Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 229

Archive 225

←

Archive 227

Archive 228

Archive 229

Archive 230

Archive 231

→

Archive 235

Redskins and bodies

In the Redskin (slang) article, we currently have the statement:

"A third controversial etymological claim is that the term emerged from the practice of paying a bounty for Indians, and that "redskin" refers to the bloody, red scalp of a Native American,[1][2] or perhaps the bloody bodies left behind.[3]"

There's no dispute over the belief by some that redskin=bloody scalp/skin: we have the primary sources (e.g. Suzan Harjo), who have been referred to in secondary sources (e.g. the Slate and the ICT articles above). However, the latter part of the sentence is the bit we're having trouble with.

It's supported by Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz. This is what she says: "The settlers gave a name to the mutilated and bloody corpses they left in the wake of scalp hunts: redskins." We have no secondary sources that refer to the suggestion that "redskin" refers to the bodies/corpses left behind. I've accessed the chapter in her book (via WP:RX - happy to email it to you for confirmation), and this is the only mention on the subject of redskins in it. Likewise, while she references other statements, this is unreferenced. So we have a single statement in the book that is not supported, or explained. It's not referred to by other RS, so it seems to me that it's not a notable opinion.

Is she a reliable source for the statement that redskins referred to bloody corpses/bodies? Bromley86 (talk) 11:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• Exclude the second part of the statement in question. This opinion seems to be an outlier and its inclusion would be undue. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Given this is an article about Native Americans, how can neutrality be achieved if Native scholarship is exclude? Being 1% of the population, the number of scholars is very small. Dunbar-Ortiz earned a PhD in history from UCLA, and I have read her book from which the citation is taken, and it does not seem to me out of place as a summary of the chapter. Without the weight due to someone at this level of expertise, the article reads to me "Some Native Americans associate the origin of the term "redskin" with bounty hunting and the collection of scalps, but white mainstream academia has established there is no factual basis for this association". Native American opinion such as Harjo's is based upon oral tradition, as would be expected of a people who had no writing until the late 19th century. I understand Dunbar-Ortiz's statement as being in this vein. Is WP limited to being the sum of white male knowledge?--WriterArtistDC (talk) 17:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

My argument against excluding Native scholars is also about applying equal standards. If an editor has the discretion of looking at a source at this level of detail in deciding its due weight, is there any reason I should not do the same with regard to Ives Goddard's article "I AM A RED-SKIN"? He stands alone in his summary conclusion that "redskin" originated with Native language, and because they were using this language to refer to themselves when formally addressing white people, this usage is entirely benign. I found only one note in a journal referring directly to Goddard, and it said the word interpreted as red actually is used by Natives to refer to the entire red to brown portion of the color spectrum. Other scholars (Reid, Shoemaker) state that Native use of red-skin (peau-rouge) was not likely original, but Natives adopting the color identifiers used by white people specifically to be understood on these rare formal occasions. Whether there is sufficient evidence from that period to make any definitive statement regarding the origin of a slang term is also questioned. When I read all the sources, Goddard is given too much weight in the Redskin article. Just because one expert has an opinion on an obscure topic, that opinion should not be taken as the opinion of "science".--WriterArtistDC (talk) 18:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the ethnic background of the writers, but about the WP:Fringe position advocated. Were this belief true, it'd be simple to find contemporaneous examples of usage; where are they? Anmccaff (talk) 20:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps that is what I am saying; Goddard is "fringe". The topic is a slang term with few examples. He is making definitive statements where other scholars acknowledge the lack of examples from the period that prevent saying anything.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 23:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Unreliability of website Opindia.com

I want to point out the unreliability of opindia.com from India. The website is an opinion oriented site for example see this article [http://www.opindia.com/2017/07/people-shocked-by-reports-of-local-kashmiris-laughing-at-bullet-ridden-amarnath-yatris/ Local kashmiri laughing at bullet ridden]

The article spread false news no established and reliable news media of India like the Times of India, Indian Express , The Hindu confirmed it. But web portals republished the report by mentioning opindia as a source

And subsequently the article was repeatedly used as a citation at the 2017 Amarnath Attack Wikipedia page.

The website opindia is an opinion oriented site which intends to decieve the readers and get more likes and followers on social media.

The website should be blacklisted. Anoptimistix Let's Talk 04:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Source for claiming Captain America: Civil War has an "ensemble cast"?

This discussion started with a debate about what is a reliable source for the applicability of an ambiguous phrase whose ambiguity makes in unsuitable for use. From that unhelpful beginning, it deteriorated into personalised bickering.
There's scope for a few WP:TROUTs here, but it would be much more useful all round for those involved to read WP:JARGON. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:29, 21 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.

---

See here (and to a certain extent here).

Basically, a couple of users are arguing that this is a reliable source for the claim that the film has an "ensemble cast". It does have an ensemble cast, and the source is reliable for this claim, if one goes by the modern, slangy/marketingy definition of the term meaning "cast that includes a lot of famous actors" (essentially a synonym for all-star cast), but the discussion at WT:FILM had a fairly strong consensus against using "all-star cast" or any euphemism for it, and our article on ensemble cast prioritizes the traditional meaning in its lead.

Anyone who has seen the film knows it has a single lead with far more screen time and centrality to the plot than anyone else (Chris Evans), with only one possible exception (Robert Downey). Even including that exception, I really feel like saying a film with two cotagonists has an "ensemble cast" is kinda pushing it. The problem is that the author of the cited source had not seen the film as it hadn't begun production, and so could not be a reliable source for the content of the film and relative screen-time/importance of the cast members. Some later sources are more nuanced -- [4] [5] and [6], for example.

What do people think about the reliability of the 2015 source for the current content? Am I just going crazy?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC) (somewhat trimmed 05:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC))

Just don't use the term as it's confusing. Alexbrn (talk) 04:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Would you mind commenting on whether you think the March 2015 source is reliable for the claim that the film has an ensemble cast? I kinda-sorta said (based partly on my experience asking about "dated" sources here) that people here would agree with me on that point, and if I go back there and say that an RSN commenter said to leave it out because it's confusing I would almost certainly be met with "Yeah, but that's not a discussion for RSN, and no one said the source wasn't reliable for the claim attributed to it".

That said, I doubt any number of comments anywhere but the article talk page would convince people. They'll probably just sub-in the above Telegraph source, whose author had seen the film if RSN agrees with me that the current source is not sufficient. So I'm considering opening an RFC, but it just seems like making mountains out of molehills at this point.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

The reliability question is irrelevant. We should communicate clearly by "translating" confusing terms into clear English. Perhaps if you could get agreement on a paraphrase - in plain English - of what it is the article wants to say, then we could look at whether sources support that. Alexbrn (talk) 05:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that the paraphrase would be clearly non-NPOV. Someone on WT:FILM (not sure if they would want to be pinged, but it was NinjaRobotPirate) said it sounded like a press-release. The status quo is that the article uses a seemingly NPOV euphemism for a non-NPOV marketing term, and the fact that a source uses it (and presumably that the euphemism has another, non-non-NPOV, meaning) is being used to justify that. Changing the ambiguous euphemism to the more direct term would beg the question why we are using this description at all (which would just mean opening a new thread on NPOVN). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

It all sounds very complicated - who'd have thought films could be so fraught?! Look, is the intention to convey that the film has lots of stars in in, or that the screen time is evenly apportioned among them? If that could be agreed then a source might support one of the options. If OTOH, nobody can even agree what "ensemble cast" even means, then this is never going to be a productive line to pursue. Alexbrn (talk) 06:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea how to answer either of your questions. I sure as hell didn't know they were so fraught when I first started editing Wikipedia, and I get the feeling they've only become so in recent years. As for what the intention is, as I said above I would like to remove the phrase altogether; you'd have to ask User:Favre1fan93 and User:Huggums537 what they think the intention is -- all I've been getting out of them so far[7][8][9] is that they are trying to match what the sources say, which is why I came here. I can speculate on what the intention of the sources was: they are all either primary sources from those trying to promote the film, or early sources reliant on those trying to promote the film, so if I had to guess they were using it as a round-about way of saying "all-star cast", but if that's the case then we shouldn't be following them. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

• Two answers: 1. Yes the source is reliable for the statement its an ensemble cast. 2. Its not actually an ensemble cast in the technical meaning as applied to films but it is in the way it is commonly used. Ensemble casts are films where there are multiple main characters who have roughly equivalent screen time. Which is clearly not the case in this instance. However that is not how 'ensemble cast' is often used in the media and elsewhere, where the more relaxed definition of 'lots of big name actors in one film who would otherwise be in leading/significant roles'. So you can argue it either way, don't use it because we are an encyclopedia and should be keeping to the strict definition, or use it because we are an encyclopedia for a general audience which reflects reliable source usage. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:36, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@Only in death: But do we really want to use "ensemble cast" in the same way as it is used in the media and elsewhere? It's essentially a marketing slogan, just a cutesier way of saying "all-star cast". I also feel like, if Wikipedia has an article at ensemble cast, to which the phrase is linked, and that article prioritizes the technical definition in its lead, we are misleading our readers, as it gives the strong implication that we are using it in the technical sense.

If we interpret the source as meaning "lots of big name actors in one film who would otherwise be in leading/significant roles" (which, is obviously the correct interpretation) wouldn't "all-star cast" be preferable? I've been arguing against this for the last couple days, but I'd actually prefer it to the status quo. Yes, "all-star cast" is WP:PEACOCK (again, if anyone wants to ping NinjaRobotPirate they can, just please read this first and tell me he's not "done" with this conversation), but it's still better than a word that could be interpreted as meaning the same thing or as meaning something that is inaccurate.

On an unrelated note, I can totally see people throwing your first answer in my face later, based on what I wrote here. Could you clarify that you don't think the source is reliable for the claim that the film has an ensemble cast in the technical sense? I agree with basically everything you wrote above, and it's clear from your Which is clearly not the case in this instance that you don't actually mean what I highly suspect you will be misquoted as saying.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

If we go by the technical/exact definition Wikipedia uses for 'ensemble cast' then strictly speaking the source is incorrect. However 'The source is clearly wrong - as can be seen by watching the film' is usually a terrible argument to make. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. But in this case we are talking about the content of the film, and the source was written by someone who could not have seen the film unless he was a time-traveler. As I have said elsewhere, I would love if no material anywhere on Wikipedia could be written based on one having seen the film, but that assumes sources written about the content of the film by people who have actually seen it. The source is right, but that's only because it's not going by the technical/exact definition Wikipedia uses for "ensemble cast". The definition by which it was probably going is not related to the content of the film, and so it would be a reliable source for that, but that's really not what our article is saying at the moment. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment: I would like to point out that the article mentions "ensemble" 5 times. There are 9 sources related to this term and Hijiri88 is only criticising one of them. Also, his use of diffs here effectively takes sections of previous discussions out of context so that you are only able to see the part of the discussions that he wants you to see. I suggest (for those that have the time) to read the whole discussions in order to formulate a fully informed opinion on the matter. The article talk page is a short read, while the long discussion is here. Huggums537 (talk) 13:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Most of those sources are cited in contexts where our article is not claiming that "the film has an ensemble cast". The Renner quotation, for example, is clearly using the word "ensemble" in the opposite sense in context (being "the ensemble" means being a secondary cast member), and it's not like we can doctor the quote. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:05, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Reading the long version, the editors there are substantially in agreement with everything I said above tbh and not in disagreement with each other. Lugnuts links to the Wikipedia article. Erik says (as I did above) that sources sometimes use it sloppily. Gonein60 makes the clearest statement that where 'Ensemble' is being referenced (as 'lots of famous people') not in its correct definition it should not be used. Ninjarobotpirate states that when ensemble is used in its traditional meaning its not a problem, but shouldn't be used as a euphemism for all-star (lots of famous people). Hoverfish says Ensemble is preferred if its being used as the article defines it - otherwise it should be stated in prose without glam terms (eg 'all-star). If I had to assess consensus there it would be to a)not use ensemble cast as the usage isn't how Wikipedia (or elsewhere) traditionally defines it, b)do not use glam/PR terms like all-star which may be more accurate. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

The glam term might be more accurate according to the skewed interpretation of certain sources and personal viewpoints of what people saw in the film, but if the film is not appropriately classified as an ensemble in the technical sense according to industry standards, then why did it receive an award nomination in an ensemble category from the Screen Actors Guild Awards? See the Accolades section of the article for the source on this. (I realize this is beyond the scope of the casting issue, but you can still make the connection that places the film in the ensemble division of films). Also, why did the directors, interviewer and author of this article refer to it (many times) as an ensemble in the technical sense? Huggums537 (talk) 16:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC) Also, if there was such a clear consensus with the other discussions then why did he come here begging for people to discredit just one of the many different casting sources? The film is accepted by the industry as an ensemble in the technical sense of the word just like another article he had a problem with, where the film was nominated for the "Ensemble Cast Award" at the MTV awards. See Avengers:_Age_of_Ultron#Accolades for the source. Let's all try to put our person opinions aside for a moment and try to see this from a NPOV. Would any of us classify the film as an ensemble in the technical sense? Probably not. Does the industry classify it as an ensemble in the technical sense? Absolutely. Does the industry care what we think about how they classify their films? Not a bit. NPOV dictates that we must put aside our personal views and accept the facts. Do we want the facts in our articles. I should hope so. Do we want the term "ensemble cast" in our article? Yes, we do. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 17:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Huggums, drop the tone, please. I did not "come here begging". The reason I came here was because you and one other editor who don't respect consensus were causing trouble on the article talk page after discussion on WT:FILM had died down. And I didn't ask anyone to discredit anything, I came here to ask if a source dating from more than a year before the film's release could be considered reliable for the film's content. I don't care what you think the answer to any of the questions you pose is: I just want Wikipedia to use direct descriptions rather than misleading ones, and use reliable sources for claims about the content of the film. Also, the context in which you write Do we want the term "ensemble cast" in our article? Yes, we do. really makes it look like "we" and "our" are WP:OWN-violations -- a couple of long-term users, and now you as well, view the article as "yours", and it doesn't matter what the rest of the Project thinks. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:05, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

You make me laugh. Another desperate attempt to try to make me look bad. I just started editing the article all of 3 days ago with some minor edits, and you're suggesting I'm trying to "own" the article? You're hilarious. Anyway, I've accepted your compromise on the article talk page to just unlink the phrase because I wish to be done with this ridiculous dispute. Huggums537 (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I was working under the assumption that you were grouping yourself in with the "stewards" of the article, since you agree with them in this instance, and they very clearly do "own" the article. (If I cared enough I'd bring their OWN behaviour to the attention of the community, and virtually all of them would likely be TBANned. This will probably happen eventually anyway, when someone a bit more litigious than me gets in a fight with them.) It's possible that you were completely ignoring said stewards and were simply referring to yourself with the royal we. You could not have been referring to the Wikipedia community at large since, thusfar, everyone except you and one other editor has expressed disapproval of the term "ensemble cast" in our article. This includes two random RSN contributors, four or five random WT:FILM contributors, and me. Anyway, I really can't understand why you, if you just want this to be done and are willing to compromise, you posted remarks that very much implied you were not done arguing in three separate fora. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Huggums537: Are you referring to the award for "stunt ensemble" as mentioned in this source? If so, does that mean we should also consider Jason Bourne and other films nominated in that category as ensemble films? I don't agree that this is a clear indication that the industry supports the ensemble label. A stunt team getting credit as an ensemble should not mean that we carry over that definition to apply to the film's cast. The most recent compromise at the film's article is to allow the term to be used sparingly in the body with proper in-text attribution, but remove the term from the lead. As Alexbrn suggests, we can replace the term in other areas (especially the lead) with plain English. There are other synonyms for the way the term is being used by the one or two sources we have that call it an ensemble. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:49, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

