually conduct scientific studies they conduct literature reviews etc. Secondly, how do I go about proving something is accepted by "all major" researchers? If by that you mean, that no major researcher disagrees, then yeah I agree. And in this case, please note that there really aren't many journal articles on this matter, I have found a grand total of 2 (one of which I'm still trying to get access to because it was published only a month ago).

Discussion on claim #1: "historical references - news sources don't always look 200 years back for comparison". But the sources are not making claims about 200 years ago. They are only making claims about the last 5-10 years. Would you say that BBC News, New York Times, Reuters etc are reliable sources for making claims about cow protection violence in the last 5-10 years?

"Some of your sources only claim that "groups have proliferated" - but not that actual acts have." Ok, then we can say "Recently there has been an increase in cow vigilante groups in India, especially after...". That's merely a difference in wording.

Ultimately the issue is that are newspapers reliable sources for recent events? I very strongly argue yes. If newspapers weren't reliable sources then we wouldn't be able to write articles on recent events.VR _talk 03:46, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Korea Exposé

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Source: https://koreaexpose.com/racism-seoul-bar-failed-multiculturalism/

Article: Racism in South Korea

The Korea Exposé was removed from the article. Is the source reliable or not to verify the following deleted information: "As a result, it is common for people to be denied service at business establishments due to their race, with such incidents occurring as recently as [of] 2017"? --George Ho (talk) 04:57, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Well it seems to have an editorial team, but they also list an intern (which seems a bit puffery like to me). I also note the owner is also editor in chief, so I would be a bit dubious.Slatersteven (talk) 09:00, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Newslo.com

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Someone recently added some citations to a news satire website in this article. Can these citations be replaced with something more reliable? Jarble (talk) 22:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Oldest Harley-Davidson club in history?

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Looking for feedback on the sources in this addition to Harley-Davidson, which says that the Prague Harley-Davidson club is the oldest such club in the entire world. There are six sources cited here:

[1] This is a self-published source by a European organization. Where does it say "Many Harley-Davidson Clubs exist nowadays around the world"? Is it independent, and reliable? How is the writer of this web page in a position to make this claim?
[2] ITN Source is a film library that sells clips. The summary of the clips for sale here is an uncritical rehash of the self-published claims the Prague club makes about itself (below)
[3] This source is the root of all the others. The Harley-Davidson Club Prague is boasting about itself here, with no independent verification. The club was founded by a Prague Harley dealership to promote its products
[4] Here is some other Harley dealership which has a copy of a press release from the Prague dealership. Again uncritically parroting the source.
[5] A TV station making a routine announcement about a club event. It quotes the president of the club, making the usual claims about itself.
[6] An auto website, with a direct quote from the Harley dealership sponsoring this club, making the same claims

Superlatives like "first" or "oldest" rest on proving a negative about every other club on Earth, which is not easy. How are the club president in Prague, or the staff of a Harley dealership in Prague, able to investigate the history of every possible club for the last 100 years in every other place on the planet outside of Prague, and be sure there were no other clubs in existence before 1928? Aside from their conflict of interest, are they even in a position to know what they claim? Since Harley-Davidson, a global company, is heavily invested in promoting its brand heritage and history, and has never been shy about claiming to be the first at many things, why doesn't the company itself ever mention the Prague club? H-D promotes rider clubs connected to its brand, and is known for pioneering this marketing strategy; see Harley Owners Group. Is it plausible that the company would ignore the oldest continuously operating owners club?

Perhaps its all true, but it's the kind of extraordinary claim that requires quality sources. Organizations like Guinness World Records (with all their flaws) exist to carry out the kind of independent research necessary to establish superlatives like this, but we have no evidence of anything of the kind here. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

You still do not believe me? Ok, here you go-another ones: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Is it enough? Jirka.h23 (talk) 18:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Haaretz headlines

Latest comment: 7 years ago11 comments8 people in discussion

Source: Sommer, Allison Kaplan (May 17, 2017). "Explained: 'Alt-right' Using Cruel Seth Rich Conspiracy Theory to Deflect From Trump's Russia Scandal". Haaretz.
Article: Murder of Seth Rich (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Content: [Just the second (italicized) sentence; first sentence added here for context.] "Conservatives and members of the alt-right, along with certain commentators on Fox News, featured coverage of the conspiracy theories during the same time period in which other news outlets reported new revelations about President Trump firing FBI director Comey, revealing highly sensitive information to Russia’s Foreign Minister and Russia’s Ambassador to the U.S., and having urged Comey to drop the FBI investigation of former national security adviser Michael T. Flynn. According to Haaretz, the timing of the these broadcasts about the Seth Rich conspiracy theory was most likely intended by Pro-Trump outlets as a distraction from the negative news concerning President Trump."

~~There are two problems here. First, "several observers" fails verification.~~ Second, the content is relying specifically on the "deflect" language in the source's headline, which oddly enough isn't supported by the source's body. The body says that the Seth Rich story was "aimed at undermining the credibility" of the Russia scandal, which is consistent with other reliable sources. It does not say the Seth Rich story was intended to distract (or deflect) from the Russia scandal. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Objection to posting; addressed --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

DrFleischman WHY are you using the OLD VERSION? This is how the article CURRENTLY stands, [7]. (See our discussion on the article TP Murder of Seth Rich TP Section Intent to distract)

"Conservatives and members of the alt-right, along with certain commentators on Fox News, featured coverage of the conspiracy theories during the same time period in which other news outlets reported new revelations about President Trump firing FBI director Comey, revealing highly sensitive information to Russia’s Foreign Minister and Russia’s Ambassador to the U.S., and having urged Comey to drop the FBI investigation of former national security adviser Michael T. Flynn. According to Haaretz, the timing of the these broadcasts about the Seth Rich conspiracy theory was most likely intended by Pro-Trump outlets as a distraction from the negative news concerning President Trump."

Leaving this out is a little misleading, don't you think, DrF? DN (talk) 19:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

My apologies, that was an oversight on my part. I believe I've fixed it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

It's pretty standard to employ headline writers who develop headlines that will grab readers' attention. In other words, not written by the author of the article and too often not accurately reflecting the content. If the newspaper article doesn't mention it, we shouldn't. Doug Weller talk 18:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

While Haaretz is generally a RS, with a pronounced leftward bias, it is not the greatest source on news on US politics unless they are Israel or Jewish related. They usually just rehash other sources in general US items, often to an audience that is not into the details. I will note that Haaretz has done some superb non-Israel reporting, e.g. their coverage on the ground in Crimea in 2014 was unique and ground breaking. But for US non Jewish/Israel/ME related politics there are usually better sources. And their English headline editors are not great - the English side is a small outfit, they have had some English headline gaffes, particularly on translated items. Icewhiz (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Since Dr.F has made corrections, I would ask the previous commenters @Doug Weller: & @Icewhiz: to review the changes. Sorry for any inconvenience this may cause. DN (talk) 22:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Newspaper headlines are not reliable sources. Their role is to describe the information in the article and may be misleading. In this case the title says that the 'alt-right' is using the Seth Rich murder to deflect from Russiagate, although the article itself does not say that. I am always suspicious when dubious sources are presented for stories that have extensive coverage. If the information is sufficiently reported, it should not be necessary to glean it from headlines. TFD (talk) 21:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Concur. Even the most reputable newspapers use headlines which don't match the body, or they are misleading. Few years ago The New York Times or The Washington Post (or both?) profiled their web readers and served different headlines for different users, which suggests that headlines have other purposes than just conveying the clearest possible message to the reader. Politrukki (talk) 18:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Headlines are generally written by "headline writers" and often do not actually make accurate claims as to what a journalist actually wrote. This has been discussed, with some editors insisting that the headline is "part of the article" but the fact is that actual newspaper editors admit that the headlines are the equivalent of newspaper "clickbait" and have been so for many years. Collect (talk) 21:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Collect: This article is under DS regarding American Politics. Please redact your comment. @HJ Mitchell: @Bishonen: SPECIFICO talk 01:18, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

verifiable

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello. The following sources mention Israel's involvement in training/funding MEK against Iranian government, specifically targetting its nuclear scientists. My question is whether I am allowed to remove the word "alleged" the way I did in this edit

Rock Center with Brian Williams (6 December 2014). "Israel teams with terror group to kill Iran's nuclear scientists, U.S. officials tell NBC News". NBC News. Retrieved 6 December 2014

"Report: U.S., Israel helped train Iranian dissidents". Haaretz. April 7, 2012.

Time Magazine(Nov. 30, 2010), "The assassination carried the signature of Israel's Mossad"

Independent(December 11 2010), "The attacks have all the hallmarks of Israel's secret service, which has carried out many such assignations in foreign countries over the decades"

Spiegel(August 02, 2011), "Mossad Behind Tehran Assassinations, Says Source"

Thank You--Kazemita1 (talk) 05:24, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

The same discussion has occurred at Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Notice your first source says, "U.S. officials tell NBC news." We should follow what reliable sources do, which is to say who made the claim and who denies it, and avoid stating it as a fact. And note that excessive qualification of the allegations should be avoided too. TFD (talk) 06:06, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

So you mean to keep the word "alleged" wherever possible?Kazemita1 (talk) 06:24, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Can I conclude this source unreliable?

Latest comment: 7 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

NAC:Closed at request of filer to permit discussion at WP:DRN instead. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:52, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

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.

In page Nathu La and Cho La clashes, it writes According to an independent source, the end of the conflict resulted in the defeat of Chinese military in the hands of Indian forces. ^[1]. I notice that in the book The Global Rise of Asian Transformation: Trends and Developments in Economic Growth Dynamics, the content cited from this book is a stand-alone statement "Chola incident (1967 - 1967) Victorious: India/Defeated: China". In same page there are 29 same kind of statements listed with this one. The problem is the Authors writes that sources for make those statements are "1. Macquarie Research Aug 2010; 2. Norman Friedman (1999). 3. Author.", and this book is about economics and no other information about historical matters are provided in this book. Can I conclude this source is unreliable? -- Fenal Kalundo (talk) 13:05, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

References

^ Hoontrakul, Pongsak (2014). The Global Rise of Asian Transformation: Trends and Developments in Economic Growth Dynamics (illustrated ed.). Palgrave Macmillan. p. 37. ISBN 9781137412355.

I would prefer a better sources, but I am not getting a "not RS vibe" of this source. I think it is a bit iffy for this one factoid, and better sources do not list it as an Indian victory.Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Slatersteven Thank you. I don't know if I should ask it here but, in current version -- According to an independent source, the end of the conflict resulted in the defeat of Chinese military in the hands of Indian forces., it states as it is a fact and the source we are talking about here is the only source used to back this statement. I have raised this concerned in talk page asking for supplemental sources few days ago but receive no responds on this issue. What should I do next? Can I omit this text? -- Fenal Kalundo (talk) 14:29, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Well Dupey and Dupey say it was an inconclusive campaign. So I think this is ore an issue of Undue weight being given to one version of events, rather then an RS issue.Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Got it, thank you again. -- Fenal Kalundo (talk) 15:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

You can certainly conclude that sources are reliable or unreliable as you wish, however other editors are unlikely to accept your authority in the matter. I would encourage you to seek consensus about acceptable sources on article talk pages, although that can be difficult and time consuming, it is an excellent way to collaborate with other editors. While it is possible that you're the only bird flying in the right direction, that's unlikely. Dougmcdonell (talk) 17:58, 3 July 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.

Research Article or Research Paper

Latest comment: 7 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

A user has claimed that historian Rakesh Ankit's work^[1] is a research paper. My position is that it is a research article satisfying WP:HISTRS. The work can be accessed here. I would like a second opinion on this work's status. Sicilianbro2 (talk) 14:34, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Rejoinder: The user who commented here had said to me that the issue was that Rakesh Ankit's work is a research paper and therefore a primary source but I believe it is actually a research article and therefore a secondary and WP:HISTRS source. Who is correct? Sicilianbro2 (talk) 22:06, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

That is not the issue. This user has claimed that this journal article is a WP:SECONDARY source. And, they have based almost an entire Wikipedia article Annexation of Junagadh on this one paper. The current version is a bit better, but it is still heavily overweight on this single souce. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Can you please clarify the question? First, I'm not sure what kind of distinction you (or anyone else) makes between a "research paper" and a "research article." Second, whether it's a primary or secondary source depends entirely on the context in which it is being used. And I'm not even sure why it matters if it's a primary or secondary source.

It would be most helpful if you could specifically provide the information that is requested at the top of this page: source, article, and content. ElKevbo (talk) 22:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

The actual problem here is that the article has became something like "Annexation of Junagadh in the words of Rakesh Ankit". Using one source to add more than 40,000 bytes to the article that has 56,000 bytes.Capitals00 (talk) 03:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

ElKevbo, I will leave it to the OP to answer the first question. The problem with it being a PRIMARY source is that the policy (WP:PRIMARY) gives us various dos and don'ts regarding its use. In particular, it says, Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. If you read the lead paragraph of Annexation of Junagadh page at present, it says In the words of scholar Rakesh Ankit the Indian state's action in Junagadh was just another instance of India using force to incorporate princely states and Indian Muslims into India.[2] These are very strong words and quite judgemental. I am not confident that one scholar's conclusions are enough for an encyclopedia to declare it in the lead. The paragraph following it is taken from the conclusion section of the journal article, which are stated as facts, even though they are again one scholar's views. Knowing the literature quite well, I can assure you that such strong views are quite isolated, and they by no means represent the consensus among sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the article is a problem at all. As per my understanding, a research paper is one that is not published, or is compiled into a school's publication that is not subjected to peer review. Theses are a good example. I think a research article is one which is generally published in a journal, though the reliability of each journal is sometimes up for debate (for example, an article in Foreign Affairs matters more than an article in International Socialist Review, though this doesnt discredit all articles in ISR, it just makes them weaker sources than Foreign Affairs). I'm basing this off my background in Medicine, but I doubt the definition for politics is much different. While it would be good to have more than one source, the fact that the source is published in a research journal lends, in my humble opinion, enough credibility for it to be included. Maybe just try to find a few more sources?Willard84 (talk) 04:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

References

^ Ankit, R. (2016). "The accession of Junagadh, 1947-48: Colonial sovereignty, state violence and post-independence India". Indian Economic & Social History Review. 53 (3): 371–404. doi:10.1177/0019464616651167. ISSN 0019-4646.

Specific instance - Facebook posts by experts as sources

Latest comment: 7 years ago19 comments7 people in discussion

Hi all,

Following on from discussions involving Beachbo, Blueboar, Chrissymad, Huon, Trainsofvictoria and Voidxor, I'd like to establish formally that the following pages qualify as reliable sources in the context of articles in the VRLocos Template, such as VicRail N type carriage and so on.

Background

Ruling by Staszek Lem that "If social media are reliably associated with official spokespersons for the company, then see WP:SELFPUB" (Archive 65).
Confirmed by Blueboar and Huon that the principle also applies to social media postings by individuals, if a) the account can be confirmed i.e. by checking posts over a long time frame to look for consistency and b) they qualify as an expert in the relevant topic based on previous published works. [12]
This is in response to Chrissymad deleting Facebook references for minor claims in the relevant articles on the grounds that Facebook is not a reliable source regardless of the content, which I dispute based on the above rulings and comments. Huon suggested that I list the particular references here, to discuss their individual appropriateness or otherwise.
Some/most of the references I used are from a locked Facebook group, but the vast majority of readers of the specific articles would already have (or could easily gain) access to the group(s) so I don't see it as a problem. (ref. WP:V#Access to sources "If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf"; in addition they are only related to minor claims, not overarching statements underpinning the whole page's content).

* Example: References 22 & 23
* Source: [13]
* Article: [14] – Row 4 & 5, Column 3 & 4

* Content:

2016-09-03

* Explanation: Discussion between myself and a person involved in fleet management at V/Line Passenger. I asked him, as part of a wider discussion, when Carriage Set SN1 entered maintenance (which marked when the carriages were reorganised); he replied “3rd September” and the context of the thread makes it clear that it was 2016. That date marks when carriage BN2 was removed for transfer to set SN8, as part of a project to improve reliability on the North East railway line by running four shorter trains in lieu of three longer ones. I am willing to upload a screengrab of the conversation, but I am not sure how to upload it. In any case, the claim is minor and does not underpin the validity of the entire article.