By the way, my reading of the director's interview is that he was influenced by ensemble films. He obviously injected some of those elements into the way he conducted the plot. However, the overall product would not be considered an ensemble film by most measures. It's also important to keep in mind that no one is really advocating the complete removal of the term from the article; continue to use it in the body alongside proper credit to the source(s). --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that is the source I'm talking about. No, you don't consider Jason Bourne an ensemble, that's well, absurd. The stunt team is the ensemble, of course. Does that make it an ensemble film? Not at all. Give it an ensemble cast? Nope. I think almost any simpleton can come to these conclusions. However, that same source also identifies these categories: "Outstanding Performance by an Ensemble in a Drama Series", "Outstanding Performance by an Ensemble in a Comedy Series", and "Outstanding Action Performance by a Stunt Ensemble in a Comedy or Drama Series". So, to say that the source is not a clear indication that the industry supports the ensemble label is not a complete interpretation of the whole source. Especially since most, but not all, of the nominees in these categories are in fact technically considered ensembles themselves, but even those that are not ensembles still have the right to have the "ensemble" term attached to them in the corresponding way that would be appropriate. Jason Bourne isn't an ensemble, but the stunt team is an ensemble, and that gives Jason Bourne "bragging rights" to an ensemble category . It also gives me the right to claim "ensemble" as an industry standard term. Also, to sum up the directors interview with only, "he was influenced by ensemble films" is an incomplete assessment of the whole source when you consider these statements; "Anthony explained how they tackle ensemble movies.", "we worked in ensembles a lot from our first movie Welcome to Collinwood to our television shows", "We love ensembles, and I think we’re kind of in tune to the idea of telling the story that has more than a single protagonist", "Between the Russos’ past work with ensemble casts and their knowledge of the Captain America world that they established in Captain America: The Winter Soldier, it seems the many characters in Civil War are safe in their hands.", and "Of course, that’s not to say every character in Civil War will receive a lot of screen time – given the ensemble cast that’s nearly impossible to achieve without sacrificing the main conflict between Cap and Iron Man.". As far as the latest compromise goes, and Alexbrn's suggestion goes, I say go for it. That's between everyone else now. It's really not that important. I've been trying to back away from the discussion. The only reason I commented here was to explain some of the rationale for my position. Huggums537 (talk) 15:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

"...to say that the source is not a clear indication that the industry supports the ensemble label is not a complete interpretation of the whole source"

I think there is a slight misunderstanding. You and I (and probably everyone here) agrees that ensemble is an industry term. However, your post above at 17:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC) implies that there is a connection between receiving the stunt ensemble accolade and being considered an ensemble film. I was simply saying that there isn't one. We aren't talking about the film's stunt performers and coordinators when we refer to the film's plot and cast. It appears that you now agree from your last post (I think), which negates any concern I previously had regarding this source.

As for the interview, I could explain my position in more detail, but since you're trying to disengage, I'll set that aside. You did bring up some good examples in your last post worth considering, however. The main goal for me was to help all parties involved reach a conclusion, and if Hijiri 88 and Favre1fan93 are satisfied, we should be able to make the change and move on. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I did imply there is a connection and if we were only relying on that single source alone then I would agree with you that there isn't a connection. However, when you combine the so called "euphemism source" with the so called "industry standard" source, then you have a much stronger case for showing that the film is an ensemble in the technical sense according to industry standards. Huggums537 (talk) 20:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC) Please note that I use the term "euphemism" very loosely here (in order to establish a difference between my sources, which can't be confused with an "all star cast", and the other ones) since an interview with the directors can hardly be referred to as a euphemism...

Really, the only misunderstanding we have here is the carefully guided misdirection of hiriji88; who boasted that, "By the way, I can absolutely, 100% guarantee you that if we took this to WP:RSN, the folks there would agree with me. Sources from a year before a film was released are inherently unreliable for the content of the film, especially after the film has been released and other sources started contradicting them." This claim was made in the middle of a discussion which was about the usage of the phrase "ensemble cast" in the article. He came over here and misrepresented the issue to make it look like the whole discussion over there was about a disagreement over an "old unreliable source", and while that did come up, that's not what it was about. All you have to do is compare his opening statements on that page with his opening statements on this page to see that this is the case. Huggums537 (talk) 20:56, 12 July 2017 (UTC) Also, you will notice that he conveniently failed to ping either myself or Favre1fan93 until later on in the discussion, well after the misdirection had been established. Huggums537 (talk) 01:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I would just like it noted that off-topic personal attacks and blatant AGF-violations like the above ("the carefully guided misdirection of hiriji88") will probably lead to Huggums' being blocked sooner or later if he/she keeps it up. And someone who misread the issue from the very beginning and tried to shift it to be about what he/she wanted it to be about should not be accusing others of deliberately "mak[ing] it look like the whole discussion over there was about a disagreement over an old unreliable source" -- of course an RSN thread should be about the reliability of the source, not about some other issues that may or may not actually be at stake. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:55, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

But, you know as well as I do that there was more than the reliability of that one source involved. You cherry picked the source you thought was most questionable and then made it look like the whole discussion was about that single source. That's carefully guided misdirection by any stretch of the imagination. Huggums537 (talk) 11:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I opened this thread because you suggested it here: If you wish to take the issue to WP:RSN, then please feel free to do so. As far as I could tell, you wrote this in direct response to my saying I can absolutely, 100% guarantee you that if we took this to WP:RSN, the folks there would agree with me that a source written when the writer could not possibly have seen the film could [not] be considered "reliable" for the principle players having roughly equal screen time and importance to the plot. RSN is about the reliability of sources for the content we attribute to them. There was only one source cited anywhere in the article for the factual claim that "the film has an ensemble cast". The sources you listed in a different comment made at the same time as the above-linked diff (which I only noticed now) are not apparently cited anywhere in the article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:30, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh, wow. Ok, so if I don't cite sources inside the article it somehow invalidates them? And you just now noticed them before you brought the single "unreliable" source here? Please. How could you have not noticed them when you posted them in the second paragraph at the very beginning of this section? You're full of it. Well, now that you've noticed them this argument can finally come to an end then. Because we obviously now have reliable sources to validate the claim. Thanks for participating. Huggums537 (talk)

I located two of those sources by Googling "Captain America Civil War ensemble cast", and the third (the MovieBob review) is from a reviewer whose work I've been following for six years. I honestly have no idea if they are the same sources you referred to on the talk page, but I would be incredibly surprised if all three of them were.

And yes, if you want to discuss the "reliability of a source", you need to either cite it in an article or show some intention of citing it in an article. Even if I had seen your talk page comment before yesterday, it wouldn't have changed the problem as far as RSN was concerned, since you were not apparently arguing to rewrite the article to match those sources, but arguing to preserve the status quo. And again, it was not "deliberately misleading" to open the same RSN thread that I offered to open before you mentioned any of those other sources.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

No, once again you are providing false information. The time record shows I provided the sources several hours before you started this thread. Simply making a statement doesn't make it true. This shows I posted them on 00:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC) and you opened RSN here 04:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC) as shown in the first comment above. Get your facts straight, or quit lying, or whatever game it is that you're playing here. Huggums537 (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Huggums, seriously? Why can't you drop the stick already? As I have stated numerous times, I didn't see your comment in which you listed those other sources (similarly to how I didn't see this comment until just now). I was talking specifically about the one source then-cited in the article; I offered to take the source to RSN (21:41, 9 July 2017); you said, essentially, If you wish to take the issue to WP:RSN, then please feel free to do so., at the same time as you posted (further up the thread) a list of other sources that you claimed (much later) you had wanted me to bring to RSN (00:16, 10 July 2017); I didn't see your comment further up the thread until much later. The timestamp of your having posted it is not a timestamp of my having read it. If you accuse me of "lying" one more time, I will ask that you be blocked -- I already asked User:Drmies to take a look at your behaviour, but my request apparently wound up getting undermined by some other stuff another user was posting about yet another user on my talk page. But I guarantee you, if you keep accusing me of "lying" or "playing games" as you have above, you will be blocked. And why on earth is this conversation happening at RSN to begin with? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you saw it or not. The fact still remains that I posted the sources there before you started the thread here. I will stop making references about you being a liar, but please stop making false statements about me (or my actions). This is the second time it has happened. This is why we are having this discussion here; so I can publicly defend myself against false statements being made against me (or my actions). I understand this is not the forum for that, but I simply can't allow an untrue statement about me (or my actions) to remain undefended as long as I'm aware of it. Huggums537 (talk) 04:03, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Once again I find myself lost and confused -- what false statements about you or your actions do you want me to stop making? The above was about my actions (you accused me of opening this thread about one source while neglecting the fact that you had brought up a few other sources on the talk page. Are you referring to my false accusation that you referred to the posts I linked in my OP comment here as being the same ones you listed on the talk page? It really looked like that was what you were implying with How could you have not noticed them when you posted them in the second paragraph at the very beginning of this section? was that, and I can't for the life of me figure out what else you could have meant -- I apologize if I am missing some alternative explanation that's staring me in the face, but I'm seriously struggling here... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@Huggums537: Okay, I wasted more of my time and checked. You listed five sources and I listed three. One of mine came from the same website (ScreenRant) as one of yours, but it was a different article (in fact yours dates from January 2016, so it would not even have made sense in the context of my comment). The other two were completely unrelated (except that MovieBob was then and might still be for all I know a freelance writer also working for ScreenRant). Kindly strike your embarrassingly wrong comment, and stop making these accusations now. You have already driven this discussion WAY off-topic.

To everyone else: I apologize for dragging this needless drahma to RSN. I'll be more careful in the future.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I was expecting you to say that, since you didn't use exactly the same sources as me because you changed it up a little bit. But, nope, not striking anything because the comment you made on this page here still clearly shows you knew about my sources because you included these diffs; [10] [11] in that comment, (which both have my sources) along with the claim that, "all I've been getting out of them so far[9][10][11] is that they are trying to match what the sources say". Give it up with your feeble attempts to try to suppress the truth. Huggums537 (talk) 22:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

No, the fact that the diff I provided included the comment in question is irrelevant. I checked the timestamp of the comment I had read, and dug up the diff for that. I didn't read everything in the diff I posted, because I was only interested in posting the diff for the comment I was referring to. And could you please stop calling me "hiriji"? I am not sure if it is some insult or slur, or if you honestly think that is how I spell my username, but you've done it enough times by now that it can no longer be considered a misprint. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:34, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

By the way -- apart from saving myself a tiny bit of embarrassment (having forgotten your comment rather than not having noticed it in the first place), what motive would I even have to "suppress the truth"? Normally on Wikipedia, you are expected to assume good faith. Saying that someone is lying to push some kind of agenda requires a very large amount of evidence, but in this case you aren't even accusing me of lying to push some agenda -- you are accusing me of lying just for the sake of lying, as you can't even think of any motivation I would have for lying.

Anyway, this thread should be closed. I can honestly say that in my five years contributing more than 170 comments to various RSN discussions, I have never seen a discussion get this heated over literally nothing.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:53, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• Hijiri, please don't try to create an ensemble cast by pinging me. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 11:55, 18 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.

Is it appropriate to cite another wiki as a source for info on Wikipedia ?

Is it appropriate to cite another wiki as a source for info on Wikipedia ?

1. Please see article Battery Harris.
2. First sentence of article cites another wiki as a source.
3. The wiki is another website that anyone can edit.
4. The wiki page is http://www.fortwiki.com/Fort_Tilden

Can we please remove this source as a cite on Wikipedia ?

Thank you, Sagecandor (talk) 17:49, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

No, as Wiki's (generally) have no editorial oversite and can be edited by any idiot who think it's funny to randomly insert the word "nipple" into every other sentence.Slatersteven (talk) 18:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@Slatersteven:Thank you, so can we remove the wiki cite as a source from the article, Battery Harris ? Sagecandor (talk) 18:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

This particular wiki seems to have a regular crew editing it - and the pages are locked - it is impossible to edit anonymously (at least linked page and several others), and it isn't obvious it is possible to create a user. The locked pages are attributed to authors (in this case (and in several others) - John Stanton based on work by Bill Thayer)). In short - while running on wiki software, this isn't a wiki in the usual sense - it is locked for editing (at least this article and other finished articles). This still doesn't mean that it is a reliable source (I'm unable to evaluate the personnel there) - but it doesn't fall just because it is on wiki software.Icewhiz (talk) 18:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC) Per their about page: [12] - "FortWiki is an invitation only Wiki. This mode of operation keeps us spam free and restricted to people who care about forts. To get a login just send me an email and I'll fix you up." - so it's not open for editing in the sense of a "usual" wiki.Icewhiz (talk) 18:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

The wiki page also cites Wikipedia, so that leaves us with a circular reference. I would leave the material intact and replace http://www.fortwiki.com/Fort_Tilden with {{citation needed}} for awhile. The second reference in that article is extensive and may already serve to back up the material in the first sentence. On that I would have one of the editors interested in military history look it over. -Location (talk) 18:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

If citing Wikipedia, ever, even once, makes a cite unreliable, then we have to take out the NYT and NPR. The problem isn't use of Wikipedia per se, it's its use as an authoritative, stable source. An expert source could easily use a particular snapshot of Wikipedia as a convenience cite; the problems come when Wiki itself changes underneath it. An expert source could also stove-pipe through Wikipedia to a rock-solid source, again, the problem is with Wikipedia's instability, not its accuracy at a particular point in time. Anmccaff (talk) 20:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

If 25% of the sources in NYT and NPR were cited to Wikipedia, then they, too, would be unreliable. -Location (talk) 20:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

No. If 25 percent of the cites came from...anywhere....it doesn't matter; what matters is the final aggregate output. Newspapers are very used to evaluating and weighing sources, and rejecting those that score too high on the bulshometer...or selecting them, if it's a bad tabloid. Now a particular article might fail, but that's true of any generally reliable source. Fortwiki is not an openly edited source. It's more like the NYT in that sense than it is like Wikipedia. It has a strong general reputation for accuracy; any challenges should be case-by-case, like they would be with other RS. The fact that it uses "wiki" in its name, which is the only part of @Sagecandor:'s argument that is not based on a falsehood, doesn't mean anything here, it's mere equivocation. Anmccaff (talk) 20:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree with all comments by Location, above. Sagecandor (talk) 00:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I too agree with Location, except that I would add that the problem is not so much the percentage, as whether we can be fairly confident that a source went through some kind of editorial fact-checking process. A lot of the material on Wikipedia is accurate and reliably sourced, so journalists consulting Wikipedia to get their information and then verifying it elsewhere is not a problem per se. Anmccaff seems to be largely missing the point here, as there is a huge difference between citing Wikipedia (which is technically what sources do when they say "Wikipedia says X, but it's wrong because Y.") and frequently taking factual claims from Wikipedia without verifying them, and not saying that one got them from Wikipedia. And then there's the fact that most of the stuff in NYT and NPR that Wikipedia might want to cite to them can easily be verified in multiple independent sources, so we aren't stuck speculating about whether they got this or that piece of information from Wikipedia. We should always be far more skeptical of outlandish and bizarre claims in otherwise "reliable" sources (I'd link a certain disastrously researched "book review" in a certain "reliable" newspaper source, which might as well have been sourced to Wikipedia, but I'd be potentially outing myself for reasons I don't want to elaborate on), than seemingly mundane information that they might have got from Wikipedia but that can be easily verified elsewhere. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:15, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

If the only way you can construct an argument is to set up a straw man, or beg the question it isn't a very good sign, and you have done both here. You have taken as a given that there is no editorial fact-checking process, based on little more than the name of the cite. I rather doubt any source worth the powder to blow it to hell consults Wikipedia and then uses it without verification, except in trivial cases that are more a matter of refreshing the researcher's own memory. Wikipedia is inherently unstable, and a perfectly accurate, balanced article right now could have every name in it replaced by an unloved high school teacher's, and every verb replaced by a variant of "fuck" a quarter of a second from now. Brainlessly depending on something that mercurial is...brainless. Mentioning that you have consulted it, however, is "honest." Anmccaff (talk) 15:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm just going to add (to Hijiri's excellent points) that there shouldn't be any confusion about this source. It's a private Wiki, but it's still a Wiki in which anyone that has access to the site can edit within. Getting access is not that hard. You simply send the site's creator, John Stanton, an email, and in his words he'll "fix you up". This additional step of requesting access helps weed out spammers in their eyes. Also, if you read the profiles of some of these editors, they're just like the average author of a personal blog; they're enthusiasts with a passion to share information they believe to be correct based on personal findings and/or experiences. The Fort Tilden article doesn't even use inline citations. It does list a solid reference or two at the bottom, however. The solution here is to avoid citing the wiki page. Instead, cite the book or CDSG website mentioned on that page for material you're able to verify support for. Everything else on that page is inadmissible until a reliable source for it can be found. Simple as that. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Then I'd suggest you ask Mr. Stanton to "fix you up", post some blogshite on it, and see how long you and the blogshite last there. It'd be an interesting experiment, no? Anmccaff (talk) 17:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Anmccaff, obvious vandalism and spam is always easy to spot. False and unverified information that is well-written, not so much. This wiki is an issue, and its lack of inline citations leave you wondering what is really being sourced by the vague list of references listed at the bottom of the article. We need to steer clear, especially since one of those references listed is Wikipedia. Yikes. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, no. You are writing there as a Wikipedian, not as a subject matter expert. Yep, plausibly written crap can often fool people who aren't familiar with the subject; Wiki is littered with examples of well-meaning people cleaning up articles grammar and syntax, blissfully unaware of what they are making shiny. That's much less of an issue in venues where experts aren't seen as scum. As mentioned below, it is straightforward, if a bit tedious, to see if anything questionable is sourced to Wikipedia here. Anmccaff (talk) 19:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Most real tertiary sources aren't littered with inline citations; there, that's a sign that a particular thing referenced needs to be defended against skepticism. Anmccaff (talk) 19:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Most real tertiary sources aren't littered with inline citations...

Well there's an obvious reason for that. Most tertiary sources aren't online public wikis either. If the author, researcher, and/or publisher have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, then we can feel more confident about what we're reading without the need for inline citations after every sentence. On Wikipedia and FortWiki, we don't have that luxury. Inline citations (or at least paragraph citations) are a must. If there were 20 sources listed at the bottom, it would be hell to check every single one to verify a particular claim within the article. Good thing that approach isn't permitted on Wikipedia. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually, GoneIn60, that approach is permitted on Wikipedia. Quotations must be cited inline as must negative or contentious statements about living people, and surprising statements likely to be challenged. So must statements that have actually been challenged in the past, with a {{cn}} tag or by removal. Otherwsiew general references (not inline) are acceptable, even if not the best practice, and increasingly disfavored here. Or were you being sarcastic? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC) @GoneIn60: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I think you misread my post, which is directed toward the one or two editors here arguing in favor of the FortWiki source. The FortWiki source does not use or require inline citations, which is an approach I disagree with. I believe the practice should be required on Wiki encyclopedias, including Wikipedia for reasons mentioned at WP:V and WP:CITE. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:55, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

The source is not a "public wiki" and will not become one no matter how many times you repeat yourself. It's a source whose expertise appears to be accepted by other experts. Anmccaff (talk) 21:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

The fact that you cant feel confident shouldn't be governing anything here, although its a valid point were you deciding to add a source yourself. Here, we've had a source dragged in for, at best mistaken, and at worst dishonest reasons -it's described inaccurately at the top of the section, with reference to inapplicable policy. The issues raised were:

Open sourcing -not true.

No editorial oversight- the particular page is extensively editted by the the webmaster. Not true.

Policy banning its use -cites were for internal wikipedia citations Not true.

Problems with cites to wikipedia -not relevant if this is itself an expert source; barring it based on that alone is begging the question.

Problems with unravelling sources within the page -again, irrelevant for valid tertiary cites. Again, objecting to it is begging the question.

So, why do you think Wikipedia should accept your expertise over the CDSG's on this subject? Anmccaff (talk) 21:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

The CDSG, which is one of about four organizations viewed as copper-bottomed sources on the subject of fortification, lists some of the others in that category rather prominently on its main page. Look who else they mention:

Featured Links

International Fortress Council

www.internationalfortresscouncil.org

Fortress Study Group

fsgfort.com

Council on America’s Military Past

www.campjamp.org

FortWiki

www.fortwiki.com

North American Forts – American Forts Network

www.northamericanforts.com

National Archives

www.archives.gov

Anmccaff (talk) 15:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

That is more then four, so is FortWiki of the the four copper bottomed ones or not, also a link to the page would have been usefull.Slatersteven (talk) 15:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

The CDSG is simply cdsg.org, now linked above. No, I'd put fortwiki a step down from CDSG itself, and from the Fortress Study Group, but we aren't looking at fine distinctions, rather at whether the site is an open wiki a website that anyone can edit, as falsely claimed at the start of the section. Anmccaff (talk) 17:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

So we are not looking at one of the top four sites either, so why mention it? IN fact the whole post above proves nothing beyond they exist.Slatersteven (talk) 17:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Just to be clear, are you questioning the CDSG and the FSG's standing? Anmccaff (talk) 17:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

No, I asked what the above stuff about CDSG has to do with FortWiki's status. In fact as Wikifort relies on CDSG spo much why not use them?Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

The CDSG explicitly endorses Fortwiki by featuring it prominently on its main page; that suggests that a very RS thinks this is a fellow RS. Now, if you are making the much narrower point that one is better to use than the other in some circumstances, OK, but that is very, very different from a claim that the cite is not reliable. Anmccaff (talk) 18:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Also as the site does not have inline citations we cannot know whether or not it's sourcing to a wikipedia page is creating a circular citation.Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, actually, we often can, and sometimes rather easily, by viewing the changes at the point Wikipedia was added as a source. In this case, we can see that this version of the Fort Tilden article was used which can answer that whether there is anything actually circular, although nowhere as easily had it been added with a change, rather than at the beginning. Anmccaff (talk) 18:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

There is almost never a reason to cite Wikipedia as a source. Some exceptions include the quoting or rephrasing of a passage. If a reliable source is going to use a claim made on Wikipedia, it should simply cite the source that Wikipedia cites. If Wikipedia doesn't cite one, then WAKE UP!! Why are you using this claim and then citing Wikipedia? C'mon, this isn't rocket science! FortWiki is either lazy or unreliable. Either way, I agree with the forming consensus here that we shouldn't cite them. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

No one is talking about citing Wikipedia as a source here, unless you are stating that Wiki is such a crap source that no one elsewhere can ever make constructive use of it?

then WAKE UP!! Needless capitalization and redundant punctuation don't make a bad argument better, except in primary school. Anmccaff (talk) 00:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

FortWiki clearly cites Wikipedia (a public Wiki) as a source, which is fatal mistake if you want to be taken seriously as a reliable source. The rest of my comments explain why; no need to rinse and repeat. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Awful lot of text here. Unless I’m missing something, isn’t the answer obvious? No, you don’t use a wiki as a source. But, if there is something in that wiki that is well documented with reliable sources, then cite those RS instead of citing the wiki. Objective3000 (talk) 00:05, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, @Objective3000:, you have missed something here. Although built on a wiki platform, Fortwiki isn't open; unlike Wikipedia, any fool off the street can't come in and edit it. That eliminates three of the major problems with anyone citing Wikipedia. First, unlike Wikipedia, there is obvious editorial oversight, starting with admission to the site. Next, unlike Wikipedia, there is natural stability; since, again, you can't have someone coming in out of nowhere and deciding to add the zombies with swords to the battle of Thermopylae, the articles tend to proceed in one direction. Finally, the writers are self-selected for an interest in, and possibly some knowledge of, the subject, so it's spared the jack of all trades, master of none research Wikipedia is plagued with. Something that is written and edited by four or five people isn't a "wiki" in the sense that this place deprecates them.

Other factors you may have missed is that it has a strong reputation with an unquestionably reliable Reliable Source. Notability isn't inheritable, but expert reputation can be passed on. Anmccaff (talk) 00:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment: Agree with comments by Objective3000, GoneIn60, Slatersteven, and Location that the questionable wiki source should not be cited. Agree there is a consensus here against using this source on Wikipedia. Sagecandor (talk) 01:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

We are being asked to endorse a source that is so accurate and reliable it uses Wikipedia as a source. And it has not been demonstrated that it has a reputation for accuracy, being in a "see also" set of link is not a statement it is regarded as reliable, only as worth looking at. expert reputation can be passed on, but that must be explicit not implied.Slatersteven (talk) 08:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

This was also briefly discussed on my talk page. "The Coastal Defense Journal" appears to be a RS source; where "fortwiki" is a wiki. I have to still question the matter of editorial oversight, which is not clearly known and given the fact it does use Wikipedia in some way as a source, I would not say it is RS. Kierzek (talk) 14:05, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Jazz_(Queen_album)#Alternative_artwork

Is Queen's official website a reliable source for "The American release did not include the poster, but did include an order form for it."? The source in question says, "...the poster was deemed too risqué for the American public and instead of making it part of the LP package, as it was everywhere else, Elektra Records avoided causing offence to retailers by instead including a coupon with which people could apply for their free poster." - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it looks perfectly fine. I don't even understand why this is questionable or controversial; am I missing something subtle or important? ElKevbo (talk) 22:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

An editor has a personal memory that does not agree with the source. Unable to find a reliable source to challenge it, they seem to be challenging the reliability of the source. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

A primary source can be used for material about itself. Queen are undoubtedly useable for information about how/what came with Queen album releases. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Use of Who's Who for list of awards.

In this edit and this edit on Draft:James Lechay I removed citations to Who’s Who in America (the 2001 Marquis edition). It had been used to support a list of "Exhibitions and awards", and to support the statement:

Lechay also led summer workshops at Stanford University, the Chinese University of Hong Kong, the Studio Art School of the Aegean in Samos (Greece), the Skowhegan School of Painting in Skowhegan, Maine, and other institutions.

I have gotten a complaint on my talk page from a (possibly COI) editor about this removal, along with thanks for other edits, so this is not an unreasonable editor. See User talk:DESiegel#Draft: James Lechay.

Is Who's Who reliable for these uses? If it is should I insist on a page number? Any other advice on the issue? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC) @Ms Georgiane: the other editor. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:20, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Who's Who in America claims to check, but is based upon what the individual reports. Libraries do use it -- see [this Library Journal Review]. I know of no recent formal studies about its accuracy, but see a variety of opinion on Research Gate. I consider it of the same value as an individual bio on their personal web site, which is much less than tan individual's bio on a university or other institutional website.

Im this particular case, the information being sourced is insignificant. Everyone in art has led workshops, as have 100s of Wikipedians. Lechay is highly notable, but this is the sort of trivial information I usually remove from a bio, even if impeccably sourced. DGG ( talk ) 19:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Question regarding MEDRS and Handbook of Near Death Experiences

On the [near death experiences page] some of my edits were rejected [13] because the source I used:

Janice Miner Holden, Bruce Greyson, Debbie James, eds. (2009). The Handbook of Near-Death Experiences: Thirty Years of Investigation. Praeger. ISBN 978-0-313-35865-4 page 218

was deemed non-MEDRS. Now, in the MEDRS policy they clearly state that "academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers" can be used. The above Handbook is from a respected Academic publisher [[14]] I believe, since it is both academic and educational. Also, the authors are some of the best known names in the field of near death experiences: Bruce Greyson, for instance, is either author or co-author on more than 27 publications mostly related to Near Death Experiences (NDEs) in Pubmed. Since I did not get an answer from the talk page The Handbook of Near-Death Experiences I would appreciate some input. best Josezetabal (talk) 08:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Per the noticeboard instruction, please state exactly what text you wish to support with this source. Alexbrn (talk) 08:41, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Round Table India

This Round Table India article is used as a source at the P K Rosy biographical article. Round Table India is a Dalit activist advocacy website; it has nothing to do with the Round Table (club). The same site is used as a source in a few other articles where it is not cited to support a statement about itself.

We do not usually accept caste-affiliated website as sources in these circumstances precisely because they are advocacy bodies and their reliability is otherwise dubious. Should that apply to the Round Table India site, too? This news story might provide some background for anyone who is unfamiliar with what goes on. - Sitush (talk) 08:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Do we not accept caste affiliated websites as a rule?Slatersteven (talk) 08:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

As to the website in question, not getting much of a vibe either way, there appears to be an editorial team (of 2) but I cannot find what their editorial policy is. I would be dubious about using this, but cannot say no with any great certitude.Slatersteven (talk) 08:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Yep, caste-affiliated sites are a non-starter. - Sitush (talk) 08:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Could you please point to the discussion on this matter?Slatersteven (talk) 08:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

The consensus was in existence when I turned up here 10 years or so ago. It is regularly applied but I'm not digging back a decade or more to find the original discussion, sorry. The problems with them include editorial oversight, glorification, sanitisation, and attempts to claim "ownership" both of people and events. - Sitush (talk) 09:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Odd because a search for "caste" does not bring up any such discussion that I can find, from over 10 years ago (or indeed any discussion prior to 2010 about caste, and that does not seem to say that we cannot use caste associated websites). So as far as I can tell there is no such consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 10:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Pfft. Well, you don't have to believe me, of course. Who says consensus has to be formed at RSN? It does exist, although this particular matter can probably be dealt with under the "advocacy" heading anyway. Dalit activism is rife. - Sitush (talk) 10:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Generally RSN is where we developed consensus on what us RS (that is why it is the RSN notice board). I am not sure where else we would develop consensus on a wiki wide policy relating to RS. Also whether or not Dalit activism is rife you need to show that this particular site is an activism site, and not just a Dalit one.Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, "generally", not always; try, for example, WT:IND. If you read the site, you'd know it was an activists' portal - [15]. I'm sorry if I appear to be antagonistic but this problem of "ignorance" happens so often here and it is frustrating. I guess it is a form of systemic bias and I will have to live with it. - Sitush (talk) 04:50, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

• Short version for Slater: Most advocacy (this is not limited to caste) websites are unlikely to pass RS in areas related to what they are advocating - except as a primary source on their own views. Long version: Caste-based advocacy sites take this to the extreme due to the political nature of inter-caste relations, the historic and current 'massaging' of the truth/history most caste-advocates get into. So you could never use a caste-advocacy website as a RS on caste-related issues, facts or any sort of historical issue, except where it is describing their own viewpoint. There are always some exceptions however which is why sources are looked at individually. In this case the source is being used for the statement (P K Rosy) "a Dalit Christian woman, was the first heroine of the first Malayalam movie Vigathakumaran (The Lost Child), directed by J.C. Daniel" There are 3 facts in this - 1. She was a Dalit Christian, 2. It was the first Malayalam Movie, 3. The director. 2 could be potentially problematic depending on if there is any doubt about which movie was 'first'. 3 should just be a matter of record easily sourced somewhere else. 1 - her religion and caste should by no means be sourced to a caste advocacy website. Many caste-based arguments about famous people are around various caste's saying so-and-so is/is not a member of caste x, y, so on. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Why is it then that no one can point me to this discussion? I agree (and said above) that much of this information must be available from better sources, but that has nothing to do with this source being RS or not.Slatersteven (talk) 10:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