There are about sixty of these sorts of minor claims/references in the older version of the N type carriage article, and a handful of similar claims which have been deleted from other articles, which I think are reasonable, accurate, reliable and ought to be restored. Many are (that person) or his colleagues, or established experts like Daryl Gregory, who is cited in many of the ISBN references on the various pages in the VRLocos template. Others are links to random photographs or videos with timestamps showing that carriages were in a certain arrangement or paint scheme at a certain time. They are only intended as temporary, until such time as a proper, printed reference can be found. Ideally I would not need to provide this level of discussion for all sixty, though perhaps a randomly-selected handful would be reasonable, to demonstrate a pattern of accuracy. In that case, obviously I can't be allowed to select the random cases, so I suppose that's open to nominations?

Anothersignalman (talk) 04:19, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment This is the last possible way I can say this: a locked facebook group is not suitable as a source and cannot be deemed reliable. You cannot force readers to verify by joining a private Facebook group where the sole discretion of admittance is up to the administrator. Secondly, this introduces an aspect of WP:OUTING as Facebook requires individuals to use their real name and thus would require readers to disclose personal identification about themselves in violation of this policy and this does not address the fact that we do not vet individuals on Facebook as SMEs. Ever. Add to that we do not vet SMEs elsewhere either. SMEs are considered as such because of published, verifiable material. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 04:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Unreliable: it completely and undoubtedly fails the single most important tenet of Wikipedia: WP:V. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 04:29, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Re WP:OUTING, have edited above to remove individual names, just in case. Hadn't considered it as a problem, thanks for pointing it out. Anothersignalman (talk) 04:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Anothersignalman That is not what I was referring to as outing. I was saying that requiring individuals to verify information (especially those that edit here) by requiring them to use their own Facebook account to join a private group is bordering on violating the spirit of outing, among many other things. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 04:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

In any case, I've emailed the Oversight group. Anothersignalman (talk) 04:54, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

The issue of outing is, I think, a red herring. The fact that Facebook requires a real name to join is no different than a public library requiring one to show ID to check out a book.

That said.... when commenting on this issue at WT:V, I was not made aware that the social media source in question was located in a private, locked Facebook group. That changes things. While author may qualify as an expert based on previous publication... material posted to a private, locked venue would not qualify as being "reliably published".

To be considered reliably published, a source has to be available to the general public... not necessarily easily available, or freely available, or even anonymously available... but available never the less. A closed, locked facebook group (where some may join, but others can not) fails this availability requirement. The analogy in hard copy would be a rare manuscript that is located in someone's private collection. If that person would allow anyone who shows up at his door to view the manuscript, we could (arguably) say that it is "available to the public" and thus "published" by our definition. However... if the owner picks and chooses who gets to view the manuscript, then it fails that definition. Blueboar (talk) 10:03, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

And how would this differ from a Journal that requires a 1000$ yearly subscription to a real person (with money transfer), along with possibly some guild or association membership? Creating a false Facebook account would be easier. I don't think this fails the availability requirement (depending on the gate-keeping function of the group administrator) - however I still think it shouldn't be used as a source - as a private locked facebook forum seems to indicate that the publisher didn't intend to publish his comments widely.Icewhiz (talk) 13:14, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Icewhiz In this context, there's a vast difference between something that is published with editorial oversight and a Facebook group (locked or otherwise.) Additionally, anyone can pay the fee to join/gain access to something of that nature. The only entry requirement is something universal: money. A Facebook group can be changed, edited, modified by any of the members/administrators and there is no editorial oversight and there is not guarantee that members of the public could access it. But basically tl;dr it's still not a valid source regardless of open membership or not. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:24, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

A journal could require more than money - e.g. membership in an association or society requiring some qualification which could be difficult to avheived or a defined political affiliation (e.g. party membership). A locked Facebook group may operate in a clearly defined fashion in terms of granting access. I disagree with the availability argument - though I do agree with the conclusion (for different reasons - editorial oversight would be one).13:29, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Chrissymad, in all the Facebook groups I've ever encountered, admins/moderators and original posters can change content of individual posts, but a normal member of a group can't change anyone else's content.

We've established previously that if content anywhere can be confirmed to be owned by a previously-established subject matter expert, then it is an acceptable source (pending WP:SELFPUB, WP:POV, and now the accessibility requirement).

With specific regard to the latter of those three, I think I'm starting to see the point. The way I was interpreting the rules was that locked FB groups would be allowed because they are hypothetically available to everybody, which I understood to mean the same as, say, a journal article which anybody could hypothetically subscribe to and find back-issues of, even articles from a century ago. Combine that with the note in WP:V#Access to sources - "If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf" - and that seems to indicate that locked FB groups would be acceptable if "others" (presumably other Wiki users?) could confirm their validity, which is why I suggested some sort of a register where User A nominates a site, User B seconds that the source actually says what A claimed. If that's not how the ruling is supposed to be interpreted, then maybe that should be made clearer on the rule page? This is probably a good principle in any case – people could easily misinterpret or misrepresent the content of a journal article.

Putting aside the possibility that a group's locked-or-not status can change (because the analogy there is published books going out of print, or journals being declared bankrupt - neither of which change the validity of the content), I don't actually know what the privacy settings are on the groups I've referenced. To that end, here are some random examples from different groups. Can someone else test them and check whether the URLs work? (I'm guessing they might work for Beachbo and/or Huon based on their areas of expertise, but not others?)

A. [15]

B. [16]

C. [17]

D. [18]

E. [19]

F. [20]

G. [21]

On the assumption that none of these URLs pass the locked/unlocked test, I'd like to propose a compromise. I can leave the actual articles without the references that don't qualify, but I will maintain a userpage of my own matching the content and including those sources, until such time as I can find a "reliable, published" reference to add to the real article; and eventually my userpage version can be eliminated as obsolete. If, say, the reliable source gives the month of an event and the unreliable source gives the month (matching) and the day as well, then I might try to reference both in the proper article.

For the other minor points raised, just in case I need to refer to them some other time:

Re outing, the other odd part there is that in the past Chrissymad said that FB sources absolutely wouldn't be permitted because the account holders couldn't be verified. That's the opposite of what she's said above re real names? On the other hand, public libraries (to my knowledge) don't publish membership lists for general consumption.
Re Subject Matter Expert (SME) vetting, that's not what I was trying to do. Rather, I was trying to establish that the social media account/post is actually associated with the SME, which would automatically render it OK pending WP:SELFPUB. Other discussions suggested that WP:POV should be included in the test for SMEs, and a third test is the availability (hypothetical or actual) of the post in question.
Chrissymad, sorry for annoying you so much through the discussion across multiple pages. In the future if you encounter someone as stubborn as I am, I'd suggest finding other people who share your views and can back them up. Especially on a collaborative site like this one, consensus is key.

Anothersignalman (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Anothersignalman I don't have time to address all this however I will address your last bit, specifically: Chrissymad, sorry for annoying you so much through the discussion across multiple pages. In the future if you encounter someone as stubborn as I am, I'd suggest finding other people who share your views and can back them up. Especially on a collaborative site like this one, consensus is key. - I don't know if you missed what Huon and half a dozen others have told you over the last few years regarding this or it's a case of WP:IDHT but please go back and read the last several discussions that I've engaged you in. I am not the odd one out on this - my whole argument is supported by current consensus and policy. You are nitpicking bits and pieces but you're missing the overall point and that is that we do not vet people based on Facebook posts in a group and more importantly, comments someone may post in a Facebook group are not published sources. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I also want to add to your comment, I shouldn't need a calvary to continue to explain what is written in clear terms as a policy, your stubbornness is not the communities problem and insisting as much brings it to the point of tendentious editing. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I just want to throw in my two cents here. WP:PRIMARY says we can quote someone for things they've said, or for purely trivial information that isn't likely to be challenged. In this case, we have:

Information being challenged, which means a primary source is disqualified anyway.
A locked Facebook group means that someone who wants to verify a piece of information MUST either 1) release their personal information to a group of fairly random strangers (rather than a reputable library/journal/etc. who generally DON'T share membership lists) - ie: forced self-outing to verify content, or 2) violate Facebook's Terms of Use by registering a fake account. This would fail WP:V (we cannot require someone to violate a contract - which is what a TOU is - to verify information in an article).
We do not vet/verify SME's on social media. If a social media account is "Verified" or "Confirmed" by the social media service, then we follow that verification that the account matches to the SME and then WP:PRIMARY still applies. We are not a research journal publishing original content.
I believe, also, that you should read Original Research.

The compromise of leaving the information unsourced in the article isn't a good one, Unsourced or improperly sourced content that has been challenged should be removed until a reliable, secondary source is found to support it. On a userpage, the rules are more lax, but you cannot link to your userpage from the mainspace article, so you can keep it as a reference for yourself, but it's not useful for the article. Waggie (talk) 17:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Not useful references, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, I never agreed that "checking posts for consistency" was confirmation, nor did I agree that having published a book is automatic proof of being an "established expert". In fact I disagree with both, and that would not have been a conclusion from the wording I said was redundant over at WT:Verifiability#Permitting use of established experts as references, if posted on social media?. I rather do not think having published a book, even if it's on the relevant subject, is on its own good enough to make someone enough of an "established expert" to take someone's Facebook posts as references. Regarding that kind of "confirmation by looking at posts", it would be original research, and we cannot expect our readers to engage in such an analysis to determine the reliability of a source. Beyond this doubly doubtful expertise, there's also the problem that these specific social media posts are to a closed group. That's pretty much the opposite of being published. Waggie has said it better above, and Icewhiz' comments about the author maybe not even wanting it to be "published" beyond that group also carry weight. I also disagree with the reasoning that the source being a closed group is not an issue because our prospective readers are likely to already be members of that group. Shall we write small walled gardens for members of specific Facebook groups that others aren't expected to look at? Sorry, that's not how Wikipedia works; we cannot predict the social media activities of our readers. Huon (talk) 21:11, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Before worrying about WP:RS it may be helpful to consider whether the source(s) and information meet WP:DUE. If the source and information are not of sufficient weight to include in an encyclopedia article - and if some obscure social network post is the only source then things aren't looking good - then we don't even have to determine the reliability of the source. ElKevbo (talk) 22:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Waggie - I could be wrong, but my interpretation of previous discussions in the last few days was that Chrissymad was challenging the source of references (Facebook) rather than the content (the various dates, i.e. 2016-09-03 per above example). Does that count as "challenging a primary source"? Notably, the content where I was using FB as a source is not the main content of the article, which should help with WP:PRIMARY.

I now accept that locked FB groups are a problem. That's why I posted the seven random links above - for other users to test whether or not they are accessible, because I don't know.

I'd expect, based on these discussions, that using FB as a source is acceptable if, and only if, it ticks a list of boxes including accessibility, WP:SELFPUB, WP:POV and perhaps a few others.

Thanks for noting "vet/verify" - two different concepts. I misunderstood previous uses of "vetting" to mean that "verifying" was still permitted, based on the Staszek Lem ruling.

Huon - Re verification based on past works; I can see that one peer-reviewed publication might not qualify an individual's (assumed confirmed, for sake of argument) Facebook account as a reliable source. In the case of Norm Bray, Peter Vincent and Daryl Gregory, there are over fifteen peer-reviewed publications over the past decade; and Gregory in particular has used Facebook to post updates on events between publication and current.

If you disagree that "checking posts for consistency" qualifies as confirming that an account is linked to an SME, then does that mean you disagree with the ruling here - "If social media are reliably associated with official spokespersons for the company, then see WP:SELFPUB" (Archive 65), Staszek Lem?

A few months back you suggested that Wikia might be a better host for the sort of content I'm assembling. At the time I thought Wikia was exclusively for fictional media, and not for summaries of real-life events. Maybe that was wrong?

ElKevbo, I'm not sure if WP:DUE is relevant here because the content in question is not the whole of an article or even a quarter. It's just a table at the end.

Anothersignalman (talk) 01:52, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

"Reliably associated" is not an invitation for original research. That refers to things like, say, Donald Trump's Twitter account which Twitter has verified is indeed Trump's and not some impostor's. If Gregory uses Facebook for updates between peer-reviewed publications, we can simply wait for his next peer-reviewed publication and cite that when it's ready. I am not particularly familiar with Wikia, but it's my understanding that it's for "fandom", which wouldn't necessarily imply fiction. Huon (talk) 06:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Anothersignalman RE:Waggie - I could be wrong, but my interpretation of previous discussions in the last few days was that Chrissymad was challenging the source of references (Facebook) rather than the content (the various dates, i.e. 2016-09-03 per above example). Does that count as "challenging a primary source"? Notably, the content where I was using FB as a source is not the main content of the article, which should help with WP:PRIMARY. I am challenging both. The content is not verifiable and I am challenging the use of something as ridiculous as a closed Facebook group. So yes, it is challenged per Waggie's point. Stop parsing everything to fit your desire to include this. I'm not sure who brought it up but I think WP:DUE absolutely applies. If the only place this can be sourced is an obscure, closed Facebook group, it's rather unlikely to be appropriate for an encyclopedia. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 12:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:DUE is not just about how much space in an article is devoted to a particular piece of information but also about whether the information merits inclusion in the article at all. My brief-and-uninformed reading of this discussion is that there is some information that someone wants to include in an encyclopedia article but that information is only found in an obscure, difficult-to-access location. If my understanding is accurate then I question whether the information merits inclusion in an encyclopedia article at all. It seems very unlikely that the information is of high importance or represents a significant point of view if it's only found in one source. ElKevbo (talk) 14:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Can the Stack Exchange Network be considered reliable?

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

I recently found several hundred citations to the Stack Exchange Network in various Wikipedia articles. Can these online discussions be considered as reliable sources for Wikipedia? Jarble (talk) 16:06, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what is Wikipedia's policy regarding Q&A websites since I never saw one cited before, but I hope it is to treat them as unreliable sources, at least websites like Stack Exchange where anyone can answer. It's true that a good amount of accepted answers are of good quality and usually written by professionals, but that's not always the case nor is it verifiable most of the time. Maybe if it's a known specialist with a verified profile it would be acceptable, but then again I don't think Q&A websites are acceptable. I'm curious to see other answers to this. Saturnalia0 (talk) 01:46, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think Stack Exchange is ever a reliable source, no. Some users generally provide sources for their answers on that site, which could be helpful for replacing references to SE on Wikipedia, but the discussions themselves do not meet WP:RS. Though I have to say, the site is a great deal more reliable than, for instance, Yahoo! Answers, and most of the information on it is true (but I could say the same of Wikipedia and we're not a reliable source). — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 11:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

No. It's a forum whose content depends entirely on its users. Don't use. —WLM / ? 15:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Geohack

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I know Wikipedia itself is not WP:RS but can Geohack be used as WP:RS for coordinates? If not, does anyone know of alternatives? Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Leigh Rayment's Peerage Pages

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage#Leigh Rayment's Peerage Pages (2017) for a discussion on whether Leigh Rayment's Peer Page is a reliable source. So that the conversation is not split over several pages, if you want to comment please do so there. -- PBS (talk) 15:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

ethnicelebs.com

Latest comment: 7 years ago14 comments8 people in discussion

ethnicelebs.com appears to be a homegrown website with user-generated content. It's written using a Wordpress theme, says it's a "sole proprietorship", says "The information on Ethnicelebs is provided for entertainment purposes only ... we make no assurances that all information on our Site is accurate", refers to "submissions by Users", and "relies on the content submitted to its Site". (See http://ethnicelebs.com/all-celebs/welcome/terms) Is it a reliable source for the ethnicity and ancestry of people? 32.218.44.102 (talk) 15:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

No. Not a reliable source for any article, much less for the higher standards needed for information about living people. First Light (talk) 15:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Maybe no, maybe yes. Exactly what basis are you using to say that this is not a reliable source? Have you found examples of inaccuracies? I would think you would need to cite some incorrect information in order to support your statement. I'm not an expert regarding this cite, but I found information on this cite about a celebrity's ancestry that was actually more accurate than the information in the celebrity's own autobiography! This celebrity corrected his ancestry information in a subsequent book, and the new info was consistent with the info on ethnicelebs.com. Until there's some evidence that this is not a reliable source, there's no basis to judge if it's reliable or not. Finqqq (talk) 18:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: Ethnicelebs.com is linked from 120 pages, mostly talk and user pages, but also some actual BLP pages such as Rob Gronkowski. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

It was used in two articles - I have removed from both. Jytdog (talk) 02:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Also Tucker Carlson, which I removed in responding to a related edit request. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:41, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

So these deletions are being made based on the statement of one person that's not supported? That doesn't seem very logical. Finqqq (talk) 18:53, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Your question has multiple inaccuracies. A: It is not "one person". While the IP is clearly questioning its reliability, First Light explicitly said it was unreliable and the deletions made by Jytdog and myself are clear implicit recognitions of non-reliability (although I apologize in advance for presuming to answer on Jytdog's behalf). B: It is not "not supported". By the site's own Terms of Service: "...we make no assurances that all information on our Site is accurate" (which the IP started by pointing out). The definition of a reliable source says: Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. emphasis added A site that explicitly disclaims any claims to accuracy obviously does not fit that definition. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

The site is very clearly not a reliable source per WP:RS; this is not ambiguous. Jytdog (talk) 23:15, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

In no way does this website meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sourcing for the reasons explained by Jytdog above.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanations, and I recognize that weeding out the trash sources from Wikipedia is not easy. But your chief criticism of this particular site seems to hinge on the site's Terms of Service. It's true that their TOS was written with an abundance of caution, but if it had been written more artfully (referring to best efforts to fact-check, etc.) it appears this would not have been the sticking point. Also, you may have noticed that the definition of a "reliable source" contains the word "reliable" within the definition, as do some of the other somewhat circular definitions. It's not easy to have a litmus test for reliability, but it clearly should be strongly connected to accuracy. And if you're saying that a given piece of information from a source is not accurate, then you should cite YOUR source to refute it, hopefully from a more "reliable" source. In my case, this site was a goldmine of information that was accurate and was later confirmed by a published source, so it just doesn't seem logical to banish it completely from Wikipedia. Finqqq (talk) 01:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Finqqq:, before you talk of "banishing" a source, please try this: Go and read the standard on what is a reliable source. It's linked multiple times above. Then, if you can identify any reason (besides "I like it") that ethnicelebs.com qualifies under that standard, then you will likely get positive responses here. As it is, all you are doing is making allusions to censorship and requesting others to prove a negative. It's not an argument that is likely to change anything about how the source is perceived. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I've been looking at EthniCelebs.com additions since early this year. I didn't believe anyone would disagree with past consensus on it being unreliable and suitable for automatic removal by XLinkBot. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_76#Ethnicity, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_207#EthniCelebs.com, User_talk:XLinkBot/RevertList#EthniCelebs.com. I've not seen any spamming of the site during that time, and the few additions made are from editors that seem simply unaware of relevant policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronz (talk • contribs) 15:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Per the OP and several other comments, ethnicelebs.com is not a reliable source. In principle, even a generally unreliable source might be reliable for some fact, but that is not what is being discussed. The above claim regarding "cite some incorrect information" is incorrect—please examine WP:RS. Johnuniq (talk) 01:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Questionable sources for reviews of What the Health

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

What_the_Health#Critical_analysis. Take a look and share your opinions on whether the sources, especially the second one, are appropriate. --Rose (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

bismikaallahuma.org

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Link: [22]

I first noticed this used as reference and external link at Allah as Moon-god. An insource search shows that it's used on about a douzen articles only. I've seen worse, I wonder if it can be used as a source like here. I find no existing article about it either. Thanks, —Paleo Neonate - 12:05, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

You didn't identify which source, nor for what information. Can you please do so as required for this noticeboard?

Taking a cursory look across Wikipedia: I see what looks like a great deal of discussion mentioning bismikaallahuma.org vs it being used in articles. I suggest looking at the discussions to see what others have said about using the website.

I see currently three uses of bismikaallahuma.org ~~sources~~ in the article you mention, all apparently original works for bismikaallahuma.org. They look like opinion pieces. I'm not seeing any evidence of fact-checking and attention to accuracy from the website. --Ronz (talk) 18:07, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

The domain name is in the title and the specific example in my above "here" link (a diff). Do you mean also adding a direct link to the website? If so I have now added it at the top of this thread. I didn't search for article talk pages discussing the source but thanks for the idea, I only searched this noticeboard's archive unsuccessfully. Thank you for your assessment. —Paleo Neonate - 18:28, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I was confused by it being used in two other locations in the article.

All three are opinion pieces, and the backgrounds of the authors are unclear. I'd hope that better sources could be found for the content you are concerned about, as well as the other. That said, there are fringe/parity issues here. If these sources are of the same or better quality that those making the original arguments which these are countering, then they are may be fine. It might be helpful to have yet another WP:FTN discussion if these FRINGE problems are continuing.

Has anyone other than the single ip tried to add these links? --Ronz (talk) 23:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

My impression is that at least in this article, these sources are used to support that the fringe theory is erroneous, which would also be the scholarly consensus. My initial concerns were a possible clickbait or soapboxing blog because it was added as an external link as well, but considering the date of the entries I doubt that it's a site dedicated for Wikipedia clicks. It still appears to be a blog however. The slogan "Muslim Responses to Anti-Islam Polemics" may indicate that its purpose is activism (which doesn't necessarily prevent its use depending on the quality, I think?). The tone is not always neutral (i.e. "the claim that Muslims worship 'Allah the moon-god' is nothing but a heinous lie which is not based on any concrete evidence" which implies that hatred must be involved in the erroneous belief). I can't answer your last question for now, I'll have to check who inserted the other instances. Thanks again, —Paleo Neonate - 00:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

A YouTube video

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I used an interview with Sean MacEoin posted on YouTube as a source for information regarding his life. Is this an RS?Apollo The Logician (talk) 10:22, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

It helps to have the specific details...

The interview in question is: here
Apollo wishes to use it to support the statement: "He joined the United Irish League in 1908. In late 1913 he was sworn into the Irish Republican Brotherhood and joined the Granard circle of the organization."

The source is being objected to on the grounds that an interview is a Primary source, and the statement requires a Secondary source. Not sure about either of those objections. Blueboar (talk) 11:23, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I would object. In order to use an interview, I believe, we need details about the original production. Note that either the original producers or the youtube poster could have edited the original. You need to find the original production and use the published transcript, or a book that reports it. Also, I think that individuals memories of events decades ago can be faulty, so it should be mentioned in-text, that is, "according to MacEoin...." TFD (talk) 01:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment (Please note that I am respondinf to the information in the OP comment, which did not link to the video in question, and the thread title. I have not read the other comments, and I haven't checked the source in question, or the article context, yet.) Interviews are primary sources and so should be treated appropriately, perhaps with inline attribution to the interviewee, and with care for WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV. "a YouTube video" is the medium, not the publisher or author, and so has no influence whatsoever on the inherent reliability or unreliability of this or that source. One problem is that a lot of videos on YouTube are bootleg uploads that we are not allowed link to per WP:ELNO: in cases like that (where, for example, an interview was recorded off TV and then put on YouTube by YouTuber RandyFromBoise420420), the original interview is itself as reliable as any other interview from the original publisher -- we just are not allowed link to the YouTube upload. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Having read User:Blueboar's summary of the issue, I have to say I agree with those objecting to the source in this case. I haven't watched the interview yet, but I have to imagine it was recorded late in the subject's life (television was not really a thing in Ireland when my parents' generation were children, so unless this is a YouTube video of a radio interview I'd guess it was from the late 1950s at the earliest). This would mean the subject was looking back on events from 50-60 years earlier: I don't remember off the top of my head what month I joined my alma mater's Japanese Society, and that was less than nine years ago. If there are no reliable records and secondary sources by historians to confirm or deny his claims, then we must assume they are wrong.

@Apollo The Logician: You should try to locate a reliable secondary source.

The one caveat is that, in the article on him and nowhere else, it might not be undue to say that he stated that such-and-such is the case in a later interview. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Yemeni Civil War infobox

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There has been an edit war over whether or not to add sources, leading to, among other things, e.g. an addition of a warring faction in the infobox of the Yemeni Civil War article. Consensus was never reached as the discussion descended into personal attacks, and the dispute was not to be resolved. One party argues that the sources in question in the context would count as WP:RS, another party argues that the sources are WP:QUESTIONABLE at best and thus a lot of information should be deleted (compare the infobox without removals [23] to with removals [24]). The sources in concern, among others, are e.g. Middle East Monitor, The Guardian, alaraby.co.uk, criticalthreats.org. Do also note the differences in the unfoldable support sections of the infobox. Thus, the dispute concerns various sources. Can neutral third parties of this board figure out what to include in the infobox and what to delete? --87.116.0.30 (talk) 08:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Blogs cited in Ariosa v. Sequenom

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The article Ariosa v. Sequenom cites in the Ariosa v. Sequenom#Commentary section a number of blogs for the opinions set out there, in particular:

Are blogs like these considered RS? Is the way they are used in the article appropriate? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think so. These are some of the better-known IP blogs, particularly Patently-O, but I don't think any of them make our RS criteria. I believe these are all just self-published blogs. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:25, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Isthmus

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

We have on ongoing dispute on the James O'Keefe article about whether or not Isthmus, which is apparently a weekly alternative newspaper out of Madison, WI can stand alone as a RS for a quote. The discussion can be found here. We have an RfC going here, although it's so far getting a bit testy and receiving minimal participation. This is the text in question:

We've been bussing people in to deal with you fuckin' assholes for fifty years and we're not going to stop now." Foval went on to discuss the legal consequences of voter fraud: "Let's just say, in theory, if a major investigation came up of major vote fraud that way, how would they prove it?...If there's a bus involved, that changes the dynamic... You can prove conspiracy if there's a bus, but if there are cars, it is much harder to prove."[94] Foval later said he was talking about busing people to rallies.[95] The accuracy of the videos has been questioned for possibly omitting context, and the unedited raw footage has not been made available."

The bolded text is the Isthmus-sourced material. My issue with this material is three-fold:

Isthmus is a local "alternative newspaper" with minimal circulation, not a respected/mainstream/known publication. For those unfamiliar with this format, an alternative weekly newspaper is typically printed on low-quality paper and picked up in a rack outside of grocery stories and other local businesses, or available for free at bus stop benches.
Isthmus is literally the only source on the planet that carried this man's quote. No mainstream source saw it fit to report the alleged rebuttal of Foval to the very heavily reported videotapes on which he appeared, and subsequently cost him his job.[25] This oddity lends credence to the possibility that this quote may have never actually been uttered.
Finally, the quote makes no sense at all, which helps explain why only one writer in the world printed it. As we can see from the above text, Foval is clearly concerned about conspiracy charges and avoiding a "vote fraud" investigation as a result of "bussing people in." Since busing people in to rallies is neither conspiracy, nor vote fraud, this claim would clearly be false. However, when I suggested that we classify Foval's claim as false (if we can't agree to delete it outright) and change the wording to "falsely claimed", this prompted personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith, strangely enough. If there was another source that carried this quote, perhaps we could crosscheck it with that source, but no such source exists. For these reasons, I think it's a pretty open-and-shut case that Isthmus woefully fails WP:V policy, and the user who wishes to add this material is defiantly refusing to fulfill his responsibility of burden of proof.[26] Any help with sorting this out would be greatly appreciated! Thanks. Hidden Tempo (talk) 23:22, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

This isn't really a matter for WP:RS, but rather WP:DUE and/or summarizing the source accurately. Is there any doubt that Foval said it to the reporter? I don't think so; so the attributed statement is technically not a problem. The issue is how to (or whether to) present it in the article. I'll discuss the matter more on the talkpage. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 03:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I doubt that Foval said this, is that good enough? Lol I'm only half-joking, but I will absolutely acknowledge that his response would absolutely be DUE, should this quote actually have been uttered. But if there is only one source on planet Earth that claims Foval said this, and not a single other outlet so much as referenced the alternative newsletter, my real question is can we rely solely on Isthmus for nationally-relevant news? Especially when considering the alleged quote makes absolutely no sense, claiming that he was talking about "busing people to rallies" after he was expressing his concerns about getting in hot water for conspiracy/vote fraud charges for "using buses." Thanks for your input, I'll check out your notes on the talk page. Hidden Tempo (talk) 03:38, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

However intended, this is disruptive forum shopping. HiddenTempo gets points for disclosing the RfC, but all !votes and substantive comments should be made at Talk:James O'Keefe#RfC: Foval busing comment. Editors are invited to participate there. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Free magazine or newspaper

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

I am considering to use this article from Denmark's Gaffa (magazine) but it is a free magazine. I saw somewhere on Wikipedia that somebody stated that free magazines or newspapers are not reliable for GA or FA. Is that true? Phamthuathienvan (talk) 11:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I've never encountered such an assertion, and would reject it out of hand. Business models have changed enormously for newspapers and magazines, and some of the finest U.S. journalism is done by free publication. What you do have to look out for is certain types of "trade journals" which are free because they are basically wrappers for advertisements, and their "editorial content" is mostly regurgitated press releases and thinly-veiled adverts for products with overt advertisements elsewhere in the publication. --Orange Mike | Talk 11:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Pretty much this, but I would add some free local papers too.Slatersteven (talk) 11:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Just make sure that the free publication still has expected editing/journalist standards (that there's an editorial process for the most part) that we'd expect of a paid-subscription paper. --MASEM (t) 13:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Facebook post as a source for Yosef Kleiner article

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, I have a disagreement with User:KGirlTrucker81 about this facebook post as a source for Yosef Kleiner. This facebook post is the only source for this part of the article

In 2012, after four years of interruption as congregational rabbi, Yosef took the rabbinical position at the Union Libérale Israélite de France in Paris, when that congregation was seeking to try a more traditional self-definition

and

Still, the ideological divergences between the congregation lay leaders and Rabbi Kleiner proved to be deeper than what they had thought at the beginning. In spite of a thorough work done by both parts trying to overcome their dissimilarities, they arrived to the conclusion that the basic differences were too deep

as I wrote in her talk page:

the WP:RS page itself it says that facebook material is useable in some cases.
Now, if you read the article & open the sources you can see that the facebook quotes are quotes from the congregation official facebook page talking about changes and updates in the community life. This posts talk only about does changes in the community life and therfore complie with the regulations of reliable sources "The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim. It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities). It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject. There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity.
The article is not based primarily on such sources.".

I belive this is a reliable source in this case and the template she dropped in the page should be removed.

Tnx for your answersDasEditor (talk) 15:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is built on independent reliable sources. Two parties who are definitely not independent here are the employer and the employee. If this is a significant event it will surely have been covered elsewhere; if it is not, there's no need to include it in our encyclopaedia. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:30, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Movement Strategy discussion

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi all. It's the second week of our Movement Strategy Cycle 3 discussion, and there's a new challenge that will likely be of particular interest to folks here: How could we capture the sum of all knowledge when much of it cannot be verified in traditional ways? You can see more details, and suggest solutions or point to previous discussions at Wikipedia:Wikimedia Strategy 2017. Next week's topic will also be of interest. You can also read a summary of discussions that took place in the past week. Thanks. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 02:57, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Blasting News United Kingdom

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Does anyone know if this source [27], is reliable to be used on a song article? It explicitly calls "Wild Thoughts" R&B so I'd like to use it if possible.--Theo Mandela (talk) 15:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Up by the author's name it says "Curated by Jane Flowers". Looking at the link to jane I'd say that this represents editorial oversight. Given this, and the fact that the material it is cited to is relatively trivial, I'd say it is probably a RS in this instance. The writer does not appear to be an expert however, so if another RS disagrees with this assessment as R&B I'd go with the other one. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 21:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

It seems trivial until you meet a WP:GWARrior. :) I would prefer stronger indication of editorial oversight, and stronger (multiple source) categorisation for inclusion. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 08:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

"curated"? Sorry but the choice of that word (over edited) tells me that that "Jane Flowers" does not act in a editorial, but rather an archivist role. Plus the phrase "Blasting News is the leading global social news magazine. Created by you. Curated by professionals." reinforces that view. In fact it seems that their editorial methods are A: algorithms. B: More experienced editors (a system not wholly unlike here in a way). So No I do not thin this is RS.Slatersteven (talk) 12:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Quotation simultaneously attributed to two separate parties that might have originated on Wikipedia?

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

It's not a really a "quotation" so much as a "description", but we put it in quotes so I'm counting it.

The lead of our Fevre Dream article includes the text [it] has been described by critics and Martin himself as "Bram Stoker meets Mark Twain", but the GRRM source puts it in quotes (albeit in a manner that doesn't necessarily imply he is quoting someone) and the independent source does as well, explicitly attributing the quote to some other unnamed party, with the implication of the plain past tense that it was a contemporary critic at the time of the book's original publication. But if GRRM was quoting an old review he was aware of, one wouldn't think he would write it as he did (in a manner that implies he came up with the description himself while putting the blog post together).