And having looked at the archive pages for the India group for (about) 10 years ago I find no reference to any discussion about "caste advocacy" sites not being RS.Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Because unless a specific site has been asked at a noticeboard or a discussion has come up elsewhere, there will rarely be a specific agreement not to use a type of website. Existing policies and guidelines rule out caste advocacy websites, because the vast majority of caste advocacy websites cannot fulfill our criteria for reliability. This reflected in editorial practice where experienced editors in the Indian area do not use said websites to source inappropriate material. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:48, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Only in death. I'm sure the issue has been specifically discussed in the past but you're right regardless of that. - Sitush (talk) 10:58, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Please do not accuse other users of ignorance or systematic bias. Especially if you refuse to link to the discussions you say establish a precedent you are claiming is established.Slatersteven (talk) 10:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

It is a generic issue, as I said. And I put ignorance in scare quotes for a reason - I knew it perhaps wasn't the best word to describe what I mean but it was the only one I could grasp at the time. If you've taken offence then please don't. BTW, there is a reason why it is called "systemic" bias: it isn't necessarily a failing of any particular person but rather, indeed, the norm. - Sitush (talk) 10:58, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

If there is a policy ruling out caste advocacy websites why can no one point to this discussion? Sorry if it is not in black and white it is not a policy or guideline, it is a common practice that has no force in policy. To put it another way, if there was no consensus reached here on Wikipedia by discussion then it is not a rule we have to adhere to, and thus is not a valid reason for exclusion.Slatersteven (talk) 12:37, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I have explained this twice above. But now a third time. It is common practice based on the guidance regarding reliable sources. There is not required to be a written policy/guide for every specific topic out there. Which is why we have general guidance pages. In the area of caste-related articles, many types of sources are unreliable for various reasons. Caste-based advocacy being one. I cant explain this any simpler other than to say, read the reliable sources guidelines and then look at some caste-based advocacy websites. It is a long-standing de-facto consensus to not use them because they are not reliable for most things. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:37, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

And now "defacto consensus", what does that even mean. Either there is consensus (by discussion) or there is not. In have read the RS guidelines and see nothing about advocacy. What I do see is a prohibition against ones that are "widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature", so unless it can be shown that a given site is "widely acknowledged as extremist" (has this one been) we are left with "promotional" Well as far as I can tell that is not about advocacy, but advertising. So no this website is not "extremist" or "promotional" it is biographical and third party. But I think that as I have now added some RS that say the same stuff it is rather moot now.Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for finding those two sources from The Hindu. Perhaps I missed it, but neither seem to support the bit about her being Christian - that is only in the Round Table source that I consider to be an advocacy site. Tbh, it shouldn't be used anywhere except in support of itself, as Only in death has tried to explain. - Sitush (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

So what is the tally for and against now?Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Consensus is not a vote. - Sitush (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

It is more of a vote then it is defacto.Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I think now that maybe with have exhausted this and now need to seek dispute resolution.Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comments-@Slatersteven:--Thanks for digging out the two sites!Anyway:--

• Advocacy websites do not conform to reliable sources in general.That's a non-starter.Further, this site has no known editorial policy and a self-proclaimed goal of speaking from Dalit's voice.If you want to have a feel about the validity, try taking this line at Homeopathy!That will be some learning experience!
• Coming to the points raised by Only in death--

• • Phrase 1 is contentious.Per one of your sources. Won't it be best to remove the Christian part?
  • Phrase 2 and Phrase 3--Debate is settled.Both of your references help.But, for better, a footnote could be introduced at the end of the sentence to deal with the confusion about the first movie.

• So, I find no reason to source the lead statement of a biography to an advocacy-site when there is precisely zero need for the same.And even if there was a need (supposedly for phrase 1); I would remain dead-opposed.
• And this is not a vote.Quality of arguments matter; not quantity.Winged Blades ^Godric 10:18, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Source for a BLP subject's birth that looks WP:CIRCULAR

I removed an unsourced birth date from Yolandi Visser added by Second Skin. Second Skin then added articlebio.com. This doesn't look like a reliable source to me. It looks like it's just scraping data from the IMDb and Wikipedia, which are user-generated. However, I'm asking here to get consensus to remove it since I've already been reverted once by Second Skin. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:36, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

It's come up before. Not reliable. Bromley86 (talk) 10:45, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

• CommentThat has to be the worst site I have ever seen that purports to be a "news" site. A closer look shows that it is a self-professed gossip site. How much oversight can there be? Especially in light of how badly the bios are written. It is clearly unreliable. I feel embarassed just for having visited the site.  — Myk Streja ^(aack!) 21:39, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
• In any case, for a BLP, we not only need a high-quality site, but an indication that the exact date has already been widely published or published by or with the consent of the subject, as per WP:DOB (a section of WP:BLP). This should be removed and stay that way. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC) In fact, i had posted on Talk:Yolandi Visser about this very same issue two months ago. And this should proibably ahve been mentioned on the article talk page as well. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:43, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Is Oxford Dictionaries a reliable source for the origin time period of a word ?

Looking for previously un-involved, third-party respondents to please help answer this question:

At Talk:Whataboutism#RfC:_Introduction_to_the_subject, discussion about whether Oxford Dictionaries is a reliable source for the origin time period of the word, whataboutism.

Citation:

"whataboutism", Oxford Living Dictionary, Oxford Dictionaries, Oxford University Press, 2017, archived from the original on 9 March 2017, retrieved 21 July 2017, Origin - 1990s: from the way in which counter-accusations may take the form of questions introduced by 'What about —?'.

Some have argued at Talk:Whataboutism that the source should be disregarded. Or even, phrased with weasel wording "asserts that..." as could be used for an opinion piece or something of that nature that requires attribution. DIFF

Further, adding at the end "but provides no example of use from that period." would seem to be a Wikipedia editor individually choosing themselves to add something about a source, that the source itself does not explicitly state.

Sagecandor (talk) 03:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is a RS, and via my subscription to Oxford Reference I can also tell you that the cited entry from Oxford Living Dictionaries appears in the Oxford Dictionary of English (3 ed.) [16] Eperoton (talk) 14:17, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Suicide of Vincent Foster

Suicide of Vince Foster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There are a number of sources referenced in this article that I'm unsure of. Some I am merely unfamiliar with, some I suspect are unreliable.

• [17] - cited to support a large number of claims on the page - judging by the domain, it's not shy about stating its' views. However, I have no idea if the site is reliable.
• [18] - HathiTrust - I'm not familiar with this site. Any views on it as a RS?
• [http://www.wnd.com/2016/02/vince-foster-suicide-shocker-2nd-wound-documented/] - World Net Daily - cited to support claims evidence of a second would was suppressed - I've a vague memory that this has been stated to not be a RS, could anyone confirm or deny this?
• [19] - Citizen News - cited to support claims coverup, that Miguel Rodriguez alleged such in a resignation letter - I think I may have mentioned this before on this discussion board, but couldn't find the previous discussion. This site isn't RS, is it?
• [20] - cited to support claims Christopher W. Ruddy recevied funds from Scaife - no idea if this is an RS. However, the link no longer refers to Vince Foster, but seems to redirect to a front page. Any idea if this site is an RS anyway?
• [21] - conwebwatch.tripod.com - cited to support claims Ruddy was supported by Joseph Farah and Farahs' organisation the Western Journalism Centre - is this an RS?
• [22] - simonsays.com - cited to support claim about book "The Strange Death of Vincent Foster"- redirects to a list of what looks like advertising for books. Probably not RS.
• [23] - cited to support five claims - publiceye.org - not idea either way about this.

Autarch (talk) 17:29, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Just commenting on one of these: HathiTrust is simply a resource that reprints existing resources that are in the public domain, so it's not a source whose own reliability should be discussed; the question would be the reliability of whatever is being reprinted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

That isn't entirely accurate; Hathitrust isn't a blind aggregator; it only gathers what its members have selected. No doubt, though, that some works are selected mostly as bad examples. In this case, it adds no authority to the source, that's not true always. Anmccaff (talk) 17:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The only one of the listed sources that is anywhere near reliable is Newsmax, and even that one requires caution. As NYB has said HathiTrust merely links existing documents. In this case it links to court documents. These are generally to be avoided per WP:PRIMARY. They can be used in some instances although I don't know the context here. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

PublicEye.org is the old version of Chip Berlet's Political Research Associates website. IMO not RS for this article.

ConWebWatch is Terry Krepel's blog. Not RS.

SimonSays used to be book publisher Simon and Schuster's book announcements. Now redirects to vimeo.com Not RS in either case.

CitizenNews: unfamiliar, but doesn't even bother to list responsible persons under about section, emphatically not RS.

World Net Daily: emphatically not RS.

fbicover-up.com: a one issue website, only material relating to Foster's death. No responsible persons listed (possibly Patrick Knowlton, John Clarke, and Hugh Turley). No doubt useful for research on the subject, but NOT RS.

NewsMax: use with caution.

HathiTrust: Reliable source for government documents (primary sources). Rgr09 (talk) 23:59, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the others. I haven't gone through all of the article, but I did remove the Citizen News and WND citations. -Location (talk) 16:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Film Affinity

Hello! I have been working on the List of Japanese films of 1960 article being careful to make sure sources match their content. A fellow user (@Walkingtalkingmammal: suggested bringing up the site Filmaffinity.com here to discuss its value as a reliable source. My main issue is I could not find any information on how they gather information into their film database. Filmaffinity have only stated here that "we would like to underline and stress our commitment to reliability, transparency, impartiality, and objectivity regarding all information currently stored in the Filmaffinity database. Our commitment strikes us as particularly important in the following areas:Average ratings of all movies and TV series. Movie ratings by users. Selected excerpts and reviews from relevant media. Trending media and professional reviews. Review ratings by users.". This information just seems to reflect user ratings and user stats. Personally, I do not think its valid as a reliable source as it does not suggest anything about its staff (no authors credited), research, or any other context about its film database. Thoughts? Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

My initial thoughts are that it may be reliable for basic film stats (director, cast, producer, etc.), if when compared to other reputable sites, it tends to get these right. Then I'd feel more comfortable citing it for older films when other reliable sources come up short. So the answer to your question is that it probably depends on what content the source is being used to support. At the bottom of each film summary page, there's a link to submit a message when you discover an error or want to report missing information. This leads me to believe these are not user-generated stats, and that they are being maintained by a central entity that vets the information that gets published. Now it's just a matter of determining whether or not they do a reputable job vetting the material, and comparing to other reputable sources would give us insight on that aspect. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:49, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Two book source and possible plagiarism

Can anyone help me assess how reliable are the two books listed below?

• Nickson, Chris (1998). Mariah Carey revisited: her story. St. Martin's Press. ISBN 978-0-312-19512-0.
• Shapiro, Marc (2001). Mariah Carey: The Unauthorized Biography. ECW Press. ISBN 978-1-55022-444-3.

These two books are used vastly in the Mariah Carey song/album/biography articles as primary sources. My biggest concern is the copyvio that has gone. From the few pages that I can see in Google books it seems that quote after quote after quote has been copy pasted in articles (I just removed a bunch of quotes from this article) and it also raises questions on plagiarism. Need help. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 14:54, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Anyone please? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 13:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

It really depends on how those sources are being used. Neither bio appears to be a work of hard-hitting investigative journalism. The review for the Nickson book mentions that the author relied overwhelmingly on information that was printed elsewhere - which suggests better sources probably exist. I wouldn't use these sources for anything remotely controversial, and I would be on the lookout for material that seemed overly promotional.

Plagiarism is a different issue, but you should definitely get rid of stuff that appears to be copy pasted - even if it's in quotation marks, it still should be re-written so that it is in Wikipedia's voice.

As a side note: I think it would be helpful if you would include a link to the edits you made to the article, so that people have a better sense of how the books are being used and what sort of material you're asking about. Nblund ^talk 14:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Verification of a source

Hi. Currently I am working with the Syed Shahabuddin article with the hope of promoting it to the GA status. I am aware of the fact that opinion pieces are rarely considered reliable for facts, and the reliability depends on the author. I am wondering whether this Source can be considered reliable for stating Mr.Shahabuddin's educational details, political career amongst other details. RRD (talk) 04:31, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

User:WilliamJE and obituaries

User:WilliamJE keeps deleting information derived from paid obituaries in biographical articles and citing WP:RS. I understand that paid obituaries are not to be used to gauge notability but he seems to believe they have to be deleted, because they are not reliable which is counter intuitive. Can I have a ruling? Here he deleted the reference twice and a bot reversed it because it orphaned other references. Here is another example and here is another example reversed by a bot. They all seem to be articles created by Billy Hathorn. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:51, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

What editorial oversight is there over a paid death notice? What fact checking is involved? Doesn't seem likely to qualify as an RS. There's an implicit bias. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

The answer to DIY's three questions is no. Paid obituaries are not a reliable source for most information like what a person did or achieved in their lives because the only source for it is biased....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Point me to the rule where this was discussed please. User:WilliamJE said the rule was in WP:RS, I see no such rule. We use the person's own website for information on them. We use resumes of academic people posted at university websites. We use resumes submitted by politicians that are posted by state election commissions. We use autobiographies. We assume the information is correct until it is proved incorrect by a more reliable source. Fpr example, we assume the date of death is correct unless contradicted by a death certificate. There is no rule claiming paid obituaries are not reliable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:40, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:SELFSOURCE provides an exception only for self-published (non-reviewed) material published by the subject themselves. A paid death notice fails this because it is presumably published by a third party. This fails "It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities)." I think by how WP:RS is currently worded this is explicitly not allowed unless perhaps it is clear that the death notice was written by the subject before death (and contains no unduly self-serving, exceptional or doubtful claims). —DIYeditor (talk) 19:20, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

The New York Times (RS) prints obituaries. I often see them cited in articles. Should we be deleting those as well?--Auric talk 21:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

It's important to distinguish obituaries, which have a credited author at the NYT and are essentially news articles, from paid death notices. The question above was about paid. Now I see in User:WilliamJE's edit summaries he said "Obituaries fail WP:RS" which I don't think is correct - I am only speaking to ones that are paid submissions. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Unless they are "experts in the field". Surviving spouses and children are experts in their field of their family relations. Perhaps if you showed us some egregious examples of paid obituaries being wrong so we can compare them to the error rate of third party obituaries. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:03, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Here is a New York Times correction appended to the obituary of Walter Cronkite:

An appraisal on Saturday about Walter Cronkite’s career included a number of errors. In some copies, it misstated the date that the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was killed and referred incorrectly to Mr. Cronkite’s coverage of D-Day. Dr. King was killed on April 4, 1968, not April 30. Mr. Cronkite covered the D-Day landing from a warplane; he did not storm the beaches. In addition, Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon on July 20, 1969, not July 26. “The CBS Evening News” overtook “The Huntley-Brinkley Report” on NBC in the ratings during the 1967-68 television season, not after Chet Huntley retired in 1970. A communications satellite used to relay correspondents’ reports from around the world was Telstar, not Telestar. Howard K. Smith was not one of the CBS correspondents Mr. Cronkite would turn to for reports from the field after he became anchor of “The CBS Evening News” in 1962; he left CBS before Mr. Cronkite was the anchor. Because of an editing error, the appraisal also misstated the name of the news agency for which Mr. Cronkite was Moscow bureau chief after World War II. At that time it was United Press, not United Press International. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:17, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

And why do you think that either [24] or [25] are paid? They appear to be regular NYT articles to me. As to a family member being an "expert in the field" of their deceased relative, that is a remarkably creative construction of the intent of WP:RS. From WP:SPS: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Clearly this does not apply to a family member writing a death notice. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I did not make that claim, I wrote: "compare them to the error rate of third party obituaries" and gave the example of an egregious New York Times obituary full of errors. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:17, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

It's nonsense to claim that paid obituaries fail SPS because the publisher is third-party. That purpose of that guideline is to define a self-published source and then spell out rules for using them. Something doesn't become worse than a self-published source just because it doesn't neatly fit the definition we gave. No, same rules apply. If the information the obit is being cited for is non-controversial but nonetheless important to the article, it can be considered. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:02, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

This is silly. Obviously Walter Cronkite's obit was not paid. Obviously, anyone can pay for an obit and say pretty much what they want, as long as it's not gross or nutty. The second is not RS. Someone close this. Objective3000 (talk) 01:33, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

No one said that Walter Cronkite's obit was paid. The argument was that paid obituaries are not reliable, and the counter argument was the New York Times staff written obituaries are prone to errors, and you have to compare the error rates of the two. A surviving family member is an expert on their family, and the paid obituaries are reliable sources. I have not seen an error ridden paid obituary for anyone notable enough to have an entry in Wikipedia. Perhaps if you show us some examples of error filled paid obituaries, for someone Wikipedia notable, that has more errors than the Walter Cronkite obit, I would be more inclined to side with you. Also, if publishers block ones that are "gross or nutty" then they are exerting editorial control. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:46, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Intersection project

The Intersection online journal is used as an RS in several WP articles, yet it seemingly lacks mainstream media coverage. I wanted to clarify whether or not it actually classifies as RS. --Buzz105 (talk) 15:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

The Liberty Conservative

I have opened a discussion about the suitability of using The Liberty Conservative, a far-right blog, for contentious material on Young Americans for Liberty. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 22:43, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Stephen Hicks, Explaining Postmodernism

• Source: Explaining Postmodernism, by Stephen Hicks. Published by Scholargy Press, 2004.
• Article: One-Dimensional Man, Postmodernity, Critical pedagogy, Fountain (Duchamp). I'm primarily concerned with the book's reliability as to philosophy and the history of philosophy, so I don't have much of an opinion about using this source in the last article (though I'm not optimistic).
• Relevant text: Since this spans different articles, the easiest way is to look at the period in my contributions where I attempted to remove the citations.