Now, this is actually fine sourcing for what we say (actually attributing one critic's opinion to "critics" would be worse), but ... the Independent source post-dates GRRM's blog by two years, and at the time GRRM wrote his blog our article already included the quote, attributed, somewhat weaselishly, to "some", which makes me a little suspicious we might have made it up, GRRM thought it was a reasonable description (though not as good as "Dracula meets Huck Finn"), and one random critic checked Wikipedia in 2013 and ignored the ^{[citation needed]} tag.

Should it be tagged as needing a source that might actually be the original source of the quotation, since the earliest source that has been located was Wikipedia itself? Am I just paranoid? Both?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:50, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Beyond a "suspicion" do you have anything else to go on?, as this all seems a bit like the very kind of OR you are talking about.Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Not really. Looking at the record, we had an unattributed quotation, and when sources were requested, the only ones that could apparently be located were ones thay post-dated our use of it. Technically, we never should have included the quotation if it did not appear in a reliable source before we used it -- in the disastrously bad first draft created by an IP in August 2004 -- so if no sources can be found that existed before that date that is a problem.

Yes, I am, in a manner of speaking, engaging in "OR", but as the opening paragraph of WP:NOR specifies, this kind of "OR" is appropriate. Removing material, or discussing the possibility that some otherwise reliable sources may have taken the relevant information from Wikipedia, can never be violations of Wikipedia's NOR policy.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:35, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:Citogenesis is not new, but it is rather rare. --Izno (talk) 21:51, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not seeing either of the sources as supporting "described by critics". The Independent does not specify such, and is as likely to be referring to Martin's own description. Martin does not attribute the phrase to any person. Suggest "... described by Martin as ...". - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 02:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Assistance needed (Aokigahara)

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

At Aokigahara#Flora and fauna, there is a non-neutral section that lists a source for the purposes of calling it "clickbait" and then presents contradictory sources saying the opposite. My first thought was to just remove the first two sentences of the section, but I am unfamiliar with these sources and have no idea which are reliable and which are not. The alleged "clickbait" one is from a site called Fusion. The sources contradicting it are this PDF, a second PDF, and a natural park website. Dark Knight 2149 02:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree that there are problems with this section. I have removed the first two sentences. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 09:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

All 3 sources seem reliable in their own ways - but reliable for what? The first and second - academic studies on bears and moles - seem a very roundabout way of verifying the presence of those creatures. I would prefer to rely on the third source, as providing a simpler verification, but am happy for other editors to differ. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 09:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Reliable for contradictory information that was in the first two sentences. Dark Knight 2149 20:30, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Heat Street

Latest comment: 7 years ago41 comments14 people in discussion

The use of this source has been in contention in discussions at Carl Benjamin and Pepe the Frog - is Heat Street, a website launched in April 2016 a reliable source for factual content, or merely for WP:RSOPINION stuff? PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:33, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Insertcleverphrasehere, who stated that it is the right wing equivalent to the apparently partisan Guardian. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:34, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Heat Street, while a WSJ spinoff, doesn't seem to have the same journalistic integrity as WSJ, and I would avoid it outside its use for opinion. --MASEM (t) 13:41, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Does anyone have any examples of fabricated/made up stories being published by Heat Street? While a partisan source, I don't see a lot of difference between it and partisan left wing sources in terms of quality and journalistic integrity. In a lot of cases, I find that they are often the most comprehensive source for internet nerd culture stuff (such as in the above articles) as their contributors tend to be a bit more internet savvy than other outlets. They might be less reliable for political stuff, I am not sure. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 18:10, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Their handling of mistakenly-run articles and retractions is not what we expect from reliable sources, and it says a lot about their fact-checking and accuracy.

In September 2016, they published "No Hillary, Pepe the Frog is Not a Racist Meme" about the Pepe the Frog meme. Five days later, they issued the retration "Hillary Clinton Is Absolutely Right, ‘Pepe’ Meme Is Antisemitic – An Apology" written by co-founder Louise Mensch. (She is no longer with the site.) In it, Mensch wrote: "That piece was inaccurate. We apologize for publishing it. The piece was floated and rejected in a story meeting yet somehow, at high volume, this one slipped through the net." (How a site could accidentally publish an article that had specifically been rejected is beyond me.) Later in the piece, she wrote: "I have discussed this matter with our contributor and showed him the evidence. He offered to delete the original post but we decided it is more in the spirit of No Safe Spaces to admit our own foul-ups." Sure enough, an Editor's Note was added to the original piece. But sometime later the Editor's Note was removed from the version of the article currently on heatst.com and Louise Mensch's apology/retraction was pulled from the site. So is Pepe the Frog a racist meme or not? There was "evidence" pointing to yes, but then it was removed. It's tough to say what Heat Street's official editorial position is.

Also, unlike many (most?) other reliable sources, they don't differentiate between opinion and fact-based reporting. For example, articles like "SJW vs. SJW: SJW Mad That SJW New York Times Writer Praised SJW Who Wrote SJW Book" get in plenty of digs with lines like "social justice warriors will always be outraged about something". There's no indication if they consider this real journalism or a gossipy opinion piece. Woodroar (talk) 19:59, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, they did issue a retraction when the preponderance of sources were agreeing at the time that Pepe was a 'racist meme', the issuing of retractions is a good thing, and indicates a reputation for accuracy and fact checking (WP:NEWSORG). Note now that the Heat Street article in question largely agrees in content with what our own article says about the racism of Pepe the Frog based on current sources (i.e. some pepe memes are racist, and others aren't), perhaps they decided in hindsight that a retraction was not necessary (If this is the case though, I still find it odd that there is no editor's note about the retraction of the retraction on the article). The second source you mentioned, about SJWs also largely agrees with what our article on the subject says about the term (i.e. reputation for overly politically correct views). Heat street might have a right wing veiwpoint and perspective of these issues, but neither of these sources demonstrate printing of false material IMO, they are well within the range of legitimate views on the topics in question (just like sources on the other side like Mother Jones or Salon might have a reasonably strong left leaning viewpoint on similar issues). Partisan sources are not really a major issue, so long as they are not supporting conspiracy theories, or printing false material without fact checking (i.e. Infowars), it is just a matter of maintaining proper WP:WEIGHT of sources in our articles. Anyone have anything else that might demonstrate that Heat Street is not a reliable source? — Insert CleverPhrase Here 21:02, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

The initial retraction is the only reliable-source-worthy move they made here. Publishing a rejected article with errors apparent to the editor and later the author, pulling the retraction, and republishing the original article (with, again, apparent errors) are not hallmarks of fact-checking and accuracy. (Seriously, for a source that's supposed to be "internet savvy" to play games with retractions suggests that they really don't know how the internet works.) It's also misleading to say that the Heat Street article reflects what our Pepe the Frog article says. Which version of that article? With or without the Editor's Note stating the article is wrong? Our article doesn't say that Pepe is "now a symbol of the Nazi Jew-baiting of the alt-right" or characterize the alt-right as "actual racism" as the offline retraction does. Is it not cherrypicking to reference one article yet ignore a contrary article from the same publisher?

As for their bias goes, the issue isn't with their partisanship, but with their lack of distinction between analysis of facts and mere gossip. Are we supposed to treat conclusions like SJWs are always mad, the left are puritans, criticized game devs retreat to alcohol, and making gold isn't what MMOs are about as evidence of hard-hitting journalism? When referencing them, how do we tell what's factual and what's hyperbole? Woodroar (talk) 15:53, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I would say opinions are allowed to be wrong. We would never count it against The New York Times if their opinion section published a column railing against climate science. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 10:37, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

That's precisely the problem. Is it supposed to be an opinion piece or fact-based news reporting? Unlike The New York Times, Heat Street doesn't differentiate between the two. Woodroar (talk) 17:15, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

No. Heat Street does not have a good reputation for fact-checking an accuracy. It may be usable for its own opinions, but not for statements on facts -- at least not for most subjects. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

It's easy to point to mess ups by any RS that is widely used, InsertCleverphrase has it right in the way such mess ups are handled, is a good indication of what that source is. Arkon (talk) 00:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@Arkon Its not me, its in our own guidelines (bottom bit of WP:NEWSORG), all sources make mistakes, how they handle those mistakes, and how often is what matters.

@Rhododendrites what made you come to the conclusion that they have do not have such a reputation? The New York Times re-used quotes given to heatstreet here, The Washington Post cites Heat Street's sleuthing on a fake news story [here]. The Post also examines reporting by heatstreet that led Trump to believe he was being wiretapped here. Digiday talks about them positively here. As does Business Insider here. NPR reported positively about their reporting here, indeed NPR says that "The BBC and The Guardian in January confirmed much of Mensch's report and built on it.", referring to a post on Heat Street, indicating that the BBC[28] and the Gaurdian[29] also consider Heat Street to be a reliable source. Fox News is considering taking on their head editor to run Foxnews.com, as reported by the Wall Street Journal. Regardless of how you feel about their conservative leanings, it is pretty clear that they are taken very seriously as a reliable source by other, more established, reliable news sources. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 04:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC) Pinging all other users who were involved in a similar previous discussion about Heat Street's reliability Mark Schierbecker, Grayfell, Jeff5102. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 04:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree with the first comment made by Masem in this thread. Sagecandor (talk) 04:29, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to see a bit more comment here, as only Woodroar's comment had any sources and/or information indicating the reasons behind his arguments (and has not responded to my reply to thier comment). Sagecandor, saying that you agree with Masem's comment above still doesn't indicate why you or he/she has that view ("It doesn't have journalistic integrity" isn't an argument unless you demonstrate that the statement is true somehow).

Most importantly, I'd like to have some input on the specific issue this was raised because of. Specifically:

Is this Heat Street source appropriate for use in the Kekistan section of the Pepe the Frog article. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 05:26, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Heat Street is overheated. If something only appears in HS, that's a red flag. If it's also in better sources, use the better sources. Alexbrn (talk) 05:29, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Do you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT or are there some reasons why? (I literally just asked for substantive arguments instead of just opinions). — Insert CleverPhrase Here 05:38, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Because it's a commentary site pushing its own line. We don't use such sites for assertions of fact (except for the trivial, in which case sourcing it better should be a cinch anyway). Of course HS is reliable for its own view - everything is - but that would be a questions of NPOV. Alexbrn (talk) 05:47, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Bias alone cannot be a reason for disqualifying a source, we have a policy on this (WP:BIASED) and it states: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." You are wrong when you state that we don't use such sources for assertions of fact, WP:BIASED makes it clear that it depends on the normal requirements for reliable sources (this discussion), and that attribution may be necessary but is not required universally. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 06:34, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I would argue that Heat Street's perspective (POV/Bias) on Kekistan is essential to fully understand all points of view on the subject. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 06:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

You are selectively picking at bits of WP:BIASED in general, I am talking specifically about such sources as Heat Street, a commentary site pushing its own line. Avoid it in general and never use it for asserting (non-trivial) facts: that's my view. I'm not sure why you ask if you don't like the answer. (BTW, if you think WP:BIASED allows us to WP:ASSERT biased opinion outwith a context which makes it plain what it is, you're in for a shock). Alexbrn (talk) 06:46, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

"I would argue ..." <- that's the problem right there. Does any RS "argue" this or are you engaging in original research based on primary sources? We should be reflected accepted knowledge on topics, not confecting our own. Alexbrn (talk) 06:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I literally spoke about nearly every sentence in WP:BIASED, directly quoting the first paragraph and discussing the implications of the second paragraph piece by piece. For highly polarized topics it can be essential to use biased sources because nearly all of the sources are biased, and the only way to build a coherent report about it is to cite opposing views. I am not saying we don't need attribution, but it is not essential in all cases and depends on context (per WP:BIASED). We also don't need an RS to tell us to include something or not in a WP article (this assertion is absolutely ludicrous); that comes down to editorial judgement, which should be used in accordance with WP guidelines. To avoid any confusion: "I would argue" that in my editorial judgement, "Heat Street's perspective on Kekistan is essential to fully understand all points of view on the subject."

Your view; "Avoid [biased sources] in general and never use [them] for asserting (non-trivial) facts", seems to be not firmly rooted in WP guidelines. You could use this justification to absolutely eviscerate the sourcing of nearly every article on polarized political topics, that's why it isn't policy. If you are only talking about Heat Street in the above quote, then it is even worse, as you haven't given any justification for such a view on this particular source and you are essentially asking it to be treated just like the Daily Mail without having to use an RfC to ban it. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 07:07, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

In Wikipedia an WP:ASSERTion is a non-attributed statement. We assert facts. Your selective quotation from WP:BIASED is not policy, and WP:BIASED itself is not policy. However NPOV is policy. I haven't said Heat Street should be "banned". Anyway, you're obviously here to argue a position rather than seek views so continuing seems futile. Alexbrn (talk) 07:18, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:BIASED is a content guideline, but WP:NPOV says roughly the same thing about biased sources, so I am not sure where you are going with this. In any case, we seem to be getting off topic slightly, I agree.

You don't have to question my motives, I stated them above. I'm here to answer the question: "Is this Heat Street source appropriate for use in the Kekistan section of the Pepe the Frog article." More specifically: under what conditions? If you guys agree that it is necessary to use attribution, fine, but the source is necessary for the section; when the source was removed by Peter the Fourth, he left all the info cited from the source, going so far as to say "I have no doubt that information can be found for some of the content which would be unsourced without Heat Street- removing it all would not support the encyclopedia. We just need to be less lazy and find better sources than a partisan rag." However, outside of numerous blog posts this info really hasn't been published anywhere else, especially not in such a comprehensive review of 'Kekistan' specifically (other sources have talked extensively about Pepe the Frog, and the Cult of Kek, but not Kekistan specifically in great detail). I agree with him that it doesn't serve the encyclopedia to remove the info.

Potential solution: Perhaps for trivial facts from the Heat Street article we agree that it does not require attribution, and for controversial or opinion based stuff from the article we use it with attribution only. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 07:50, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

How do we define trivial? If it truly is trivial, why can't other sources be found? PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:27, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Trivial such as the bit about Sargon of Akkad being the one that brought it to the mainstream (already in the Kekistan section but unsourced), use of "Shadilay" as part of the meme/political movement (already in the Kekistan section but unsourced), Kekistan being a portmanteau of “Kek” and the names of central Asian countries that end in the suffix “-stan", etc (already in the Kekistan section but unsourced). Simply defining it as a "political meme and online movement" (which is currently unsourced as well) is probably 'trivial' as well.

Non-trivial and opinion based would include stuff relating to defining Kekistan in opposition to other sources: "Described as some publications, and even the SPLC as 'Neo-Nazi social engineering,' they are anything but. You should know what Kekistan actually is, and what it means to be a supporter of the group—not just what other people disingenuously purport it to be... As with any popular online movement, there are undoubtedly some racist trolls within its ranks, but Kekistan is at its core a politically incorrect reaction to the suppression of free speech. The enemies of Kekistan are social justice warriors and proponents of political correctness—oppressors of the Kekistani people, in other words."

If it is truly trivial why can't other sources be found? Good question, perhaps there are a finite number of journalists with a finite amount of time on their hands that don't want to waste their time covering a topic that someone else already scooped? Perhaps they'd rather spend their time copying the recent clickbaity title article instead to get their viewcount up rather than an article that only a relatively small group of people are interested in? (hundreds of thousands, based on youtube view counts of videos on the topic, but still small in internet terms). — Insert CleverPhrase Here 08:58, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree that attributing the mainstreaming of something some people describe as a 'white supremacist meme' to somebody is trivial. This is BLP content, and we really should be more stringent with our sources, not less. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:35, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I can agree on that particular point. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 13:26, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

To come at it from a different angle- if it's only ever mentioned on Heat Street, maybe it's just not notable enough to include in this encyclopedia. We don't include everything. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:31, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Per Dennis Bratland below, if it is needed to define a different perspective, then it can in some cases be the most appropriate source. I see this 'only mentioned by X' argument a lot on this board, and it has some merits on the surface. However, I have come to disagree with it for one main reason: often there is not more than one source on obscure topics/stories. Unless the topic has the capacity to be clickbait and generate views, journalists tend to not repeat stories unless they have something major to add and whoever first published it often remains the only source. I am however convinced by the discourse here that attribution is generally going to be necessary with this source except with very trivial stuff (if someone disputes that it is trivial, then it probably isn't and needs attribution, which is a good way to make the delineation between trivial and non-trivial). — Insert CleverPhrase Here 00:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion is rather hard to follow because it does not tell us what Heat Street is supposed to be used for, and which article in that publication is to be used for this unspecified content. These directions are given at the top of the page. If people simply followed directions, much pointless bickering could be avoided. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:54, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I tried to address this issue above, but it doesn't seem to have had much success in distilling the conversation into a coherent discussion. I didn't want to call out Peter on this, but it is a little unreasonable to expect people to go and read two other discussions on other pages before commenting. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 06:32, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Carl Benjamin and Pepe the Frog are the articles. They are listed in the first comment. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 00:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but the content under question was not (and would require a lengthy search through the relevant sections and then searching the page histories for the diffs). The page instructions clearly state to specify the content under consideration. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 21:21, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

1) I concur with Woodroar's assessment above. 2) Heat Street is not good not delineating the difference between reported facts and their opinions. 3) The manner of Mensch leaving calls their whole editorial process into question. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 00:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Heads up: Heat Street announced this week it is folding into Marketwatch. I'm a Heat Street contributor - or was until this week. I'll probably come back to comment here again... right after I finish polishing my résumé. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 10:37, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by and letting us know. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 21:21, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Heat Street (or the Wayback Machine archives of the old Heat Street) is a WP:BIASED or WP:RSOPINION source but it's not just any partisan source. It's one of the leading sources in the alt-right/anti-SJW/conspiracy theory sphere, probably among the top 5. I would encourage citing it any time we are trying to sample the range of opinions in that area, particularly if we find ourselves over-relying on your Breitbarts or your O'Reillys Bill for describing these points of view. Heat Street can help round out the picture. In-text attribution is a must. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:09, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with Dennis Bratland. The source is quite necessary for a range of topics (two of which are represented here) in order to flesh out the full range of opinions/views on that topic, especially when it relates to right wing controversial topics. While context is always important, attribution seems generally safer with a WP:BIASED or WP:RSOPINION source like this one. EDIT: except with very trivial claims made by the source which would not necessarily need attribution, but still might be a good idea. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 08:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

No less nor more reliable than the opinion sections, editorials & op-eds of various newspapers, magazines & websites that are routinely used because they are produced by publishers who also produce reliable news sections. Newscorp/Dow Jones are mainstream, reputable publishers. Heat Street generally produces opinionated content, but has editorial oversight; and has issued retractions and/or clarifications. I would use with caution, with attribution, and look for alternate sources for anything controversial; particularly for BLPs. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 09:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Some aspects of Heat Street are sketchy per WP:NEWSORG, but it meets others (they have issued corrections) and there were no major false or deliberately false stories published by HS. Opinion pieces should be good enough for commentary or criticism sections. Besides, HS is operated by NewsCorp, which also owns Fox News and WSJ, which are both reliable sources on WP for facts. Though I agree if the same story is covered by more reputable sources, it's preferable to use them. But Pepe, Kekistan and Sargon are subjects that are rarely discussing in more mainstream RS and it's usually in opinion pieces. So for this use, I'd say HS is appropriate. Besides, WP:BIASED doesn't disqualify an RS. Most sources are biased to some degree anyway. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 23:03, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Flickering Myth

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've been editing Sonic_the_Hedgehog_(TV_series). This article from Flickering Myth looks like it could be helpful, but I am relatively new to determining if websites are considered reliable. The article is already used in the Reception section, but I'm wondering if it can be used for other parts of the page, such as the sentence "It features a more dramatic and dark story."

It looks like Flickering Myth has been used as a source on quite a number of other Wikipedia pages, so it's worth looking into this site's reliability for future reference also.

From their About Us page, I see Gary Collinson, their Founder and Editor-in-Chief, got a book published by Robert Hale. I don't know if that means anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrostedPenguin87 (talk • contribs)

As far as I'm aware, Flickering Myth is a reliable source. I know I have used it in the past, and I know many other users that have used it as well. I have personally never encountered any erroneous information from this site. Dark Knight 2149 01:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Montreal Mirror

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

A couple of related questions about the Montreal Mirror. A piece they wrote (here) is being used in the article on a micronation, the Aerican Empire. Although it was a tabloid (both in format and content, from what I can see), it did have editorial control.[30] The piece itself seems to be well written and neutral - not always a given with articles on micronations as they are often written a little tongue-in-cheek.

So, first off, how useful is it for establishing notability?

Secondly, it's then being used to support (to me) trivial points (like the fact there was a "Dog Biscuit Appreciation Day Scavenger Hunt"). I take it the question of the inclusion of single-source mentions of factoids needs to be asked over on the NPOV noticeboard, but is it reliable as evidence of this event? Realistically, they were just interviewing the chap who set up the micronation and then printing what he said, there would have been no fact checking, and there was no contemporary coverage of the event.

This might all sound a little silly, but I'm reviewing a bunch of micronation articles, and I'll no doubt be coming across a bunch of similar sources. Cheers, Bromley86 (talk) 12:00, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Notability requires "significant sources," which a one-off article in a local paper (even though it meets rs) does not provide. TFD (talk) 01:16, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Cheers TFD. It's survived a couple of AFDs, not that I'd necessarily agree with that. Bromley86 (talk) 01:29, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

The Needle Drop

Latest comment: 7 years ago88 comments17 people in discussion

Several days ago, Anthony Fantano created a video where he criticized Wikipedia for removing his reviews from articles. This sparked a lengthy discussion on WikiProject Albums. Because the discussion is very long, I'll do my best to summarize the progression:

In his video, Fantano seems to be under the impression that his reviews were being removed because they were not seen as "professional" enough; however, the reason that many of his reviews were removed were because they were self-published.
While Fantano's reviews are self-published, several users believed that Fantano could be considered an exception because...
- Anthony Fantano has had his work published by third parties in the past; Fantano hosted a weekly music review radio show on NPR.
- Fantano has a reputation for making quality music review (for example, this Spin article).
- Anthony Fantano employs several editors to oversee his videos. These editors are in charge of fact checking Fantano's reviews and making corrections. One of these editors, Austen Walsh, is also a published music critic (and his name can be found listed here).

In the discussion, one of the major criticisms of Fantano's reviews were that they had "no editorial oversight or control", which was proven to be untrue. One user, @WOLF LΔMBERT, proposed the following amendment to The Needle Drop's description on the WikiProject Albums/Sources page:

Anthony Fantano's reviews are self-published, and a review from an established source (as listed above) is strongly preferred. In the absence of a review from such a source, however, (or if the review is specifically relevant to the work in question,)^[?] referencing a video of his might be appropriate, but this should be decided on a case-by-case basis. Fantano's reviews are trustworthy if they have been published by a third party.

A consensus regarding the amendment above has not yet been reached, so it was agreed that it would be best to carry on the conversation in an area with more visibility as it was likely to affect many future sources. What does all of this information mean for The Needle Drop? Can we reach a consensus on the amendment above? ThrillShow (talk) 16:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

No, if the are SPS they are SPS.Slatersteven (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia's rules regarding self-published sources have specific requirements for a source to become "an exception". He is an SPS, but I believe that there is enough evidence for him to be considered an exception. Please see "Self-published doesn't mean a source is automatically invalid" ThrillShow (talk) 17:22, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I am aware of that, this does not explain why he is only RS when he is the only source for his reviews. Either he is RS or he is not, and I am not sure that he meets the requirements. By their very natures reviews are opinions, and thus many of the reasons for including SPS are redundant. I think he only meets (just) "Self-published sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." the problem is that it goers on to say "Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so." So I hacve to ask, why are his reviews worthy of inclusion (rather then ones published in non SPS)?Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I didn't write the amendment above, so you can suggest adjustments if you don't like the wording. I believe that the rule is not trying to say that being the only reviewer makes him more reliable, just that Fantano's SP work should be mentioned when it is "appropriate for the material in question".

Fantano is an incredibly well established reviewer, and (from what I can tell) he meets the requirements of being an exceptional self-publisher. His channel is run very much like a business, and he has expert editorial oversight. ThrillShow (talk) 17:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. He might be self-published, but there's a team working behind his channel, including someone who oversees and edits his reviews (who even commented in the discussion linked above). His name is synonymous with the channel, but the channel itself has grown from Fantano with a camera to what's pretty much a small-scale company at this point. —WLM / ? 18:03, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Fantano's reviews are occasionally more popular than the album being reviewed (case in point: Angelic 2 the Core). Always including Fantano is unfair towards other sources and probably not the best idea, as he's still a self-published source, but the current rule pretty much encourages the militant removal of any references to Fantano's reviews, which, as ThrillShow brought up in the original discussion, almost seems unfair to the reader. His reviews can be relevant, and self-published or not, he's still someone who reviews music professionally, and has quite the following. —WLM / ? 17:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

With Angelic 2 the Core, it's not technically possible to prove that Fantano's review is more popular. However, I do think that his review of that album is significant, and he is one of the few critics to review the album. ThrillShow (talk) 18:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment — Thanks a lot for summarising the discussion! —WLM / ? 17:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Unreliable - Im still convinced that it is not a reliable source. There's no editorial policy. No editorial team. No history of fact checking. He makes boastful, unfounded claims without proof or explanation. (He recently proclaimed himself the most popular music reviewer on the internet or something to that capacity. I mean, come on.) His content is questionable. (He gave an album a "humus out of ten" rating. What is that supposed to mean?) He hired a guy to manage his channel and help, but it's still largely just a guy self-publishing to YouTube. Sergecross73 msg me 19:35, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I've mentioned on the original discussion page that that "most popular music reviewer on the planet" statement kind of rubbed me the wrong way (although he is the most popular music reviewer on YouTube going by subscribers, that can be checked), but still — even if that's wrong and he said it to brag, that doesn't impact his ability to review a record. It seems unfair to me to take one such statement (one that isn't even about a record, but about himself) and use it as an argument against his reliability when it comes to reviewing music.

I also doubt that if Rolling Stone gave an album a joke rating, like "hummus/10", or if Pitchfork awarded the next Kanye record with an 11.7/10, they'd get thrown off the WP:RS list immediately. It appears that this only applies the other way around. There are times when Fantano doesn't take himself too seriously, and I don't see what's wrong with that if it only happens occasionally (and if we all agree that these specific reviews should definitely not be ref'd).

Fantano also does reviews where he doesn't score the records at all. He published two of those today, in fact, and also has a regular not good segment. I'd argue that the "hummus/10" review is one of those, and he just had a bit of fun with the rating. —WLM / ? 19:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Gag reviews can hardly be used to describe the quality of a critic. I believe it was Anthony Fantano who pointed out Pitchfork Media's review of Jet's second album. As for his boastful claims, they were uploaded to his side channel, not The Needle Drop. Not to mention, the claims weren't completely unfounded. Also, to say that there is no editorial oversight is simply untrue. ThrillShow (talk) 19:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

What is their editorial policy then? Review policy? Editorial team's credentials? Do we know anything besides the fact that someone created a Wikipedia account just to say "Hey guys I help with Fantanos reviews"? Sergecross73 msg me 19:51, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

A gag review is not representative of a critic as a whole. I believe it was Anthony Fantano himself who pointed out Pitchfork's review of Shine On. As for editorial oversight, Austen Walsh said in a blog post on The Needle Drop's website that he was a collaborator and managing editor on the channel, which means that he has input on what does and doesn't go on the channel. As for his credentials, Walsh is best known for his music reviews published by Art Fuse. He was even cited on this Wikipedia page. As for Fantano's boastful claims, they were uploaded to his side channel, not The Needle Drop. Secondly, the claims are not completely unfounded. ThrillShow (talk) 20:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Things like official editorial policy and staff credentials are generally documented from the source itself. If you have to go to blogs or Spin articles to tangentially make guesses about it like that, it's a pretty sure bet they don't exist. (But since the Fantano and fans are actively watching and pushing for the website's inclusion on Wikipedia, it's probably a safe bet they're hastily making one up as we speak.) Sergecross73 msg me 20:15, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

What have I guessed about? I've cited everything that I've said. Spin is an established site and the blog that I cited was posted on The Needle Drop's website and was written by the editor of the website. How is that a tangent? I addressed all of your claims. ThrillShow (talk) 20:18, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I missed the part where you linked to The Needle Drops editorial policy page on their site? Can you provide that link again? Sergecross73 msg me 20:24, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Currently, there is no page that publicly lists all of The Needle Drop's editorial guidelines. But the same could be said for Pitchfork Media, Sputnikmusic, ~~PopMatters~~, or many of the trusted sources listed on Wikipedia's WikiProject Albums/Sources. It would be a severe double-standard to require to see the exact editorial policy of independent-publishers and not all third-party publishers. ThrillShow (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Is Sputnikmusic listed there!? —WLM / ? 21:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

If what I've been led to believe is correct, Sputnikmusic essentially has 2 forms of reviews: user reviews and critic reviews. Wikipedia allows the critic's reviews. ThrillShow (talk) 22:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I was unaware of that. —WLM / ? 22:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

First off, that's not remotely true - all sorts of staff info and policy available. Secondly, even if it was true (it's not), that would give The Needle Drop a free pass. Sergecross73 msg me 21:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

(1) Sorry one of my examples was off, I corrected that. (2) WP:OSE "When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." ThrillShow (talk) 22:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

No, not just one. Sergecross73 msg me 23:22, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

That's just a list of the names with position titles. I gave the names and titles of two of Fantano's editors. ThrillShow (talk) 23:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. PopMatters has staff and policy info, but Pitchfork just gives a list of names, which I don't believe qualifies as an editorial policy. Pitchfork, however, is still listed under WP:RS (as it should be). —WLM / ? 23:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Pitchfork has a massive staff list with editors with all sorts of credentials. TND does not. Which is the point. And again, your (poorly thought out) attempts to discredit other widely agreed upon RS's (that you don't even really mean to discredit) are not helping your argument for TND. I can't stress enough - that's not how these discussions work. It will not convince experienced Wikipedia editors. Sergecross73 msg me 23:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

A lot of people may misinterpret my earlier point, so I'll clarify. I'm not trying to say "because other sources did it, why can't TND do it?" Nor is it an attempt to discredit Pitchfork. I'm trying to point out the fact that it is unfair to criticize Fantano's editors for not publicly stating their guidelines when many other sources are not held to this same standard. That is a complete double standard. TND has a staff of editors, one of whom is a published critic. ThrillShow (talk) 23:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

But they don't have an editorial policy, editorial staff list, or any credentials for any editorial staff listed. Any one of these missing is concerning - missing all of them is a major concern. Sergecross73 msg me 00:01, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

It would be beneficial if they had a full list of their employees/staff publicly available. However, there is still information spread throughout TND website and other websites that confirms that these editors are real and do work for TND. ThrillShow (talk) 00:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not attempting to discredit Pitchfork either, for the record. As I said in my earlier comment, Pitchfork is listed under reliable sources, as it should be. However, as far as I can see, several established sources do not have all three of the requirements you brought up, like Pitchfork, and they, too, are defined as acceptable sources. —WLM / ? 02:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment - I would support using him sparingly, when there is a lack of more notable publications having covered a topic/an album/whatever he's being used to cite. Otherwise, hosting a weekly radio show hardly qualifies as being previously published and an expert in his field. As for editorial information, sites like PopMatters list their editorial staff. From a quick search and skimming this discussion, Fantano strikes me as an up-and-comer and not a respected professional yet. But rather than make this a referendum on him, let's consider how this source benefits Wikipedia's articles: In what cases is he providing usable information that more established sources aren't providing, and would leaving him in such cases be a detriment to any particular article? Dan56 (talk) 21:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment - When I was researching, I found a lot of his NPR "Song of the day" articles. 1, 2, 3, among others. While I don't know if he should be included in the review box, if a someone wanted to add things like his song of the day and put it in a critical reception section of a song, I wouldn't have any problem with it - because it was published by NPR. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 21:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Exactly, but his time at NPR, though not sufficient to give him any sort of free pass, does make him more important than just any self-published source in my opinion, especially considering how influential he has become since.