This grew out of an unresolved dispute at Talk:One-Dimensional Man#Hicks_book, so I'm bringing it here. I will repeat my initial comment since it lays out more or less completely lays out my case:

I regard this book as an unreliable source for two reasons. First, the couple academic reviews I could find were quite critical of the book's reliability. Here is Marcus Verhaegh writing at The Independent Review:

Alas, the fingerprints Hicks discovers seem to be somewhat blurred. Kant and Hegel both appear drawn in caricature. ... [S]tudents with little knowledge of modern philosophy who are likely to be swayed by Hicks’s readings of key modern figures are decidedly not a proper audience for this work, except outside the context of a classroom setting where Hicks’s views can be challenged in an informed fashion. His reading of Kant, Hegel, and others sacrifices too much in depth for a simple, “on message” presentation. The best audience for this work would be undergraduates in an appropriate classroom setting and those likely to be skeptical of or decidedly in disagreement with Hicks’s reading of Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, and others, but who may benefit from the articulation of opposition to contemporary leftist strategies and tactics that Hicks presents from a libertarian perspective (with definite Objectivist shadings).

And here is Edvard Lorkovic writing in Philosophy in Review:

[A]lthough it accuses (rightly I think) postmodernism of being too polemical, Hicks' text is itself an extended polemic. Instead of disproving postmodernism, Hicks dismisses it; instead of taking postmodernism seriously and analyzing it carefully on its terms, Hicks oversimplifies and trivializes it, seemingly in order to justify his own prejudice against postmodernism. If postmodernism is in fact untenable, which it very well might be, Stephen Hicks has unfortunately not demonstrated that.

Second, the book seems to stand up poorly to the standard at WP:SCHOLARSHIP. For one, as both reviews indicate, Hicks is apparently advancing a novel argument rather than summarizing the findings of the scholarship; it's closer to a primary source than to a secondary source. For two, as far as I can tell the publisher, Scholargy Publishing, is not a traditional academic publishing outlet with peer review. Lord Mondegreen (talk) 22:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

No one has responded to your post, Lord Mondegreen. As a guess, I would say that this is because no one shares your view that the book is not a reliable source. Since posting here has been unproductive, you might want to instead try asking for a third opinion. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:28, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Is "Exile.ru" a reliable source about BLPs ?

At page, Michael R. Caputo, source "Exile.ru" added at DIFF.

Is this a reliable source for claims about WP:BLPs ?

Thank you, Sagecandor (talk) 18:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

The site seems to host the archives of The eXile, which according to a quote there "often pushed the limits of decency -- not to mention libel law". In general, I would say to be used with caution, but for BLPs I would say just no. Eperoton (talk) 22:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, removed source. Sagecandor (talk) 05:18, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

prabook/geni.com/Familysearch

Hello. May I cite prabook please? Is it an RS? It is used quite a lot, but I am not sure that it is reliable. Please ping me when you reply. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:15, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

It was discussed here quite recently. It appears to aggregate information from other sources but doesn't necessarily say what those sources may be. Not a good idea to use it. Anything it says should be traceable to the original source, and an assessment can be made about that source's reliability. - Sitush (talk) 05:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Past discussions. I clean up the articles quite regularly. - Sitush (talk) 05:55, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. But actually this, which I'd like to cite, does not list any references. I can't find an obituary even though I can find book reviews on JSTOR and Ebsco, matches on Newspapers.com, and he was mentioned on Democracy Now! earlier. I've just tried to find him on https://familysearch.org, but there are so many matches with this name. Are you able to help please?Zigzig20s (talk) 06:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's a classic example of why it is not reliable. We have no idea where Prabook has got the info from. - Sitush (talk) 06:16, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

There is also geni.com with the same dates, but is that not useable either?Zigzig20s (talk) 06:46, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Doubt it. Nor is familysearch. If you've ever done a bit of web-based genealogy yourself, you'll be familiar with how often people just copy stuff from each other's family trees without bothering to do even the most basic research. - Sitush (talk) 07:01, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Isn't familysearch based on the LDS/Mormon Church's record of all our birth and death certificates?Zigzig20s (talk) 07:18, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Some of it is, certainly. But how do you know you (or they) have identified the same person that we're writing about? WP:PRIMARY. - Sitush (talk) 07:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Matching info. But I guess the only option I have is to add unreferenced content for the dates with "citation needed" tags!Zigzig20s (talk) 07:37, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

No, "matching info" is WP:SYNTHESIS. And your other option is not to enter the dates at all. - Sitush (talk) 07:44, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

If I can find the same dates with the same name on Familysearch, it's the same person.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:55, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Sigh. See WP:OR and WP:PRIMARY. - Sitush (talk) 07:58, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

You're overthinking this. We want to make sure the info is accurate, otherwise it becomes a CN situation. It's not OR or PRIMARY if it's on a reliable website like Familysearch anyway.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:13, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I am not overthinking anything. Familysearch is not reliable in this context, and arguably not at all. THe only use for it that might be legitimate is as a link to a supporting primary document for the interest of the reader when we already have a reliable secondary source for the statement that is being verified. - Sitush (talk) 08:15, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it be reliable if it's based on birth and death certificates?Zigzig20s (talk) 21:27, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I have already explained that. I think we may be getting into WP:IDHT territory now - you seem to be repeatedly ignoring my mentions of WP:OR and WP:PRIMARY, as well as my comment that there is another option (ie: we don't have to mention the d.o.b. at all, pending the discovery of a reliable source). - Sitush (talk) 01:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with you on these two points, as I explained before, and this is an open conversation for everyone. If you have nothing more to add, don't feel obliged to do so. Hopefully others will. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:47, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

You really shouldn't change the section title so late in the day. And you should check the archives for this page before posting. Eg: regarding familysearch, there have been several discussions, including this one. - Sitush (talk) 02:02, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

If you have nothing more to add, don't feel obliged to do so. Hopefully others will. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:09, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Edwardx: You might be interested in this discussion about Familysearch. Might be tangentially relevant to companieshouse, too.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:11, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

• For the reasons mentioned above and in the previousdiscussions, we shouldn't be using sources like these. User-generated content based on primary sources and synthesis of sources fundamentally lacks a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Woodroar (talk) 02:19, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

systematic vandalism to the article about the Donetsk National Technical University

I have reverted a recent vandalism occurrence of repeated vandalism to and article about the Donetsk National Technical University which is one of the top 20 universities of Ukraine:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donetsk_National_Technical_University&diff=791980008&oldid=791347740

the vandalism was however reinstated by a User:Steve Quinn seemingly through a misuse of some automated tool called Twinkle

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donetsk_National_Technical_University&diff=791984323&oldid=791980008

I've contacted said user user directly trying to explain the situation, however he deleted my comment from his talk page without any reply or correcting the edit, I would like to assume this was due to some glitch in the same tool:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASteve_Quinn&type=revision&diff=791994165&oldid=791940853,

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Steve_Quinn&diff=792020439&oldid=791994165

The main goal of the rouge edits is to replace the link to the legitimated website http://donntu.edu.ua/, located in the protected .edu.ua TLD used for accredited educational institutions with a spoof website located in the generic .org TLD

The vandalized article is full of spurious references to sites like sott.net, globalresearch.ca , the "Ministry of Foreign Affairs" of the "Donetsk Peoples Republic", random youtube video, the "open dialog foundation" and workers.org

The article should probably reflect that this university is in an area which is not controlled by Ukraine from 2014. Would not be surprising if the de facto admin is using a non ua domain.Icewhiz (talk) 04:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

The university was evacuated back in 2014 to the town of Pokrovsk (a the time still known under the soviet name Krasnoarmiysk) located in the part of Donetsk Oblast which remain under the control of the government. This is explained in the stable version of the article http://mon.gov.ua/content/%D0%94%D1%96%D1%8F%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D1%96%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C/%D0%94%D0%BB%D1%8F%20%D0%B6%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%96%D0%B2%20%D0%94%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B1%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%83%20%D1%82%D0%B0%20%D0%9A%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BC%D1%83/%D0%92%D1%81%D1%82%D1%83%D0%BF%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BC%20%D1%82%D0%B0%20%D1%81%D1%82%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BC/1129.pdf .

It does not seem so clearcut. Some staff left, some stayed behind. Looks like there is some rump university in the DNR calling itself Donetsk National university [www.opendemocracy.net/od-russia/nikita-pidgora/ukraine-s-displaced-universities] [26] . The article should probably reflect this split reality of two campuses claiming to be the "true" university.Icewhiz (talk) 18:13, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

The article you've linked is actually about the Vasyl' Stus Donetsk National University, a different institution, which indeed has been evacuated to Vinnytsia. The Donetsk National Technical University was evacuated to Pokrovsk. However the important point is that both of those are internationally recognized universities accredited by the Ukrainian Ministry of Education which maintain institutional continuity. If I were to need a duplicate of my diploma or any sort of doubts would arise regarding my credentials they would be confirmed by university administration located in Pokrovsk. With achievements certified by a diploma attested by the Ukrainian Ministry of Education I can continue my education or seek employment not only in Ukraine but anywhere in Europe, regardless of whether I earned it in Donetsk itself up to 2014 or in Pokrovsk after 2014.

As for including the information about fake university run by the "Donetsk Peoples Republic" may be a good idea, however obviously it is necessary to accurately describe the legal situation. Additionally there's a problem with finding any reliable sources regarding the situation there as obviously with the city being controlled by armed bandits it's impossible to check what's being taught or even if any classes are taking place.

Right now however the vandalized article gives to a reader unaware of the situation an impression that the fake university continues the heritage of the Donetsk Technical University, and spams Wikipedia with links to half a dozen fake news sites.

Erick Erickson and The Washington Examiner

Donald Trump's disclosure of classified information to Russia suffers from massive, massive WP:NPOV problems, treating an alleged event denied or not confirmed by all of the involved governments as incontrovertible fact based solely on anonymously sourced news clippings and the transparently false insinuation that Trump "admitted" to the disclosure in a tweet (as if Trump's Twitter account were a WP:RS to begin with). Putin's offer to provide a transcript exonerating Trump has been completely purged as "irrelevant," as has the skepticism of a former Mossad officer (and indeed any trace of skepticism whatsoever); contrary to Wikipedia, however, "It isn't yet clear if anything dangerous was done," according to David Bromwich in the London Review of Books. I have no illusions that this lack of objectivity can be fixed anytime soon, especially with the "consensus required" Discretionary Sanctions in effect, but I would appreciate wider community input on what I consider one of the more surprising claims in the article. To wit: "According to conservative commentator Erick Erickson, multiple sources have stated that the leaks were far worse than the current reports, and the leaker is a strong supporter of President Trump who believed it was necessary to publicly disclose the story because of Trump's inability to accept criticism." The source for Erickson's shocking allegations against Trump is The Washington Examiner, which is not generally considered a RS. However, SPECIFICO sidestepped questions about the reliability of the Examiner by noting (as all agree) that its bias is generally "Republican-leaning." In addition, she stated that Erickson's comments were "widely reported elsewhere." Yet that still begs the question: Even with attribution, is Erick Erickson a reliable source for anything, let alone shocking allegations against the President? Would I be free to add similar claims to articles about Hillary Clinton using Erickson or the Examiner as my only source? (Purely rhetorical!) How can Wikipedia consider Erickson more reliable and more notable than Putin? Ect. Thoughts?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:55, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

The article is actually fine. In regard to the quote which you highlight, there are other sources [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] etc. Erickson seems to be the source only for the "leaker is a strong supporter of President Trump".Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I disagree that that citogenesis means anything, but, to reiterate, I'm here principally to talk about Erickson, who is the sole source for the following content: "According to conservative commentator Erick Erickson, multiple sources have stated that the leaks were far worse than the current reports, and the leaker is a strong supporter of President Trump who believed it was necessary to publicly disclose the story because of Trump's inability to accept criticism." Erickson makes several allegations: 1.) "The leaks were far worse than the current reports," such as those you just cited, although Erickson does not explain how; 2.) "the leaker is a strong supporter of President Trump"; and 3.) "it was necessary to publicly disclose the story because of Trump's inability to accept criticism" (as all observers of even minimal seriousness acknowledge, the media leaks telling the whole world that Israel was the source of highly classified intelligence on ISIL almost certainly did vastly more damage to national security and U.S.—Israeli relations than Trump's initial disclosure). If The Washington Post and The New York Times, which broke the story, were unable to corroborate these specific allegations in their reporting on the matter, is relying on Erickson not scrapping the bottom of the barrel?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:45, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Please state your views without disparaging living persons. SPECIFICO talk 09:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

It's not "disparaging" or a WP:BLP violation to state that Erick Erickson ranks relatively low in the hierarchy of reliable sources compared to America's "paper of record"; in fact, if we were not allowed to make such distinctions between first-rate and fourth-rate sources, this noticeboard would be obsolete. That said, even with attribution, I have serious concerns about the BLP implications of using Erickson to state that Trump demonstrates a pronounced "inability to accept criticism."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:55, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Whether Erikson is a trustworthy source or not isn't the issue, since we're not citing him directly. The question here is whether the source cited (the Washington Examiner) is reliable - if they are, then their decision to quote him prominently trumps any concern you might have over it; you can send them letters saying they shouldn't trust him and demanding that they retract it, but (if we accept them as a source) then we have to go by their judgment. My feeling is that the Examiner could be replaced by a better source for the quote, but there are plenty of those listed above. See also [37], [38], [39] citing him saying that the source of the information was pro-Trump - these comments were clearly widely-reported and are therefore worth at least a sentence or two in the article, regardless of what you think of Erikson personally (I'm not a fan either, but, again, when his quotes are reported in so many places, they're noteworthy.) --Aquillion (talk) 02:13, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Since afaik the Examiner publications are not considered as RS in general, it makes no sense to me to consider an exception for highly controversial topic (no matter what author). For (potentially) controversial topic the requirement for sources go up not down, so if the Examiner is normally already a no-go, it is even more of a no-go for the topic at hand.--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:41, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

The Register

Is The Register a reliable source for its discussion of our Wikipedian in residence program? At issue is this diff. (Source) Andrew Orlowski is the writer of the piece, giving his opinion. This question about The Register has come up before with inconclusive results. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Chris Troutman (talk) 06:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Its an opinion piece, so the question isn't 'Is the register reliable' (it generally is for most tech-related stuff) the question is 'Is the opinion of Orlowski worth mentioning?'