WP:RS mentions that "[s]elf-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications", and I still believe that Fantano falls under this. As that page also mentions, though, "[s]uch material […] likely lacks the fact checking that publishers provide. Avoid using [it] to source extraordinary claims", which I tried to adhere to in my proposed amendment. —WLM / ? 22:11, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Again, as explained before, that "established expert" clause is meant for your high level Siskel and Ebert types, not "Minor-NPR-contributors-that-start-up-YouTube-channels". Sergecross73 msg me 23:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Maybe, but that isn't specified in the clause, so I don't see why it doesn't apply here. —WLM / ? 14:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh yeah, it's not that all Fantano content itself is marked as non-reliable - it's fine if he is published through a legit RS like NPR. The issue is TND, the stuff which has has no review from a editorial team with an editorial policy. Sergecross73 msg me 1:03 am, Today (UTC+2)

I wouldn't use him more than sparingly either. He remains self-published. If an established source is available, that source should always be prioritised. —WLM / ? 22:14, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Is "an up-and-comer" really a good description for him, though? He's been active in the field for a decade, and he has a million subscribers on YouTube, which is the highest amount for any music reviewer on the site. Sure, he's self-published, but he isn't an up-and-comer. Far from it, I'd argue. —WLM / ? 22:18, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't thinking in terms of how long he's been at it, but mainstream exposure and other sources' coverage of him. Dan56 (talk) 23:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, he's got mainstream exposure, doesn't he? —WLM / ? 23:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment Nah, I don't think he should be used. At some point, a line has to be drawn that prevents any kid with a semi-popular YouTube channel or blog and strong opinions from deciding that they're a reliable source for Wikipedia. Additionally, plenty of published critics and editors (Simon Reynolds, Mark Fisher, David Stubbs, Jeff Weiss) have their own blogs/radio shows/self-published content on the internet, and we don't really treat those as reliable sources. I'm generally suspicious of arguments about "reliability," as they're often used to reinforce a hegemonic media landscape, but Fantano doesn't add any meaningful insight beyond his (frequently dull and conventional) opinion. Leave him to the geeky music forums that provide him most of his fan base. gentlecollapse6 (talk) 00:43, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to act like this is a war against old media vs. new media, because I don't think that it is. I just think there are some instances when Fantano's insights are relevant to the article at hand. Also, I wouldn't be trying to defend him purely because he's popular. Popularity isn't really related to reliability. I think he meets Wikipedia's qualifications for a reliable self-publisher, and - if he does - then I think that having his reviews on articles could be beneficial. ThrillShow (talk) 01:11, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Frequently dull and conventional, huh? When did this become about opinions?

There are a couple sites on the list at the WikiProject Albums that I really don't think add anything to the music journalism landscape. I think The Independent is quite a shite newspaper, actually. I didn't think that was relevant to the discussion in any way, but since your opinion on Fantano's reviews has now apparently become a viable argument, I might as well throw it out there for good measure. —WLM / ? 02:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

So (it seems to me) the objective is to enable him to be used when he says something a user wants to include, and to be able to exclude him when he says something a user does not want to include, that seems to me the gist if this.Slatersteven (talk) 08:56, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

That would just get rid of the rule entirely. Why would we want to do that? He's still self-published, and there are still better options, but I don't think his reviews should be removed in every single situation without a case-specific analysis.

Do his reviews belong on most articles, where a couple of reliable sources have already been cited? Absolutely not. Can a review of his be relevant to an article? Yes. That still doesn't mean that we have to cite his review in such a case, but I'd argue that it's a better option than no reviews at all. —WLM / ? 14:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

An obvious fact that we seem to be skirting over is that Fantano primarily does opinion-based reviews. The exception on self-published sources basically says it's fine if they're adding something useful, but the guy isn't doing significant fact-based reporting or interviews or research or something that would add to anyone's knowledge of a subject. He's giving us his opinion, which....well, we all have opinions don't we? I've written for professional publications in the past, does that mean all I need to consider my blog or YouTube channel a reliable source is to hire my roommate as editor?

And it's always been about opinion, pal. In case you smarties who fancy yourselves "objective" haven't realized it yet, there's no purely rational justification for preventing anyone from being a "reliable source" on this website, the guidelines around self-publishing and the editorial setup are an arbitrary distinction that bears no relation to the quality and usefulness of a source. Again, what's to prevent me from considering myself as valid as him in that regard? An "editorial staff" of my friends?gentlecollapse6 (talk) 11:59, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Sure, it's always been about opinions, but at least I try to approach the subject in an objective manner. I enjoy his reviews, but I still don't think he's a "reliable source", because he's self-published. What I'm trying to fight here is that the current rule, at least when it's applied to Fantano's reviews, causes his reviews to be purged from the encyclopedia pretty much automatically, which I don't think is fair. Sometimes there are no reviews from major, established sources, but the album does have a Wikipedia article and Fantano has reviewed it. This does happen, considering that he also reviews lots of underground music. Angelic 2 the Core is a prime example of this; until a few days ago, the §Reception section was limited to a reference to Sputnikmusic, a user-based review site, and now the section is gone entirely. Sure, Fantano's reviews might have limited editorial oversight compared to established sources such as Pitchfork and Rolling Stone, but he still has an editor and reviews music professionally, so I don't see the problem with citing his review here. In most situations, a more reliable source with more editorial oversight is available, and Fantano should not be ref'd, but on an article such as Angelic 2 the Core, this rule pretty much serves to deny people relevant information.

And don't you think that "all I need to consider my blog or YouTube channel a reliable source is to hire my roommate as editor" is quite a gross underestimation of Fantano's situation? His YouTube career spans 7+ years and over a million subscribers (which does make him the most popular music reviewer on the platform), and SPIN called him "today's most successful music critic". Does that mean he should get a free pass for anything? No. He's self-published and thus a less trustworthy source. But I'd argue that it does make him more important than your average self-published source. —WLM / ? 14:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, Fantano might not do any "significant fact-based" reporting or interviews, but that some of the established sources do interviews on the side doesn't mean that their reviews are anything but an opinion either. Reviews are inherently opinionated, regardless of how much research you present along with them, and I don't see what makes any of the established sources' opinions superior to Fantano's. —WLM / ? 14:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Unreliable - per user Sergecross73's argument. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 18:58, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Reliable SPS are always reliable as sources for the opinions of their authors, while reviews wherever published are rarely reliable sources for facts. Similarly reviews published in mainstream media are always reliable as sources for the opinions of their authors, while rarely reliable sources for facts. Fantano is a well known and influential critic, he studied journalism and worked as a music critic at a radio station before building his youtube channel. SPIN published an article about him, "How Anthony Fantano, aka The Needle Drop, Became Today’s Most Successful Music Critic." So I would treat The Needle Drop as just as reliable as any other music criticism published in mainstream media. TFD (talk) 00:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: The main problem about Fantano is he use YouTube to post his reviews, which is a self-published website that should be avoided. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

No. A YouTube channel can have an entire editorial team behind it (with full transparency). Pitchfork has a YouTube channel. So does Consequence of Sound. This isn't about YouTube; it's about Fantano's reviews, which are self-published. That's the issue here. If "YouTube […] should be avoided", we're having a different discussion entirely (and you're wrong, because the medium doesn't influence the review, but I digress). —WLM / ? 02:33, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

He's still a self-published critic, though, which inherently makes him less reliable. He has editorial oversight from one or two people, which is nothing compared to most established sources.

I do support using him sparingly, but I don't think he should be held to the same standard as any mainstream media outlet. He's still not the best option if other sources are available, professional or not. —WLM / ? 02:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any prohibition on youtube. The only issue is that videos posted by third parties can be doctored, but that is not an issue here. Also, we do allow self-published articles by experts on the assumption that their postings should be accurate. But as with any source, whether or not to use it depends on circumstances. TFD (talk) 03:44, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

If he is the only person reviewing an album or band would that not be an issue with notability, thus why would we need to use him as any material he could be used to support (as "sole noticer") would fail on so many other levels?Slatersteven (talk) 09:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

The same could be said of any reviewer. TFD (talk) 15:22, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. —WLM / ? 15:43, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

True, which is why we do not tend to use SPS, if it is published by a third party then more then just the one bloke has noticed it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

…what? —WLM / ? 15:43, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

It's simple enough, if something is worthy of note (or even notable) more then one SPS needs to have noticed it to establish this. The issue thus becomes one of weight (and, depending on context, notability), why is this persons views worthy of inclusion if he is the only person saying it. This (at it's heart) seems to be the real issue here, not RS but rather trying to enable him to be used as a source when no others exist. So I have to ask, what is he being uses as a source for?Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I assume we're still discussing Angelic 2 the Core, correct? In regards to that album, there seems to be quite a few sources that discuss Angelic 2 the Core's existence and creation, but there are few that discuss it from a critical standpoint. ThrillShow (talk) 19:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

So this is about using it for one album, one that no one seems to care about? This seems (as I said) a weight and notability and not an RS issue.Slatersteven (talk) 19:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that that's true. Like I said earlier, there are sources that address the album's existence and creation, but the sources don't discuss it from a critical standpoint. ThrillShow (talk) 20:06, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Forgiver me but how can an album have received in depth coverage (enough to establish notability) if it has not been reviewed (critically)? Also why do we even need critical analysis, we an an encyclopedia not a music newspaper? I am failing to understand the need here, what are we missing by excluding this material, the opinions on one SPS music reviewer. Why is his opinion even worthy of note by us if it has not been deemed worthy of note by RS?Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Are you asking why reviews are allowed on Wikipedia? That is a much broader question. Reviews give readers a deeper understanding of how a piece of media has be received, which is incredibly relevant information. Also, I think that there is enough evidence to show that Fantano's reviews are reliable under Wikipedia's current guidelines.. ThrillShow (talk) 18:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

No I am saying that it is not important, certainly no enough to warrant re-writing an RS classification to allow the use of one SPS when he is the only person reviewing it (how does that provide any kind of "deeper understanding of how a piece of media has be received", beyond "no one cared enough to review it"). All they do is provide us with one persons subjective opinion of the media, that can only be relevant when it is more then one person expressing an opinion, which is the exact opposite of the proposal here.Slatersteven (talk) 20:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

If there was another source that reviewed the album, then are you saying that including Fantano's criticism alongside it would be acceptable? In that situation, Fantano's review would no longer be the only point of view, which would make for a more neutral critical reception section. ThrillShow (talk) 21:05, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

No I am saying that a single SPS should not have it's criteria for being RS altered just because it is the only source. If anything that reinforces the notion it is not in fact saying anything worthy of note. I am saying this is not an RS issue, it is a notability and weight issue.Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I would say Fantano is pretty notable, isn't he? Sure, that doesn't make him reliable, but those things aren't mutually inclusive. —WLM / ? 15:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Wait, hold on — were you talking about Fantano, the album, or both? I'm a bit confused by your comment tbh. —WLM / ? 15:26, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment – Agree with Dan56; use sparingly, and decide if he's relevant on a case-by-case basis. I also like what WOLF LΔMBERT said: He's still not the best option if other sources are available, professional or not. Ss 112 10:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, this seems the most fair to me. —WLM / ? 15:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Never use. Reliable for its own opinion (but this would be undue); unreliable for statements of fact. The desire to use this source reeks of unencylopedic activities. Alexbrn (talk) 11:38, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Do elaborate. —WLM / ? 15:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Never use - This guy is clearly a media whore who cares more about his ratings than the quality of his reviews. In my opinion, a true music critic/professional would not have made a lame video to protest their ratings exclusion from Wikipedia. Having a fanbase does not make you a professional music critic! Rob van vee 07:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, historically, when people pull stunts like this, where they are clearly trying to force their presence onto Wikipedia (or incite that action from the fanbase), has not been been successful in reliability or notability discussions. I can't think of any success stories, honestly. Professional sources just don't do this sort of thing. (Make videos specifically for ranting about Wikipedia exclusion, making baseless claims about their own popularity, etc.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Who are you to decide what "true music critic" entails? And who says that he "cares more about his ratings than the quality of his reviews"? For fuck's sake.

If he really wants to have his reviews be cited in Wikipedia articles, this video was probably not the best way to go over this, but as he said in the video, he was responding to a question he gets from fans quite regularly (just search "Wikipedia" on the subreddit) on his second channel. This isn't a Needle Drop video, and it shouldn't be held to a professional standard. —WLM / ? 19:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Unreliable through his own website - SPS, if his opinion on music was notable it would be published elsewhere. If it is published elsewhere, then it may be used with the usual checks for opinion/criticism pieces. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:51, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Not for articles involving living people. It is against policy to use a self-published source who is talking about a living person. I have watched one of his reviews, and he does make comments about band members. His self-published material cannot be used in articles on living musicians. See WP:BLPSPS. He can be used as a source in an article on himself or his vblog: The Needle Drop. And I think there is a credible claim that he can be regarded as an expert in music reviewing, so could be used on music articles which don't involve living people. But, no, cannot be used on articles involving living people until he is published by a reliable source with a reputation for fact checking. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:16, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that's up for discussion. —WLM / ? 19:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

What exactly are you saying isn't up for discussion? Sergecross73 msg me 20:26, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Using his reviews in biographies of living musicians. (For the record, I'm the user you're replying to — I changed my username.) —mountainhead / ? 20:28, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

This stance would still be relevant to album reviews, as much of album reviews reference the musicians (living people) who create them. For example, I can't help but think that, his review about Corey Feldman's Angelic album makes all sorts of detrimental comments about him as a person, considering his background in entertainment. Silktork says this sort of commentary would not be acceptable per WP:BLPSPS. I'd agree, especially due to his content's tendency for hyperbole and exaggeration. Sergecross73 msg me 23:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

The BLP policy applies to every page on Wikipedia, including this one, and including articles which are not biographies, but which mention living people. See the first sentence of WP:BLP and the section Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Applicability_of_the_policy. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 06:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Use sparingly, but only for his opinions on an album – never as a source to support anything factual about music. That's the very most we can give him, although ideally I'd want to see more sources acknowledging his notability along the lines of the Spin piece. I've got to disagree with some of the comments made here about blogs/websites of [genuine] music journalists such as David Stubbs and Mark Fisher. The individuals do have expert status and that makes their self-published writing reliable; I'd put Peter Doggett's blog and Graham Reid's website into the same category. I mean, someone like Stubbs has worked for just about every top UK print publication on music there's ever been (his page at Rock's Backpages merely scratches the surface). JG66 (talk) 02:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the input JG66. I did a little reading, and I found several more articles positively acknowledging Fantano similarly to the Spin article. I'll link to them here: (1, 2, 3). ThrillShow (talk) 02:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I found his review of Trout Mask Replica both informative and entertaining, But I have no idea if it's reliable, dependable or notable. And no any idea how to determine that. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:09, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

That seems to be the big question. I think that Fantano's work can be considered reliable because he was a formerly published critic, and he currently employs editors. However, there are some instances where his reviews are more relevant to an article than others. If there's a massive surplus of reviews, then Fantano's review probably wouldn't take priority. If Fantano's review of an album is particularly pertinent to that album, then I think that mentioning that review is reasonable. ThrillShow (talk) 00:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia and Hephthalite Empire

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Source: White Huns
Article: Hephthalite Empire
Content: Used as a citation for these parts (bold texts):
- There are several theories regarding the origins of the White Huns, with the Iranian[10][11][12] and Turkic[13][14]
- For many years, however, scholars suggested that they were of Turkic stock.[14]

Is it reliable or could pass as an expert source for such claims? --Wario-Man (talk) 04:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources issue

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hello, everyone. There is a discussion going on the talk page of Ehsan Sehgal regarding the reliability of the sources. Anyone interested could help us. Thanks, Greenbörg (talk) 12:07, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Daily Dharti

Numerous articles from this source have been used on the Ehsan Sehgal article, both to establish notability and to furnish biographical details (such as his army career etc). There've been multiple issues with other references on the page. One editor has stated they believe that the Daily Dharti does not constitute a reliable source as it's mainly an advertising paper. I'm looking for a second opinion on that. [Website is here]. Relevant footnotes in the article are 2, 4, 13, 15, & 17.

Thank you for any help.Landscape repton (talk) 13:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit: Apologies, I didn't see that the other editor had already made a request here. This is the same issue as that in the previous section, sorry for the duplication.

anyone can soon

i am not much familiar about wikipedia, i just want to sure about reliable sources, i am immediate family and i nominated article ehsan sehgal for removal because some people have hidden agenda to spoil article which twice was aproved notable, though, i nominated, i want to sure that the references are not reliable, because only that are not anymore online on newspapers website, but i have some links where can be seen the reality, can this helpful and these are reiliable? you can see the standard newspapers even dutch newspapers are being rejected because they are not online.

1 - https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/ssJsRE

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Moona Sehgal (talk • contribs) 08:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Is The Australian Jewish News a reliable source for an interview it held with Brigitte Gabriel‎?