Orlowski has history with Wikipedia, so personally I would hesitate to use his opinion on Wikipedia. While I would probably use it for most other things. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

A perfect reply. It may be WP:DUE to post strong criticism as a response, but not when the writer has a history of taking every opportunity to criticize the subject. A reader would be misled into thinking that the response was just that—a response from someone who had considered the issue. The reader would be totally misled unless an independent source were used to note the writer's habit. Consider the last US Presidential election. Would Hillary Clinton have had a responses section that included a strong criticism from Donald Trump without any record of the background? Johnuniq (talk) 07:58, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

For what its worth, I actually agree with his opinion on the paid editing wikipedian-in-residence money-pit project. I just wouldn't use it in a Wikipedia article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Is Mother Jones magazine a reliable source for investigative reporting?

Is Mother Jones magazine a reliable source for investigative reporting?

Source was removed here: DIFF.

Cite removed was:

• Levintova, Hannah; Vicens, AJ; Dejeanjun, Ashley (June 1, 2017), "Hacker, Banker, Soldier, Spy: A Guide to the Key Players in the Trump-Russia Scandal", Mother Jones, retrieved June 8, 2017, In 2000, he was hired by Gazprom Media to burnish Putin's image in the United States.

Thank you! Sagecandor (talk) 03:55, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

"While working on the Trump campaign, Caputo was placed in charge of communications for the candidate in New York." - Seems to be confirmed in other RS [40]NYT [41]CNN...MJ is a decent enough source in this case, IMO...DN (talk) 04:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, MoJo has won a number of journalistic awards, including for investigative reporting, and it has an established reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. It's certainly a source with a left/progressive editorial slant, but like The National Review on the right, is a reliable source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Here are some more sources that seem to reiterate as much [42] [43] - DN (talk) 04:55, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Generally speaking, yes Mother Jones is considered a reliable source, but reliability always depends on context. If there's some reason why this particular article is unreliable, we'll need more information on why it's unreliable. In absence of such evidence, our default position is that it's reliable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:04, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

It depends on what type of article. In this case the first writer mentioned is a reporter, so it can be considered reliable. The reservation I generally have about sources such as Mother Jones is that they focus on stories that mainstream media ignores. So you can get into difficulty with "Balancing aspects": you don't want to add information that mainstream media has ignored. However, that becomes a benefit for articles about subjects that have little coverage in mainstream media. TFD (talk) 14:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

@Darknipples, NorthBySouthBaranof, A Quest For Knowledge, and The Four Deuces:It seems we are all in agreement, that for this source, used in this manner, for this article, for this assertion of fact, as backed up by other sources, this is a reliable source. Sagecandor (talk) 15:35, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Since the article mentioned that Caputo joined and left the Trump campaign, it seems reasonable to briefly mention what he did for the campaign. TFD (talk) 16:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's clearly a reliable source here. It has a perspective, which should sometimes be taken into account (eg. when worrying about WP:DUE or to make sure that an article's overall sourcing isn't unduly slanted), but that alone does not disqualify a source, and in every other respect it's very high-quality - it's won numerous awards, and it clearly has the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that WP:RS requires. Concerns about putting too much weight on it are WP:NPOVN issues, not WP:RS ones; but in this case, it's being cited for a single sentence that does not seem particularly controversial, so I don't see how WP:NPOVN questions could apply. --Aquillion (talk) 01:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

LNo, it's a partisan mouthpiece similar to Breitbart. Facts reported by MJ should be easily obtainable through other mainstream sources. Facts that can't be verified are likely due to the partisan nature of MJ and would be false to report them as fact. MJ should never need to be cited outside articles about MJ. --DHeyward (talk) 03:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I strongly disagree, DHeyward. They are mildly left of center, but have a long record of award-winning investigative reporting and solid fact-checking. Breitbart, by contrast, is notorious for hoaxes and general hate-spewing. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't cite them on politically-contentious topics (like "is Breitbart News considered far-right"), but for facts like the one discussed here I think it is reliable. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

No similarity to Breitbart at all. MJ is an award winning investigative journal. Breitbart has clickbait conspiracy theories. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't intending to compare them to Breitbart; I was referencing (multiple) discussions at Talk:Breitbart News where I would not consider them to be a reliable source. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with DHeyward; Mother Jones cannot be used for stuff like this because of their rank partisanship. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:28, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Partisanship is not the question here; otherwise The National Review and FOX News would similarly be prohibited; of course, those outlets are not, because even though they both have distinct partisan slants, they also have fairly solid reputations for fact-checking, accuracy, reliability and responsible editorial policies. Breitbart is prohibited not because of its editorial slant, but because of its poor reputation for checking the facts and its undeniable history of publishing fabrications, lies, half-truths, distortions and the like about people it politically opposes, demonstrating that the site has no editorial oversight of a meaningful sort. The editorial and journalistic reputations of Breitbart and Mother Jones could not possibly be more different. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:35, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

• It is pretty clearly a WP:BIASED source. For political content it should really only be cited with attribution as an WP:RSOPINION source, and then only where such an opinion is deemed necessary to round out the full picture of coverage per WP:DUE. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 06:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
• I agree this WP:BIASED source with clear political agenda and should be used with great care if it all.--Shrike (talk) 06:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

You guys have actually read WP:BIASED right? Quoting in its entirely here with the relevant parts bolded.

"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.

Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that...", "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff...," or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that..."."

By quoting WP:BIASED you are actually providing the relevant guideline that shows in this situation MJ is perfectly useable. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@Only in death: Touché! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Galkayo Article

There is a dispute in Galkayo article about which source is more reliable. The dispute is about which state controls the neighborhoods of Garsoor and Horumar in Galkayo city. And if Galkayo city consists of four neighborhoods or five neighborhoods.

The english language sources say: "Galkayo is characterized by being divided under two different regional administrations: [Puntland] in the north, and [Galmudug] to the south." "Safety and security District baseline report -" (PDF). page 8. Observatory of Conflict and Violence Prevention (OCVP). {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help) Geographically the city is divided into four main districts. Districts in the northern part of the city that is under Puntland state control are Garsoor and Hormar. "Safety and security District baseline report -" (PDF). page 8. Observatory of Conflict and Violence Prevention (OCVP). {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help) All of these English language sources written by NGO organizations say [Puntland] state control neighborhoods of Garsoor, Horumar and the city consists of four neighborhoods.

On the other side of the argument:

There is another user named Mohamed958543 who says the city consists of five neighborhoods and Galmudug state controls parts of horumar and garsoor districts in Galkayo city. And he is using non-english article from a website that supports Galmudug as a source.

Here is the difference on Wikipedia article [44]

References

Faarax200 (talk) 23:43, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Checking if these two can be considered reliable sources

My concerns is that these two sources are currently being used in Girls' Generation. This article is in a good article status, since December 2016, so the majority of the sources are good. But someone on its talk page mentioned that WatchMojo.com is not a reliable source and I am also not sure about the InsiderMonkey source below. Thus, I'm checking here to be safe. After each link (below), I included the quote from the article itself, so you know what I'm referring to. If they are not reliable sources, the article just needs a bit of tweak to make it good again. Note that the InsiderMonkey source is also being used in List of best-selling girl groups.

[45] (Insider Monkey) "As of 2015, they have sold 57.1 million records, making them one of the best selling girl groups of all time."

[46] (WatchMojo) "Spin labelled "Run Devil Run" and "Gee" the 11th and 5th greatest K-pop songs, respectively, while WatchMojo.com ranked "Gee" second on their list of Top 10 Iconic K-Pop Songs."

Thanks!--TerryAlex (talk) 05:38, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Context matters when determining reliability ... in this case, the ref to WatchMojo is a primary source supporting the statement that WatchMojo itself gave a specific ranking to the band. Now, that information may or may not be worth mentioning in the article ... but that is a WP:Due weight issue, not a reliability issue. Purely focusing on reliability, WatchMojo is a reliable primary source for its own internal rankings.

No comment on Insider Monkey. Blueboar (talk) 14:33, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

In regards to Insider Monkey, portions of that site feature articles written by recognized authors and editors of that site. Those would likely be considered reliable depending on what claims are being sourced. Others written by contributors would need a closer look, and the article linked above resides in the Lists area, which seems less reliable. Plus that article's author is not listed at the site's author link. I would steer clear of that one. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Potentially serious issue

Transcribed from Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources

Dahn, a coeditor from Romania, drew my attention to the fact that leading Romanian historians closely cooperated with authors who allegedly denied Holocaust or were convinced for pedofilia. I think if Dahn is right, this is a serious issue, because we should not refer to such historians when editing articles. All comments were highly appreciated on this page. Thank you for your contribution. Borsoka (talk) 19:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I reviewed the talk linked. The poster conflates two issues:

1. One author, Larry L. Watts is accused of historical denialism -- IMO here the answer is clear, if there are multiple reliable sources say that Watts is a denialist.
2. Another one, Kurt W. Treptow is a convicted pedophile. -- Here the issue in not expertise, but morality of the author. What is wikipedia's position here?

Staszek Lem (talk) 19:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Treptow (a convicted and jailed pedophile, not just an accused one) is also questioned as an author, for his links with neofascist and national-communist groups -- which is also an accusation brought up against Watts. Their (quite serious) critics suggest that they acted as legitimating agents for a political and historiographic school which gives the veneer of credibility to the nationalist synthesis of the late Ceaușescu era. The accusation, for instance, is that Treptow's child abuse was known and condoned by his contacts in the crypto-communist cell of Iași, and by some in the post-communist secret services (the same services who repressed democratic protests), because he lent them credibility; and that Treptow agreed to join in the charade precisely because the authorities granted him access to victims. Dahn (talk) 21:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

This for instance is an article outlining the case against Treptow and his associates, published by a respected literary critic and journalist in the leading literary magazine of Romania. Running it through google translate will probably clarify enough of the meaning. Highlights include his links with ultranationalists, open praise for the fascist leader Codreanu, and apparent lack of scholarly credentials (contrasting his intense promotion by a select group of Romanian institutions, all with the same agenda and connections). This is Treptow, not just Watts. Dahn (talk) 21:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I do not believe that all authors who published with Watts and Treptow should be automatically seen as unreliable/unquotable. I do however have to ask if the books which have Watts and Treptow as editors of coauthors can be seen as RSes, regardless of whether other authors are reliable. Dahn (talk) 21:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

• While Holocaust denialism is a serious blow to a historian's credibility, whether or not they were convicted of pedophilia is not. I know it's disgusting in the extreme, but it really has no bearing on their work, unless they're writing about historical pedophilia and/or pederasty. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • What about the other accusations levied against Treptow? For instance those that are identical to those against his associate Watts, namely that he praises fascists and denies or obscures Romania's participation in the Holocaust? (In addition to the article cited above:[47], [48], [49] etc.) Dahn (talk) 22:30, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

What about them? If they're true, then Treptow would be an unreliable source on matters dealing with Romanian nationalism, Jewish history and other related subjects. If they're not true, then they have no bearing on his reliability. Understand that I'm not familiar with either of these authors. I'm commenting as an editor who is about as dispassionate as one can be. I would tend to err on the side of caution (assuming less reliability of sources facing accusations that pertain to their reliability). In the end though, we will need to see how widely leveled these accusations are. If it's just one or two people making them, we can safely discount them. But if there's a large number of people (or a significant percentage of experts) repeating the accusations, then we must presume there's something to them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I respect that. I feel however that the discussion was framed from the start as "Is Treptow unreliable because he is a pedophile?", when in fact that is primarily a most scandalous aspect of his career, but by no means the only one. I feel that readers like you were not given the whole info, and let to ponder whether being a pedophile made Treptow unreliable, which is likely to enlist more "nos". Dahn (talk) 23:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, the best thing for you and the OP to have done would have been to leave out the pedophilia thing entirely. It looks to me as if you are either of the opinion that either pedophiles are by definition inveterate and compulsive liars incapable of being sincere or earnest about anything else, or that you are attempting to weigh the discussion against these individuals by making sure all participants are aware of their moral failings. In fact, as I expressed before, I tend to agree that we should be cautious, based on the other concerns. But the pedophilia thing really has absolutely nothing to do with their reliability as a historian, and should never have been brought up. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:07, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, well it might look like this to you, but this is because you were led on by the way I was misquoted above. Also above, I explain why I brought it up and precisely how it relates to the other issues affecting his credibility. Dahn (talk) 23:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

You were not misquoted. You were asked repeatedly to explain why you felt that Treptow was unreliable. The first direct answer which I can see that you gave was "I'd let others weigh in if Treptow, a convicted pedophile who praised Codreanu and Antonescu and was reportedly an agent of influence for SIE, is a reliable source, and more reliable than Bain.". Again: I agree, based on what you've said since that Treptow seems to be an unreliable source. But you muddied the waters by bringing up the pedophilia conviction. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

If you read even that very sentence through, you will see I was misquoted. But no biggie. Dahn (talk) 07:21, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Folks, this really needs to be at RSN. This page is for discussing changes and improvements to this guideline. Would someone care to copy this over to there? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 23:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

• The Wiesel Commission report, which is signed by tens of historians, including Watts and Treptow's one-time co-editor Scurtu mentions a book authored by Treptow and Holocaust denier Gheorghe Buzatu:

[Holocaust revisionists] started by presenting excerpts from what they claimed was the 1955 testimony of the former leader of the Federation of Jewish Communities in Romania, Wilhelm Filderman, before a Swiss court. The document has never been produced and whether it really exists is doubtful. The alleged testimony had been mentioned for the first time in a 1994 volume in an editor's note written by American historian Kurt Treptow, who was residing in Romania. Treptow, whose pro-Legion and pro-Antonescu sympathies were well known, had long benefited from support on the part of the Romanian authorities. Coja wrote that it was from this tome that he had first learned about the existence of the Swiss 'testimony.' According to Treptow, the document could be found in the archives of the Buzatu-managed Iași Center for European History and Civilization. However, Buzatu was eventually forced to admit that the alleged 'testimony' had been simply lifted from an article published in the tabloid Baricada. The tabloid's editors claimed to have received it from Matei Cazacu, a historian of Romanian origins born in France. Upon being contacted by the Theodor Wexler, the vice president of the Filderman Foundation, Cazacu declined any knowledge of the 'document.' ... Treptow ... would again cite from it (while avoiding indicating the source) in Kurt Treptow (ed.), A History of Romania (Iași: The Center for Romanian Studies, The Romanian Cultural Foundation, 1995), pp. 485, 499-500. This tome was massively disseminated abroad by the Romanian Cultural Foundation, which enlisted the help of Romanian embassies for the purpose. Several Romanian officials and some historians were forced to face an embarrassing situation in 2002, when Treptow was put on trial and sentenced for pedophilia. (pages 357-358 in 2004 edition).