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Earlier today I noticed that a quote from Gabriel during an interview with the AJN and sourced to the AJN had its source removed by User:Music314812813478 and a cn tag added.[31] I replaced it since it seemed sensible to use the interview itself as a source, and now a "better source needed" tag has been added and the quote changed from ""Every practising Muslim is a radical Muslim" to " "Every practising Muslim (Muslims who actually read and carry out what the Quran teaches) is a radical Muslim" (the material within the brackets isn't in the quote) with the edit summary " I clarified a statemebt to avoid possible confusion by the reader."[32]. None of this seems appropriate but as I'm also having problems with the editor on another article I don't want to revert at the moment. Doug Weller talk 17:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The AJN is definitely reliable for the transcription of the interview quote in the article. I removed the tag. However, the quote was inaccurate, so I added the accurate quote from the AJN RS. Dr. K. 18:09, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Trouting myself for not having adequately checked the quote. Doug Weller talk 18:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

You are very welcome Doug. Trout is annulled since you did the right thing and reported this to RSN. :) Dr. K. 18:34, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Great Adventure History

Latest comment: 7 years ago56 comments6 people in discussion

I have recently been given cause to reconsider the reliability of a source I have used: Great Adventure History. The site is a bit glitzy, and there is a phrase at the bottom that states "This is an unofficial Great Adventure fan site." However, this site is not a wiki. It does not accept input from internet users who stop by, but rather the operators of the website research the information presented and they solicit information and photographs from others for consideration. I believe this site is reliable, it's just not encyclopedic in itself. — Myk Streja ^(when?) 17:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I left out the following information: the article using this source is Haunted Castle (Six Flags Great Adventure). The source was used through out the sections Operation and Construction and history. Sorry about the omission. — Myk Streja ^(when?) 20:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Why not just use the official site?Slatersteven (talk) 18:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

The official site does not keep historical facts on attractions that are no longer being used and have been removed. — Myk Streja ^(when?) 20:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Ahhh, so if it is noteworthy would it not be reprted e4lsenwere, rather then a fan site (which may not be all that accurate)?Slatersteven (talk) 07:53, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

And it is being reported elsewhere. Because others disparage a source does not make it unreliable. They call themselves fans, but they've been at it for ten years. Do you have a "hobby" that you think you can devote ten years to? I know I did: it's called a job. — Myk Streja ^(when?) 08:11, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

No what makes it unreliable is not having editorial over sight (for example), thus it can include anything the author wishes. Just being in a hobby ten years ) I have been in at least two far longer then that) does not give you some special incite into (for example) manufacturing if the products (and I know people who are in the manufacturing side of it). What would make my views on my hobbies RS is people reporting what I say as authoritative. If the media do not care what this person thinks n why should we?Slatersteven (talk) 08:17, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Who says there's no oversight? There is obviously some sort of oversight, just look at the layout of the site. It's consistent throughout. I bet if you published a magazine about your hobby, you would get plenty of people to declare you an authority. Experience counts. If you however demonstrated yourself as a neophyte, you would be ignored. Think of the site as archeologists: they're digging up the past and preserving it. — Myk Streja ^(when?) 17:22, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

It is not down to us to prove there is no over sight, it is down to you to prove there is some (and no being laid out consistently does not prove it, though grammatical and spelling errors can be seen as proof that there is no proper over sight). As to archaeology, there are a lot of amateur archaeologists out there, we do not use their work until an RS takes notice of it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Not reliable – As explained at WP:SPS, personal websites are self-published. If any of the material is worth reporting, it would have likely been published by independent reliable sources. Content that isn't reported elsewhere is cause for concern, as the potential lack of fact-checking is why most personal sites are largely rejected on Wikipedia. Anyone can build a website and claim to be an expert, or also claim to have thoroughly researched their content. Also, I question the overall presentation. There are a lot of grammar and punctuation mistakes, and generally poor phrasing in some areas. That really begs the question how many sets of eyes are really vetting the material. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment -Slatersteven: As you might guess, "Official Sites", usually being owned by the corporate entity which owns the theme park or attraction, are less than forthcoming about problems, injuries, lawsuits, disasters, and even things like attendance, income and bad reviews. We would never learn anything using the official sites, and anyway, they are unacceptable sources for most uses as they are self-published, first person accounts, most likely promotional in nature. Oddjob84 (talk) 15:30, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Wohhh, then I think we have an issue here. There is no way a SPS fan site should be RS for what would be litigious material. If it is not in RS why do we need it in an article? I think we really need to know what material you want to add.Slatersteven (talk) 18:34, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

We would never learn anything using the official sites, and anyway, they are unacceptable sources for most uses...

There are plenty of exceptions, so many in fact I'm not sure I would phrase this to mean "most uses". While press releases and other items tend to be promotional in nature, we often learn specific, factual details about new attractions including specifications, manufacturer info, themes, and opening dates. We may not repeat any peacock verbage, but we can easily sift that out to get to the useful facts. Also, don't forget that some of the bigger amusement park websites contain historical park information as well, including timelines. Information like that can also prove useful, as long as it's not self-serving per WP:ABOUTSELF. A first-person perspective on things is perfectly fine when the source is used in an article about itself. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Really? When was the last time you saw anything about ...problems, injuries, lawsuits, disasters, and even things like attendance, income and bad reviews.... on Disney or Universal's sites? I have personally caught errors in "official" park histories and timelines, whether willful or accidental I can't say, but there nonetheless. As to specifications and manufacturers, perhaps some of the small parks publish factual information, but the big guys don't at all, or deliberately distort it. I worked in this industry, personally know many companies and players, and actually saw many of these attractions designed and constructed. Marketing is always self-serving. And yes, I will stick with "most uses", see WP:Primary and WP:Rs#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Oddjob84 (talk) 02:04, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Yet an amateur can get access to all this information?

Again, we cannot use an SPS for highly contentious material. If there are injuries or lawsuits we could go to more reliable RS who would report them.Slatersteven (talk) 07:58, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, in fact, you can get access to all this information. You just have to be skeptical and dig. You might also read the article in question. The editor is using the SPS to support the color of the paint and the existence of a spooky sound system. That is not "highly contentious material". The portion of the article dealing with the injuries and lawsuits is fully covered by references from the likes of the New York Times and the NFPA, and is not the topic of the present discussion. Oddjob84 (talk) 11:11, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

So why all the strawmewn about accidents and litigation then? I find the idea that they have s "spooky sound system" and odd thjing for the official site not to say, as to the paint, does the official site not have pictures?Slatersteven (talk) 11:22, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

It should be clear that I'm not saying one should expect to cite an entire article on a primary source. That obviously goes against policy outlined in WP:ABOUTSELF. Material provided in reliable, secondary sources is always preferred over primary sources. My point was that there are situations when citing a primary source is valid, especially when it's in an article about itself. When the same information appears in a secondary source, cite that one as well (or in its place if the information there differs). Just wanted to clarify my position in case it wasn't clear before. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: The "strawmen" came about because a couple of editors jumped in with their opinions without understanding the nature of the discussion first. This discussion was never about the fire and litigation. As to official sites, I think you may have a fundamental misunderstanding of what they are. They are creatures of the Marketing and Public Relations departments. They are not about history, they are about selling tickets today and tomorrow. They quickly scrub yesterday's news. And aside from a "we are working with authorities to find the problem" they never acknowledge accidents and incidents. We generally have to depend upon "fan" sites at least as a starting point, to research anything which has closed and been replaced/removed. If you doubt me on this, I can give you a couple of very well regarded (famous, even) theme park shows to try to research. They might as well have dropped into a black hole. Oddjob84 (talk) 23:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

No we do not have to depend on fan sites, look at the pages already mentioned (how many fan sites are used on these?). What this boils down to is if a ride was famous it will have had RS report on its closure, if is was not then why should we mention the fact?Slatersteven (talk) 09:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment -Gonein60: -(First, a disclaimer: my remarks here apply specifically to pages on entertainment, in this case, themed entertainment.) Entertainment is seldom the subject of the scholarly or otherwise serious coverage which we would prefer to use. Worse, it is really ephemeral, dying out quickly in preferred sources, and often being the first material purged by the more serious publications. If not for the fan sites, many very worthy articles could not be researched at all. Yes, I absolutely agree that fan-like sites need to be carefully scrutinized and used very sparingly. I think the fact that all of the relevant Wikipedia policies I have read do make exceptions recognizes this. Sometimes the only available information is on a fan site. This faces the editor with making a judgement call, which is subject to peer review. Sometimes one can find several different fan sites which broadly agree. Sometimes a single site appears well curated. Sometimes the fan site agrees with patently obvious facts which are broadly agreed. My point here is that there is room for discussion, probably on a case-by-case basis. That is my input in this venue. I will take my comments on the specific article in question back to its talk page. Oddjob84 (talk) 15:29, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree. That's why we're having this discussion. I can see a fan site being permitted when it is referenced or cited by a reliable source, and is well-articulated in its presentation. But the exceptions are rare, and if there's problems finding good, solid publications to support the claims, then the claims probably aren't worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. No information is always better than shady information. Verifiability is an absolutely crucial part of one of the five pillars. We don't want to encourage fans to go creating their own personal websites in order to find a way to skirt policy here on Wikipedia, finding a backdoor way into getting their opinions and experiences through the door. There are plenty of other forums where this may be acceptable and even encouraged, but not here. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

The fact that this page didn't appear overnight just so I could use it should be in agreement with your statement. Its seniority should be considered as an argument in favor of reliability. Not as proof, just as a consideration. — Myk Streja ^(when?) 17:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment The source being examined is not a fly-by-night website but is rather a labor of love. The editors there are doing the work because they have a great interest in the subject. They are currently celebrating their 10^th anniversary maintaining the site. how many sources can you name that are still good after ten years, and I don't mean archived pages. There's another site I have come across that is similar in purpose that is relied upon heavily: Roller Coaster DataBase. It does not proclaim itself to be a fan site, but then who is maintaining it? I know there is a large list of contributors, but that just means they kept track of who donated information or photos to the site. Is it any more reliable than, say, IMDb? They, just like the GAH site, ask for input from people who have visited the objects of the site. GAH is simply focused on Great Adventure. As the article the source is being used in is about Great Adventure, the source is rich in relevant data. The data is gathered from current and former employees, visitors to the park, documents issued by the park and newspaper articles, some of which are included in the site in their entirety. The site is a reliable source for the specific subject. I wouldn't try to write an article on military history based on this source, but then it wouldn't be relevant. — Myk Streja ^(when?) 20:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Valid question why is this other site RS?Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

RCDB.com has generally been considered reliable by consensus. There is a history of questioning its reliability, though I'm not sure it's ever been brought up here at the RSN. If you'd like to begin a discussion on that source, I recommend discussing at the WikiProject first to get feedback from other editors who may have been involved in discussions from years ago. Then if needed, we can bring it up in a new RSN thread. As for the source being discussed here, you defend it in such a way as I have to ask the question, are you directly affiliated with that site in any way? Are you one of the "maintainers" or have you ever contributed to it? You should provide that disclaimer now if the answer is yes to any of those questions. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I am not impugning RCDB here, rather, I'm holding it up as an example of how an "amateur" site can be considered reliable. I will not use emoji here, so I can only try to convey tone. Please don't get defensive, and you need to stop attacking me; I did not attack you. As for my affiliation with Great Adventure: my mother asked me to go get my brother and sister from the park the night of the fire. I was 22. I had no idea what was going on until the following day when I read about it in the Asbury Park Press. As I recall it, I was stoned that night. That's it. I think I'm allowed a passionate defense of something I believe in. I believe in this source. If I did not defend it, then why would anyone else believe it to be reliable. If I really were stupid enough to bring RCBD.com to RSN, you wouldn't defend it?

You mentioned a history of defending a source. This RSN is the start of that history. Well, actually, our discussions on the talk page started it... You know what I mean. — Myk Streja ^(when?) 17:04, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I haven't attacked you. I just asked if you had any affiliation with the GA History site. I realize you feel passionately about it, and if that question offended you, I apologize. My understanding then is that you have no affiliation, but you care about the source. Fair enough. Thank you for clearing that up for me. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment I don't see any way that this fan site fulfills Wikipedia policies on WP:RS: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Wikipedia:Third-party sources sources have "no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic," and "cover the topic from a disinterested perspective." And "A third-party source is reliable if it has standards of peer review and fact-checking." Notability is another common issue when sourcing entirely to a fansite. If the specific topics are notable, they will be covered in truly reliable sources. First Light (talk) 02:55, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

So, any sources used by an article on Model railroading that are based on references made in model railroad magazines should be discoounted? How would these "standards" be determined? Are you going to tell me that you are using the "I know it when I see it" argument? The source being questioned is not the only source, but it does go to the history of the article's subject. — Myk Streja ^(when?) 17:40, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

As they would have been published by a third party source with an editorial team (and police available to see) possible not. Of courts "Berts big model railway fanzine" would most likely fail., publishing it on line does not stop it being a self published fanzine.Slatersteven (talk) 18:28, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

A reputable magazine (obviously with editorial oversight etc.) is a reliable source unless the article in question is, for example, a sponsored or paid review (aka an ad), then it would not be reliable for most purposes. That's was "no vested interest" means. Seems pretty straightforward. On the other hand, self-published sources that are not by established, published experts in a given field are not reliable. The standard is pretty clear. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

At what point does a magazine become reputable? That's the issue here, when does a source become reputable, and at what level? If it's good enough for certain applications, then it needs to be taken that way on a case-by-case basis. — Myk Streja ^(when?) 22:19, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

A magazine becomes RS when it is demonstrated it has a reliable publication process and that it is recognised by its peers as an authority in it's field.Slatersteven (talk) 09:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Not reliable per all of User:First Light's points. I don't believe this is what is intended by WP:RS. Any notable controversial or newsworthy information would be reported by real sources. You could use a fan site to find legitimate sources like news articles if it provides citations. Being a "labor of love" (???) does not make for a reliable source. Look at the sources for List of incidents at Walt Disney World. That is what we should expect for any such articles. "If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications." Has the creator of this site been published by reliable third parties in this field? —DIYeditor (talk) 11:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment@First Light and DIYeditor: and other interested parties: The article under discussion can be divided into two parts; about a third is exposition to introduce the attraction and the following two thirds is about a fire, loss of life and subsequent legal actions. The larger section on the fire is fully sourced with 40 references from the likes of the New York Times, the NFPA, and the State of New Jersey. This section in not under discussion. The above discussion is about the expository section wherein the "fansite" is used to source things like the color of the paint and the existence of a sound system playing spooky music. I think we can trust them to provide that sort of information. Oddjob84 (talk) 11:38, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I can trust my brother to be a reliable source for certain things. That doesn't make him a reliable source by Wikipedia standards and for citing information on Wikipedia. This site is also clearly not a reliable source for information on Wikipedia, period. Read the relevant WP policies, which you are not addressing at all with your answer. First Light (talk) 11:42, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Not reliable for any purpose on Wikipedia. It is a self-published site which is not by persons who have, correct me if I'm wrong, been published by reliable third parties in this field. The exception to self-published sites does not apply. There is no clear situation of peer review, editorial oversight, or expert reputation in the field. —DIYeditor (talk) 11:44, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
My "answer" above was not an answer, but an explanation of the point of discussion. I have, in fact, read all of the relevant WP policies, all of which make certain exceptions. My judgement is that this site does fall within the exceptions, for this article, particularly in that it supports only non-controversial statements about the attraction, none of which are otherwise available. Oddjob84 (talk) 20:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I have a hard time believing you have actually read WP:RS/SPS or WP:SPS. The exceptions are either that 1) the site creator is an established (published) expert or 2) that the source/creator is being as a source on itself. Those are the only two situations (exceptions) listed where a self-published source would be allowed. "non-controversial" is a condition applied to situation 2) which is not relevant here, and to which "it does not involve claims about third parties" also applies. Really straightforward if we are talking about those policies as written. And just to be clear WP:RS/SPS is a guideline and WP:SPS is part of a policy. Deviating from a policy would require consensus. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

You may believe anything you like. I have read the relevant policies and guidelines and stated my opinion. I do not recall, at any time, agreeing with you that SPS applies at all. Oddjob84 (talk) 03:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you would like to quote the relevant section?Slatersteven (talk) 09:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Slatersteven: Your challenge to follow you WP:down-the-rulebook-rabbit-hole is simply a resort to obfuscation in lieu of honest discussion. Your post above is a personal attack which is both gratuitous and condescending. Oddjob84 (talk) 20:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