On Watts:

Also important was the role of Iosif Constantin Drăgan, a former Iron Guard sympathizer, who became a millionaire in the West and later a persona grata with Romania's dictator. Having metamorphosed into Antonescu's most fierce advocate, Drăgan contributed to the campaign waged abroad by the regime to rehabilitate the Marshal and recruited domestic and foreign historians into the rehabilitation drive. Among them were Mihai Pelin, Gheorghe Buzatu, and Larry Watts. (page 348) ... Larry Watts and Mircea Ionnițiu turned Irving [i. e. David Irving] into a legitimate and respectable scholarly authority by citing his work in arguments meant to exonerate Antonescu. (page 362) ... Nor have only Romanians embraced the argument [that Antonescu saved Jews]. According to Larry L. Watts, a U.S. historian who resides in Bucharest, the Marshal had been the 'de facto' protector of Jews against plans to implement the 'Final Solution,' because he shared the 'Western standards... concerning human and fundamental civic rights.' (page 373)

Also see Paul A. Shapiro or Michael Shafir, as well as Irina Livezeanu's review of the very book used in the Stephen article, with Watts and Treptow as authors, together. Dahn (talk) 23:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Up date martial status - Shaun Williamson

Hi I'd like to update my martial status from being married to divorced. How do I do this ? Can't see anywhere I can attach proof of this Thanks Shaun

You will need to indentify a reliable published source in which this fact is stated; take a look at WP:BLPSOURCE and WP:TRUTH for more on this. Without such sources any statement on your marital status can (and probably will) simply be removed at any time. Althought this may seem odd to you the facts of the matter are not relevant here: the only thing which matters for Wikipedia is what reliable sources say about it. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

• I will add to the above, that generally a primary source (your verified social media accounts, personal website etc) is acceptable for non-contentious biographical information. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:01, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

There's an administrator watching the page, so probably best to talk to him directly at Talk:Shaun Williamson. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Drunk Politician

I identified a new article with a POV problem, It includes a YouTube video of an allegedly drunk politician. I sought advice in the Teahouse and was told to excise that portion and post a note that restoration in its current form was prohibited. If it came back, I should give notice here. It did and here is your notice about Dan Huberty. I trust someone will pick up the ball and run with it. BTW, the other two articles created by the same editor were PRODded. Here's what I excised:

In October 2015, the American Phoenix Foundation released video showing an intoxicated Representative Huberty after just leaving the Texas House floor. The video was posted on YouTube and written about by Empower Texans, Breitbart, The Blaze and the Huffington Post.

According to Empower Texans: “Huberty drunkenly curses an APF reporter, calling him a “f*****g hack,” an “a*****e” and other derogatory names. At the conclusion of the video, while shouting expletives, Huberty fights his own staff and three DPS officers in an attempt to physically fight the reporter. His staff are forced to drag him back to his office.”

DESiegel -- Let me know if you think I made the wrong call. Have a nice day. Rhadow (talk) 15:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Rhadow, I think you made a good call. Another editor has since reverted the re-addition of the "Videotape controversy" section. I have posted on Talk:Dan Huberty and on the talk pages of those editors who inserted the content, noting that the article is subject to Discretionary sanctions. I would welcome confirmation from other experienced users that the cited source is not sufficient to support this content under WP:BLP. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Some really poor sources there. Absent any serious repercussions, would seem to be tabloid stuff WP:NOTTABLOID. And IMO, linking to videos of stupid human tricks in an encyclopedia BLP is just plain bad form. Objective3000 (talk) 17:09, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything on HuffPo. There's one article, but it predates the event. Bromley86 (talk) 20:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello Bromley86 - Frankly, I'm sick of this article. The author made stuff up as he went along, like the age of the candidate's wife. He copied the names of the candidate's children into the article, which is really bad form, and he used every opportunity to recount that the candidate is a Roman Catholic. It doesn't mean anything to me, but maybe being a carpetbagger and an RC means something. The voice, tone, and attitude depress me. If I could improve it, I wouldn't be any happier, so why try? Rhadow (talk) 22:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Linking directly to a .gz file?

Is it acceptable to link directly to a .gz file in references? Here is the reference in question. I don't know if this has been discussed before, but it seems like linking directly to compressed files could introduce a vector for malware. Andrew³²⁷ 19:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Link can be removed and the DOI link itself is sufficient. Sagecandor (talk) 19:42, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed: DOI is enough, although I think it's good to also offer ungated versions if they're available. Users should be warned that the link opens a file. You could also just link to the publication on the author's university webpage: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/matthias/papers.html#scp91-felleisen. Users can download it from there if needed. Nblund ^talk 19:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Quora.com

Quora.com appears to be cited in more than 400 Wikipedia articles, although it mostly consists of user-generated discussions. Can it still be considered as a reliable source in some cases? Jarble (talk) 02:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

It's a primary source, but in some cases it can be a reliable source. For example, on Instagram, the reference is to a statement by a person with a verified identity and direct knowledge of the topic. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:18, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

It is an "opinion source" and thus falls under the category of "blog and SPS" sourcing. Thus, if the individual publishing the opinion is notable in the field, it may be used, with consensus that the opinion is notable. Otherwise, many answers on Quora present sources for the claims made, especially claims of fact, and Wikipedia should examine those original sources. Collect (talk) 11:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Hmmmm...a reliable source is one that has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Does Quora.com have such a reputation? Honestly, I'm not that familiar with Quora.com, but I am familiar with a similar website, stackoverflow.com which has an excellent reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Yes, it's a crowd-sourced site, but per WP:RS, "In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication.". Food for thought. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:56, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

""Self-published sources" (SPS) says, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." It is also a reliable for source for the opinion of the writer, although that is of limited value, because we need to establish weight in order to mention an opinion. Quora has an open membership and invites members to post questions and answers. Members then vote on the best answer which goes to the top. So it is user-generated content similar to Wikipedia and hence generally not reliable. TFD (talk) 14:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree with this assessment by The Four Deuces. Sagecandor (talk) 20:22, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

1. Quora identifies the writer of each answer.

2. Quora uses many people who are well-known in their field, they are not pseudonymous Wikipedia editors.

3. Quora "overweights" noted authors, so the "but the users vote on the answer" bit fails.

Thus, where a known author writes an answer on Quora, it has the exact same weight as any other SPS by an author noted in the field. I would note that among the authors on Quora are a fellow named "Jimmy Wales", "Richard A. Muller" etc. Posts by known authors are of the same ilk as for any SPS by a known writer. Collect (talk) 22:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Loops of reference?

I'm requesting some help re advice I rec'd when editing Feynman diagram, when I tried to request a citation. The issue is whether we should use references that repeat without primary source things already in Wikipedia. A user replied to me I think understanding my worry that Wikipedia might play a role in a sort of information loop where unverified statements once they appear here could get repeated in expository articles and themselves become then references for the unverified statements.

The discussion here below advises me to go to the physics noticeboard if there is one, but maybe the Reliable Sources noticeboard is the right place.

Why "citatio not needed"?

I'm vaguely aware that Feynman diagrams are credited with accurately calculating the Lamb shift, although the two authors who independently got the same result were eventually considered to have got the wrong result. It is not clear in that case whether the Feynman diagrams were only a heuristic (with how they are calculated and determined done a posteriori to match the known experimental value). Is there any case where an ab initio calculation was done with Feynman diagrams (of a new type, not belonging to a known family of calculations) that later matched experimental data? Does this only happen with collision/scattering experiments, where such a heuristic might be appropriate anyway? Surely if more is true, a reference would be appropriate?

PS I notice the Wikipedia line "calculations using Feynman diagrams match experimental results with very high accuracy," is quoted nearly verbatim by some jouralists in some recent expository articles in New Scientist magazine and elsewhere which say "...predict the outcome of experiments to astonishing precision;" so it should matter to get it right. And it *can't* be OK to use a source which in turn had just quoted the Wikipedia article(!) in the first place. If it is beyond question that the diagrams have given an correct ab initio value of some constant somewhere I am not too worried, but is this just an anecdote or is it established in reliable sources. Createangelos (talk) 18:32, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedia should not be used as a reliable source. You might like to take your concerns to the physics noticeboard. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:36, 3 August 2017 (UTC).

Anyway, someone with particular expertise might help find references or clarify in this particular example whether or why they aren't needed.Createangelos (talk) 00:17, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

CPJ.org as source for person not mentioned in the source material?

Is it okay to use CPJ.org as a source for a person not mentioned in the source material?

1. At article Michael R. Caputo:
2. Info in question: In 2000 Caputo worked for Gazprom media where he helped CEO Alfred Kokh explain the company's purchase and control of the independent NTV Television network.
3. Cite given: "Gazprom completes NTV takeover - Committee to Protect Journalists". cpj.org. Retrieved 2017-07-31.
4. Edits in question: [50] [51]

Problem: Source [52] does not even mention Caputo, at all.

Thank you! Sagecandor (talk) 19:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@Darknipples, NorthBySouthBaranof, A Quest For Knowledge, and The Four Deuces:Any thoughts on this? Sagecandor (talk) 20:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

looks like you are dealing with reverts by a paid editor [53]. Not sure which channels you should go through, but, maybe ask the TeaHouse? - DN (talk) 21:20, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@Darknipples:Starting with SPI and go from there hopefully. Sagecandor (talk) 21:22, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Sagecandor Maybe COIN [54], as well? DN (talk) 21:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

It is certainly wrong to use a source that does not mention a person, per "no synthesis." We don't know what connection if any he had. TFD (talk) 02:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Darknipples:Maybe after the CU is done. @The Four Deuces:Yes, definitely agree. Sagecandor (talk) 04:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Reliability of a source

Hi. I am currently working on the Syed Shahabuddin article with the hope of promoting to GA status. I am wondering whether this Source can be considered as a reliable source for quoting information about Mr.Shahabuddin's educational details, political and diplomatic career amongst others. The author of the text of the source is a former Indian Foreign Service officer and someone close to Shahabuddin. Please give your thoughts. Thanks. RRD (talk) 14:53, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Should be fine for simple biographical facts, though not for flattering (or obviously unflattering) assessments. WP:BLPSELFPUB allows such use even for sources published by the subject, which applies a fortiori to an obituary published by a respected figure in a respected journal. Eperoton (talk) 12:35, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Inside the Magic

1. Source: Inside the Magic more specifically Video: Behind the walls at Mako Seaworld Orlando's new hyper-coaster! by Adam McCabe
2. Article: Mako (roller coaster)
3. Content: Mako (roller coaster)#Ride experience

• "The queue line of the ride consists of a wooden pier, which riders upon waiting are situated under.[24] During the queue, guests of the ride take on the point of view of a mako shark as it traverses through preying grounds.[25] Furthermore, as guests go through the queue, various educational displays and a Guy Harvey exhibit can be seen.[25] Mako's station is themed to a shipwreck as with being underwater.[26] Before dispatching, a panel located above the ride shows scenes of shadow figures and a grouping of fish with accommodating visuals and sound.[24]"
• Although sourced, I was wondering if "Inside the Magic" is a reliable source. The more specific source is the parts I wish to include and expand in the article about the detailing of the queue line and station of the attraction through a guided tour for the media. It seems to have a fairly large following and seems to have some notable figures in the 'amusement' industry as part of its team, but I wanted to make sure if it was reliable. (Currently Inside the Magic is not sourced in the article) Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 20:46, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Does the source have any kind of review by editors? Sagecandor (talk) 20:20, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

It seems like they do according to their websites "About" page, which lists staff, history, following, and contact. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 22:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Do we know if all articles get a review by the editor(s) before posting? Sagecandor (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

From looking around it seems that it is probable, but I can't say for absolute sure. They're most likely checked by the owner/editor-in-chief, but I don't have any information to back that every article is reviewed. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 05:13, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

notizie.tiscali.it

Is this RS (it is being called a newpaper)? It is being used for this "Today Italy is officially a NATO nuclear weapons sharing state but it's common belief in the country that it stores its own nuclear weapons in La Spezia Italian Navy arsenal."?Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

It's not a newspaper, it's a news portal run by a major telco. I'm not sure they have a newsroom, since they mostly seem to be republishing reports from ANSA, which is a RS. Eperoton (talk) 19:14, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but are they RS?Slatersteven (talk) 19:59, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "they" refers to. An ANSA report republished by this portal would be reliable. Eperoton (talk) 20:04, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

They refers to Tiscali themselves, not who they repeat. ANSA is RS, so that would be the go to source. What about someone using Tiscali and not ANSA? As I understand it just because a sources uses RS does not confer RS status on it.Slatersteven (talk) 20:08, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Here (sorry I forgot) is the page in question [[55]].Slatersteven (talk) 20:16, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Ha, yes that helps. First, the statement is not in the source. Second, the report isn't from ANSA. Third, it simply quotes a 2008 conversation between Francesco Cossiga and an unnamed journalist, which was also reported in La Repubblica, but didn't seem to get much coverage otherwise. Eperoton (talk) 20:57, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Which is the point, it is just a repeat of another article, and thus they do not appear to have an editorial policy, correct?Slatersteven (talk) 09:11, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

The story you linked to seems to be a bit of political gossip published directly on the Tiscali portal. Its reliability as an independent news organization is unclear, but does that really matter when the same gossip was published in a mainstream newspaper (la Repubblica) and its relationship to your quote above appears to be a case of source misrepresentation? Eperoton (talk) 14:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, as it is the one being used as a source, and maybe again.Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

In practical terms: 1) The story you linked to can't be used to source the statement you quoted regardless of what we say about the portal, because that's source misrepresentation; 2) Its reliability to source the actual Cossiga quote is questionable, but la Repubblica could be used instead (if judged to be due); 3) Reliability is context-dependent, and I don't think we can make a sweeping generalization about the portal. Eperoton (talk) 14:29, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

kooora.com

Hello, is this considered a reliable source? I'm dealing with a lot of blps where it is the only given source. Thanks for your help, Boleyn (talk) 19:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Does the source have any kind of review by editors? Sagecandor (talk) 20:20, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Sagecandor, thanks for responding. I can't really see, my computer won't translate it (from Arabic, I think). Boleyn (talk) 18:45, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Question regarding MEDRS and Handbook of Near Death Experiences

On the Near-death experience page some of my edits were rejected [56] because the source I used:

Janice Miner Holden, Bruce Greyson, Debbie James, eds. (2009). The Handbook of Near-Death Experiences: Thirty Years of Investigation. Praeger. ISBN 978-0-313-35865-4 page 218

was deemed non-MEDRS. Now, in the MEDRS policy they clearly state that "academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers" can be used. The above Handbook is from a respected Academic publisher [57] I believe, since it is both academic and educational. Also, the authors are some of the best known names in the field of near death experiences: Bruce Greyson, for instance, is either author or co-author on more than 27 publications mostly related to Near Death Experiences (NDEs) in Pubmed. Since I did not get an answer from the talk page [[Talk:Near-death_experience#The Handbook of Near-Death Experiences: Thirty Years of Investigation|The Handbook of Near-Death Experiences

The text I wish to support with this source is the following :

It has also been hypothesized that a "ketamine-like protective agent" was released during NDEs since the aesthetic agent has been reported to produce some features of NDEs such as "travelling through a dark tunnel into light, believing that one has died, or communicating with God". (ref HandBook) However, unlike NDEs, most ketamine experiences are frightening. Patients report their hallucinatory nature unlike subjects experiencing NDEs who are convinced of their authenticity. Also, some important features of NDEs are missing such as experiencing a life review or seeing deceased people. (ref Handbook)

The main difference between NDEs and neurochemicals is the duration of the effect. Endorphins' injections lead to hours long pain relief whereas NDEs’ effects are determined by the duration of the experience itself (few seconds for instance). Another difference is that endorphins do not produce transformative afteraffects, do not lead to out of body experiences, a life review etc.. which are all components of NDEs.(ref Handbook)

Best - Josezetabal (talk) 09:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Fringe nonsense from a non-WP:MEDRS source. This source is not usable for anything other than citing its own views, and then the problem would be WP:WEIGHT and probably WP:PROFRINGE. Alexbrn (talk) 15:46, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Josezetabal: Bruce Greyson's associations would definitely put him outside the academic mainstream: the Division of Perceptual Studies, for instance, describes its mission as the "investigation of phenomena that challenge current physicalist brain/mind orthodoxy – including investigation of phenomena directly suggestive of post-mortem survival of consciousness. " This has an air of credibility, but they're own self-description implies that most researchers do not agree with their approach, so I wouldn't use it as a WP:MEDRS

Even if this was mainstream material, I would be dubious about bare assertions such as "most ketamine experiences are frightening" - how do they know that? It seems mildly implausible given that people use ketamine recreationally. That's the sort of broad generalization you might make if you had access to really high quality meta-analyses, but these are essentially conference papers. Nblund ^talk 19:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

"most ketamine experiences are frightening" - how do they know that? A drug that reliably (as in "most" cases) produced a fear response would be a very poor choice for use in anesthesia. In fact, a fear response is the exact opposite of a useful effect in anesthesia. I would say this is more than "mildly" implausible, and more along the lines of "bullshit thrown out with the hopes no-one will notice because it helps support an even less plausible line of bullshit being sold". Indeed, it contradicts much published material, which concludes that the psychological effects of ketamine use are highly subjective, except for a notable anti-depressant effect and the presence of hallucinations. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:58, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

It is published by Praeger, which is an academic publisher. The editors include two professors, one of whom is a psychiatrist with other 100 articles published in peer-reviewed journals.[58] The book shows 91 cites on Google scholar.[59] That meets reliability. MEDRS incidentally is irrelevant. It's reason for being is "Wikipedia's articles are not medical advice, but are a widely used source of health information." While we don't want any articles to mislead readers, extra care must be taken to ensure that we do not provide false medical information that some readers my rely on to their detriment. I do not see how that applies here.