How is a request for you to post a quote so we can see what you are seeing what we cannot see a PA? You have said that you read policy to say X, we cannot see this and so it would be a good idea for you to actually post the policy section you think supports your claim.Slatersteven (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

A fan site is a type of personal website, and personal websites are covered in WP:SPS. I'm not sure why you believe it is exempted from this policy. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

GoneIn60: I find nothing in the policy which specifically makes all fan sites self published. I do not believe the site in question is self-published within the stated meaning of the term. Therefore, I do not agree WP:SPS applies. Perhaps we could, and should, get back to the actual discussion, which is on the use of, and appropriateness of, a single citation, used in a way that could not mislead a fourth grader. Oddjob84 (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

That's exactly the sort of site anyone can and did make. Who is the publisher if not the site creator? Who is the creator? Who are the editors? Where have they been published with editorial oversight or peer review that qualifies them as experts? Just because this is a fluff topic doesn't make the standards for something being "published" or by a "published expert" not apply. Do we even know the name(s) of the site curator(s)? If there are grammar and spelling errors as has been indicated why aren't there other errors? We are kind of going around in circles and you don't seem to want to offer any direct reference to policy to support your position. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

You have apparently missed a few useful facts. First, I am under no obligation to do your research for you. If you had bothered to actually access the citation, you would already know the answers to your questions. Secondly, I am under no obligation to educate you. If you want policy references, go look them up. I have, and am satisfied my opinion is adequately supported. Lastly, if you are tired of circles, try engaging me in a substantive discussion. Oddjob84 (talk) 00:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually you are under just those obligations. It is down to you to convince us with reasoned argument and evidence that this site meets the requirements for RS, it is us who have no need to do that. If people say they are not seeing what you see it is down to you to show why they are not seeing it. But I think it is clear there is no consensus (and pretty much a majority with the opposite view) that this site is ~~not~~ RS, and thus we can I think close this now.Slatersteven (talk) 09:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Among uninvolved editors here, mostly regulars who know RS policies, there is very strong consensus—perhaps unanimity—that this site does not meet WP standards for reliable sources. First Light (talk) 10:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Opps, I have altered the above to reflect what I meant (I created a double negative by mistake), a good example as to why spelling mistakes and poor grammar should be a warning sign that a site is not RS.Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Oddjob84, the others are correct. The burden lies with the editor(s) wishing to retain material whose source is being challenged, not the other way around. I'm still baffled that you do not consider this fan site a personal website, and because the phrase "fan site" does not appear in WP:SPS, you are claiming it doesn't apply. If we can't agree on this much, then further discussion isn't likely to lead anywhere. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

GoneIn60 The others, and you as well, are incorrect. I quote from the policy: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". I neither added nor restored the citation under scrutiny; I am essentially an interested bystander, "uninvolved" you might say. So there really is not unanimity. The term fan site does not appear in policy, and is not defined. You yourself have allowed that not all fan sites are necessarily unusable. The point of discussion really comes down to the fact that I think this site is credible for this use, and you do not. That is a valid point of discussion, on which we may never agree. But the virtue of that discussion is that both of us have actually bothered to read the article and look up the reference. Oddjob84 (talk) 14:04, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

A closer reading of WP:BURDEN may be in order. It clearly states (with my emphasis):

Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references...

I simply did the courtesy of allowing the questionable material to remain, giving yourself and Myk_Streja time to either provide better references or to explain why you believe the source supporting that material is reliable. I was in no rush to remove it. Don't mistaken this courtesy for the fact that had I removed any of the material in question, one or both of you would have attempted to re-add it and defend the source as reliable. The burden ultimately lies on those who defend the source and the material in which it supports.

I'm not sure if you'll reach a similar understanding of the policies and guidelines, but I can assure you that these straight-forward interpretations have held up time after time. One thing that should be more obvious is the forming consensus in this discussion; it doesn't look good for the GAH site. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Unless we are in Wonderland, the WP:Burden quote changes nothing. "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". I am not that editor, and am mystified how you have decided my dog is somehow in this fight. Unless you have three precogs in your bathtub, you have no idea what I would or would not have done. Further, I note you have used the word "interpretations". So the written policy is only a guideline? Subject to the whim of whomever can line up a claque? I am continuing to discuss this with you as you have heretofore demonstrated respect for the Fourth Pillar and some awareness of the Fifth.

As to the GAH site, I researched and supplied Myk three reliable references to replace it days ago. I am according him the courtesy of letting him make any edits.

I leave you with a Japanese proverb: Don't fix blame, fix the problem. Oddjob84 (talk) 17:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

That passage illustrates an example of when an editor may decide not to remove material that is being challenged, instead notifying whomever it may concern, giving them time to fix the situation (or defend it). That is precisely what led us here to the RSN. Notice was served! As for your precog comment, which elicited a grin I might add, I didn't need them. Your comment on the article's talk page exposed your intentions and placed your proverbial dog in the fight. So no, I wouldn't consider you an uninvolved editor. If you discount the three of us who debated on that talk page, then there are three uninvolved editors here, all of which have weighed in against the source. It's great to hear that better sources are being considered as replacements. If followed through on, this would become a moot discussion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

DAD-IS

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Is this source:

Breeds reported by United States of America: Horse. Domestic Animal Diversity Information System of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

reliable for a statement that the American Drum Horse "is not among the forty-four horse breeds reported by the National Animal Germplasm Program of the USDA Agricultural Research Service to the DAD-IS database of the FAO"? It's been suggested here that it is inaccurate. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 06:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Reliable for that particular statement? Yes. Is that statement a WP:DUE inclusion? I would consider not. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 12:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

How so, Ryk72? Would you care to expand a little? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Certainly. I suggest that the interpretation of something not being on a list to support a statement that it is not on that list is not original research as meant by that policy. I also suggest that, without independent, reliable sources having at least mentioned this aspect, it does not seem that inclusion is aligned with our policy on neutrality - particularly: ... articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects; should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

assamtimes.org

Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Hello everyone, I would like to know if we can or can not accept assamtimes.org as a reliable source to support notability? As per their Join us page anybody can join them and share write ups and ideas which they will endorse according to their editorial policy but I can't find what their policies are. Thank you – GSS (talk|c|em) 03:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Some additional details on the editorial board at the About page. I would be inclined to consider the site as WP:USERGENERATED. It may be worth checking if any of the editorial board or contributors have an established career in journalism. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 08:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your responce Ryk72, I do agree it looks more like WP:USERGENERATED and my quick check found it’s a group of local journalists who run the website and they also write for some other local news websites as well. I can’t find if they have done any major work in their field or have produced award winning work and the website itself failing to pass WP:NMEDIA. I’m not expert in this category so I think we need someone with more knowledge to look into this matter, please ping if you know someone. Thank you – GSS (talk|c|em) 07:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Inviting (Bollyjeff—Cyphoidbomb—Krimuk2.0—TheRedPenOfDoom) Hope you guys can help. Thank you – GSS (talk|c|em) 09:51, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Indian News sources are often problematical due to style and tone. This e-news one seems to have an editorial staff, so I'm going to ask for wider input from Wikipedians from that part of the world. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
comment: Though it is not criteria, their official Facebook page has just 4400 likes (followers). This might be an indication that the e-newspaper is not widely read/accepted news source. Apart from that, the language or reports does not look like professional. It is community newspaper so it might be run by common people who contribute stories.--Nizil (talk) 18:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Verification of a source

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hi. Can anyone please check whether this Source be considered as a relaible source? I am apprehensive as though the publisher is reliable, but the author is a professional photographer who is writing about a historical monument. RRD (talk) 08:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@Royroydeb: Could you tell us what article it is being used in or might be being used in? The general relaibility of the source is not important, since most of the stuff on Wikipedia that would be attributed to semi-relaible or generally unrelaible sources is actually uncontroversial and could be verified in better sources anyway. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but the reverse is also true; ideally, sources about historical monuments written by art or architectural historians should be cited for claims about historical monuments, but you need a better source that appears to contradict the one whose relaibility you are questioning. Pakistan Today is a newspaper with an editor, and the assumption about such sources is generally that they are reliable for uncontroversial claims. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

By the way -- it's not a good sign when I have to check your contribs to figure out what you are talking about, and doing so reveals you posted essentially the same thing on WT:RS and were specifically told to identify the content you wanted to address. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: I did not continue the discussion there as I was asked to start a discussion here. Anyway, I am going to use the source in an a article "Haveli of Nau Nihal Singh" which I will create. I also plan to use the plan to source the architectural details. RRD (talk) 17:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, if you're looking to use it for an article you are writing, then I would say you can probably trust it for non-extraordinary claims. Just be careful, and preferably try to verify as much as possible in more than one source. This is just generic advice, since I'm not a topic expert. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Jihad Watch

Latest comment: 7 years ago14 comments14 people in discussion

I recently found more than 60 Wikipedia articles with citations to Jihad Watch. Do any of these citations need to be replaced? Jarble (talk) 17:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I've yet to see any reason why it should be considered a RS. The New York Times describes the website as Robert Spencer's "blog"[33]. The website has on the other hand frequently been described as promoting conspiracy theories and falsehoods.Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Should be blacklisted. Alexbrn (talk) 19:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed.Slatersteven (talk) 20:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment Checking past references here shows no formal consensus, but there seems to be a trend stating that it is an extremely slanted blog. It appears to be problematic when it comes to WP:NPOV. As for being a reliable source, it has been notated in many third-party publications, but rarely quoted by them. Everyone is very strongly for or against the anti-Islamic views expressed there. I would say they are reliable but should be used with extreme caution. — Myk Streja ^(when?) 20:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

It is reliable enough, but editors should know how to use it properly. Nevertheless, editors should be free to use it.Music314812813478 (talk) 01:37, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Not RS - it's a blog run by a self-proclaimed expert with extremist views. It had no hallmarks of reliable sources (editorial oversight, independent journalists, etc.). It's just a blog with a major pov motive. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Not a reliable source - No evidence of significant editorial controls or fact-checking; it may be useful for attributed opinions, but it shouldn't be used to make claims about living people unless those claims are corroborated by other, qualifying independent reliable sources - and if they are, why not just use those reliable sources instead? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Not reliable for factual information Reliable for the views of Robert Spencer when attributed as such. Whether Spencer's views are sufficiently relevant or noteworthy to merit inclusion in any given article is a separate issue. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Reliable only for attributed opinions it is a WP:RSOPINION and WP:BIASED source. Should only be used with attribution, and only for opinions when considered WP:DUE. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 02:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Not a reliable source for factual content. It should only be used for attributed opinions, in the extremely limited cases where those would be due weight. It should not be linked in an external links section (as it is in, e.g., islam and antisemitism, where it was predictably added by an indefinitely blocked User:JanDeFietser). If links continue to be restored after removal, I would support a blacklist. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Not a reliable source for facts not related to itself or associated people, sometimes for attributable opinions A better search is [34] Doug Weller talk 18:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Not a RS for facts Group blog by authors with no scholarly or journalistic reputation for accuracy. May be used as a primary source in articles about its authors or when their opinions have coverage in independent RSs. Undue elsewhere. Eperoton (talk) 01:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Not a reliable source for facts; can be used only for attributed opinions as a primary source, and as with all primary sources that should be done rarely and with great care and only if DUE; that it is DUE would be shown by having highly reliable sources discussing it (not other blogs - we are not part of the blogosphere). Jytdog (talk) 04:20, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Shima: The International Journal of Research into Island Cultures

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There's an article in Shima: The International Journal of Research into Island Cultures that I might like to use for Forewick Holm. It looks fine to me, but I'm not an expert on dodgy journals, and it doesn't have a WP page, so I thought I should check.

Its editorial staff:[35]
Its peer review policy: "All research and photographic articles are peer refereed by two or more assessors and reviews and reports are refereed by one or more assessor."[36]

That all looks good enough to me. Any comments? Cheers, Bromley86 (talk) 10:20, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Press Trust of Kashmir

Latest comment: 7 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Is this a reliable source? I'm specifically asking because of this article that was mentioned on my talk page in support of the notability of the subject of said article. Regards So Why 11:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Not seeing any editorial policy, or list of staff or anything to indicate this is anything other then a "peoples newspaper".Slatersteven (talk) 11:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

The PTK basically functions a s news syndicate, and articles shared by it are often published by multiple news agencies, here's another link for the article mentioned above. This one appeared in a publication called Kashmir patriot.

http://kashmirpatriot.com/2017/07/20/creating-awareness-plastic-pollution-one-mans-crusade-save-environment/ Samar khurshid (talk) 12:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

So then they do not in fact check the stories?Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Dear Slatersteven, The Kashmir Patriot is a very well circulated publication in the region, and you are more than welcome to check the authenticity of the story with the publication's editorial team. Regards, Samar Samar khurshid (talk) 12:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm doubting their reliability because of this. It looks pretty easy to send in some work to them, and I can't find any signs of an editorial board (let-alone an "about us" page). Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually, there is [37]. Regards So Why 13:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

All rather anonymous.Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Andrea Martin's manuscript, Ceaseless Effort, documenting the life of Dainin Katagiri

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Source: Martin, Andrea. "Ceaseless Effort The Life of Dainin Katagiri" (PDF). Minnesota Zen Mediation Center. mnzencenter.org. pp. 18, 19, 26, 30.

Article: Draft:Dosho_Port

Content:

Dōshō Port (30 April 1956) is a Sōtō Zen rōshi (teacher). He is a Dharma heir to both Dainin Katigari Rōshi[1] and James Ford Rōshi[2].

Commentary: Andrea Martin's manuscript, Ceaseless Effort, documents Dosho Port's involvement with Dainin Katagiri.

Dainin Katagiri was a famous American Zen Master. He founded the Minnesota Zen Center. The MZMC Web site has a page documenting the history of Katagiri: "The Katagiri Project". Andrea Martin is the official archivest for the MZMC.

Within the world of American Zen, MZMC is held in high repute. Their promotion of Andrea Martin's archival history is a stamp of approval and authenticity. The American Zen community considers the manuscript to be reliable and authoritative.

TooTallSid (talk) 15:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Limited Reliable In light of the fact that Andrea Martin is listed on the Center's website as the archivist, the narrative can be accepted to be factual when it comes to listings of students, teachers, administrators, etc. Taking the positions that Dosho Mike Port held at the Center from the source should be acceptable. Other references should be used only as a jump-off point for finding an alternate impartial source. — Myk Streja ^(aack!) 20:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

[1] Hoontrakul, Pongsak (2014). The Global Rise of Asian Transformation: Trends and Developments in Economic Growth Dynamics (illustrated ed.). Palgrave Macmillan. p. 37. ISBN 9781137412355.

[Ankit2016-2] Ankit, R. (2016). "The accession of Junagadh, 1947-48: Colonial sovereignty, state violence and post-independence India". Indian Economic & Social History Review. 53 (3): 371–404. doi:10.1177/0019464616651167. ISSN 0019-4646.

[1]

[1]

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 228

Increase in cow-protection related violence since 2014

Korea Exposé

Newslo.com

Oldest Harley-Davidson club in history?

Haaretz headlines

Other editors removing content with a source

verifiable

Can I conclude this source unreliable?

Research Article or Research Paper

Specific instance - Facebook posts by experts as sources

Can the Stack Exchange Network be considered reliable?

Geohack

Leigh Rayment's Peerage Pages

ethnicelebs.com

Questionable sources for reviews of What the Health

bismikaallahuma.org

A YouTube video

Yemeni Civil War infobox

Blogs cited in Ariosa v. Sequenom

Isthmus

Free magazine or newspaper

Facebook post as a source for Yosef Kleiner article

Movement Strategy discussion

Blasting News United Kingdom

Quotation simultaneously attributed to two separate parties that might have originated on Wikipedia?

Assistance needed (Aokigahara)

Heat Street

Flickering Myth

Montreal Mirror

The Needle Drop

The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia and Hephthalite Empire

Reliable sources issue

Daily Dharti

anyone can soon

Is The Australian Jewish News a reliable source for an interview it held with Brigitte Gabriel‎?

Great Adventure History

DAD-IS

assamtimes.org

Verification of a source

Jihad Watch

Shima: The International Journal of Research into Island Cultures

Press Trust of Kashmir

Andrea Martin's manuscript, Ceaseless Effort, documenting the life of Dainin Katagiri

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.