You need to be careful however in using sources and clearly distinguish between primary and secondary sources, facts and opinions, and majority vs. minority opinions. The contributors to the book represent a minority view on NDE and have not conducted sufficient research to form conclusive findings.

TFD (talk) 16:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree on the last point, but how would this not fall under biomedical information? The content in question making assertions about side-effects of a widely used anesthetic, the pain relieving effects of endorphins, and the characteristics of a condition that most scientists attribute to neurological changes in the brain. Elsewhere, Greyson is cited for claims about potential psychological aftereffects for people who have NDEs. This is all biomedical stuff, and it doesn't take a ton of imagination to think of ways it might factor in to a person's views about medical treatment.

Greyson is an expert in something, I'm just not sure that he's an expert in the topics he's discussing in the cited sections. It seems like he might be useful for information about the subjective experiences of people who have near death experiences, but he probably shouldn't be cited as an expert on the causes of NDEs - that's more of a neuroscience question. Nblund ^talk 20:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:Biomedical information" is "an explanatory supplement to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines and has no more status than an essay." We do in fact provide "biomedical information" in many articles outside MEDRS guidelines. We talk about how many people died from a disease, how many were killed during a war. In crime articles, we recount injuries and the effects of drugs and alcohol without using medical sources. The source is inter-disciplinarian, since the study of NDE is necessarily so, which means it is fact-checked by people from various disciplines, including medicine and psychology. TFD (talk) 23:06, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank-you TDF, Nblund, MjolnirPants for taking the time to jump in and for all your comments. I do agree with what some of you said about Ketamine. I have also researched the literature and was not able to find anything on ketamine's frightening effects. So we can consider discussion closed. Best Josezetabal (talk) 06:29, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

www.matsudafilm.com

Would this website be considered reliable? [60] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Looks to be a primary source (in the sense they own and restore films. So they may well be RS for information about themselves, but as they do not seem to be anything more then a film restoration and rental company what do you want to use them for?Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I would use them in the article List of anime by release date (pre-1939) for old film release dates/info [61]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I would say yes, it can be used as a reliable source for List of anime by release date (pre-1939). Meatsgains (talk) 01:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Rechargeable alkaline battery

Re this edit, embedded in a bunch of edit-warring [62]

The rechargeable alkaline battery used to be a thing (late '90s). You may not have seen them before, I can't find any on sale anywhere today. There is some debate at this article as to whether it should say "superseded by improvements to the NiMH battery" - which are everywhere these days. There are two issues:

• Sourcing needed to prove a negative. IMHO, the onus is on the editor claiming that the specific type is still popular to source this.
• Quality of an added source: (web searching for it suggests this: [63], "Alkaline rechargeables are seeing increasing sales but Lithium-ion type batteries contribute most of the growth. ") This is a commercial market research paper from 2016, claiming to predict 2020 sales. No-one has read it (it's as expensive as these always are), just that one snippet. More commonly, reports are like this: [64] where alkaline is no longer even listed as a technology for rechargeables.

I cannot explain this outlier report, but nor do I see it as sufficient cause to change the whole conclusion of an article, as regards the present day. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:16, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

It can probably be used to describe predicted trends, but I agree that we shouldn't represent those as describing the current situation... —PaleoNeonate – 21:50, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Does the editor who added the info actually have access to the report? IMO it's always risky to add content based solely on abstracts or snippets. Nil Einne (talk) 08:52, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

No, but they do have an unshakable faith in it, see latest change: [65]

The Talk: page has more of the same. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

References

RfC labeling in lede

Please comment at Talk:Jared_Taylor#RfC_labeling_in_lede ^{Atsme📞📧} 12:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

RfC on Talk:Standstill agreement (India)

There is a RfC on the issue of 'violations of the Standstill agreement by India and Hyderabad' on Talk:Standstill agreement (India). 2405:204:33A9:962F:2133:E96C:B796:88E9 (talk) 04:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

rugbyleagueproject.org

When an amateur-run stats site says on its About page that He has literally provided us with thousands of corrections and additions, each of which are more valuable than the last., can we consider it as a reliable source for biographies such as Tom Askin? The site in question is rugbyleagueproject.org and the entry for Askin has the seemingly standard proviso All statistics shown in this section are based only on data available in the RLP database, and are not necessarily a complete and/or 100% accurate representation of a player's career. This information should be used as a guide only. If you see a question mark (?), it denotes that the figure is not available. - Sitush (talk) 13:18, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

It's a useful starting place to go for information but that is as far as I would go. While it's not user-generated in that anyone can edit, it doesn't quote sources and since there is a large forum for submitting new material and corrections (I know I've submitted quite a few), there is no way of checking whether the information is compiled from reliable sources or not. That said I wouldn't throw it out with the bath water, player stats are difficult to collate and that the site acknowledges its own shortcomings is a good indicator that the efforts are genuine and like content on WP subject to change when new information becomes available. Nthep (talk) 15:04, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I have never found incorrect information on the site, only missing information. It is the most complete record of this type of information anywhere (online or offline) and has been used here on wikipedia as a reliable source for as long as I have been around - certainly more reliable than alternatives that are used such as loverugbyleague.com. Like Nthep, I would use it as one of the sources but not the only source for a player. Mattlore (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I think it is a useful site as long as the user is aware of its limitations, which are made clear on the site's home page. Career statistics should be taken with a pinch a salt, especially pre-1998, but it is still a valuable resource for a sport where online stats are difficult to find, and it is considered reputable enough to be an official source of stats for the Welsh national team. J Mo 101 (talk) 20:57, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I will suggest that site to be added to Wikidata. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@J Mo 101 and Nthep: so how do we deal with the pre-1998 stuff? If the site's info for that should be taken with a pinch of salt but not thrown out with the bathwater, should it in fact be used at all? It's all very vague: we can't really prefix every such pre-1998 use with "According to rugbyleagueproject.org, which may or may not be reliable for this data ..." (well, some formulaic disclaimer like that!) because we're only supposed to use reliable sources anyway. And how do we verify that some other site isn't simply mirroring/plagiarising this one? FWIW, I am aware of the general issue regarding older stats in the sport; they apply similarly in many instances to rugby union also. - Sitush (talk) 05:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

It's still useful for international/representative appearances for older players (as per your example of Askin), and for verifying that someone actually played for a club – regarding the missing career stats, myself and others have been trying to fill in the gaps using various club websites and book sources (old copies of Rothmans year books etc.) where available. I can't speak for the Australasian data, but the main contributor for the English data, Bill Bates, is also involved with the Saints Heritage Society, which I think is definitely a reliable source (the historian for that site has previously published several rugby league books. J Mo 101 (talk) 06:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I have little to add besides agreeing that it is often the most reliable source available. Doctorhawkes (talk) 05:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

wnd.com (i.e. World Net Daily) and citizenwells.net (i.e. Citizen News) for use in Suicide of Vince Foster (third listing)

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.

---

The reliability of wnd.com (i.e. World Net Daily) and citizenwells.net (i.e. Citizen News) for use in Suicide of Vince Foster has been brought up twice here previously by Autarch: 6 August 2016 and 23 July 2017. Although citizenwells.net appears only to have been discussed on this noticeboard those two times, wnd.com has been the subject of multiple discussions pertaining to various articles. On the article's talk page, Froglich has challenged the consensus reached in the earlier discussions by stating that he was not notified of them. -Location (talk) 00:20, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Not close to reliable, as has been stated previously. Objective3000 (talk) 00:49, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

• Not a chance. Fun fact: WND.com was the originator of that insane "Chobani imports Muslims" claim that got Alex Jones sued. In other words, they published a story so crazy that even Infowars retracted it. "CitizenWells" appears to just be someone's WP:BLOG. This is about as clear-cut as it gets: neither of these sources are reliable for claims of fact, particularly when it comes to this kind of right-leaning clickbait. Nblund ^talk 01:52, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

1) And Mary Mapes and Dan Rather were sacked from CBS News for lying. -- If publishing stories so "crazy" that key personnel end up being fired represents an even greater "match" per Nblund's analogy, then the following must be considered at least equally unreliable per Nblund:

ABC (Alexis Debat resigned before being fired for lying)

CNN canned three liars in its employee just last week, as well as Eason Jordan and Peter Arnett back in the hazy mists. Lied throughout the Operation Tailwind debacle. For some reason, the liar Jonathan Karl still has a job.

CBS (see above; also had to fire Lara Logan)

Associated Press (fired Bob Lewis, Dena Potter, and Christopher Newton for lying)

BBC (liars Andrew Gilligan and David Kelly resigned and committed suicide respectively)

Boston Globe (fired Patricia Smith, suspended Ron Borges)

Los Angeles Times (dumped Eric Slater and Brian Walski)

MSNBC (fired Keith Olbermann for lying, but still hasn't fired Ed Schultz and Mike Barnicle for lying)

New York Times (fired Michael Finkel and Jayson Blair, but didn't fire Rick Bragg, Alexis Debat, Herbert L. Matthews, or Fox Butterfield for lying, and is still tenaciously hanging onto its tarnished Duranty Pulitzer)

New Yorker (Jonah Lehrer resigned before being fired for lying)

National Review (let Stephen Glass get away with lying for three straight years)

New Republic (fired Ruth Shalit for lying)

Newsweek (Michael Isikoff, source of the infamous "flushed Koran" lie)

NBC (fired Brian Williams and Peter Arnett; see also Dateline exploding trucks debacle)

NPR (promoted the "Jenin massacre" lie along with most of the rest of the establishment press; still employs liar and plagiarist Nina Totenberg)

Reuters (Adnan Hajj's absurdly fake Photoshopped news pics)

Sacramento Bee (fired Dennis Love for lying)

Salon (Jason Leopold)

Slate (Jay Forman)

USA Today (dumped Jack Kelly)

Washington Post (Janet Cooke lied her way to Pulitzer Prize)

- But obviously we're not going to stop using these as RS, are we? Hence the provided rationale is one selectively and hypocritically applied.

2) NBlund claims WND "was the originator" of the Chobani story. NBlund's provided link contains an internal link to an earlier WND article which itself linked an Idaho newspaper. Assuming NBlund's "originator" claim is a relay from Snopes, then Snopes either lied or is in error itself, and he must therefore account his own analogy centerpiece as unreliable per his own argument. And, oh dear, this looks embarrassing. --Froglich (talk) 05:16, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

None of this does anything to demonstrate that WorldNetDaily is a well-established news outlet, nor does it rebut the fact that WND has, to quote WP:NOTRELIABLE, a poor reputation for checking the facts, lacks meaningful editorial oversight ... (and is known for) expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion. Questionable sources should only be used as sources for material on themselves, such as in articles about themselves; see below. They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:47, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

(1) Every entity on the list above has "a poor reputation for checking the facts". Yeah, I know: WP:OTHERSTUFF. But, that's almost 'all of the other stuff on that list. Ergo, what's going on here is typical, hypocritical partisanship in which some entities are held to standards that others routinely flout.

(2) That Miguel Rodriguez (a) exists, (b) was Kenneth Starr's lead prosecutor, and (c) wrote a resignation letter detailing his reasons for doing so, and (d) the text of that letter is available, are four points that no editor I am aware so far has considered a "contentious claim" (i.e., they flat-out don't believe it, and are brave enough to say it out loud).--Froglich (talk) 09:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

NFW these are reliable. Especially for this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:01, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Several of the examples provided by Froglich as lying are in fact not lies but errors, making this list a BLP violation. Objective3000 (talk) 11:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

No source is infallible, but reliable sources retract stories (and even fire people) when they get it wrong. Issuing corrections is actually part of the criteria for judging a reliable source because it demonstrates editorial oversight and a concern for fact-checking. WND doesn't do this: it never retracted any of it's Chobani reporting, or its claims about Barack Obama's birth certificate.

Rodriguez is probably real, but I don't actually see him being described as the "lead prosecutor". The problem isn't just that this particular claim might be false, it's that WND frequently omits important facts, casts stories in a misleading light, and credulously accepts reports gossip and claims from sources that have very low credibility. Since - as WND admits - reliable sources didn't run with his story, there's a good chance that key context is missing, and it's nearly impossible to gauge due weight for the claim. Nblund ^talk 16:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Pile-on "no". Hard to think of any subject these would be reliable for. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Never reliable. Neutrality^talk 00:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

• Even assuming that list Froglich gave was accurate, I don't think it was well thought through. If CBS News will fire one of it's reporters for lying, then that strongly suggests that CBS Nes is reliable, because they fire employees who gets caught lying FFS. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:46, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

1)"Lying Dan" was a fixture of CBS for over forty years before they canned him. -- It's not like Mary was going to fire him.--Froglich (talk) 16:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

2) We appear to be in agreement (I note no objections, and no response from Nblund) that the example of alleged WND perfidy provided in this ANI was erroneously-presented. I.e., it wasn't the "originator" of Nblund's Chobani story (Nblund foray's into Alex Jones, who isn't the subject of discussion, smearing by association). WND merely relayed an Idaho newspaper piece, which is something every media organization does on a daily basis. Certainly the story was presented with "spin" (also something every media organization does on a daily basis). WND's source is considered RS by Wikipedia, as is equally-and-more-so biased Snopes by many here. (It should also be noted that WND wasn't sued, whereas Alex Jones was, per NBlund's account.)--Froglich (talk) 16:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you strike "lying Dan" as this is another BLP violation. Objective3000 (talk) 16:54, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

That Idaho newspaper story doesn't mention Chobani, Ulukaya, or Muslims - so no, this isn't the source for the claims about Chobani. But this is really a moot point: you're the lone dissenter out of roughly a dozen participants across three separate noticeboard discussions regarding this content. I understand that you think the mainstream press is equally unreliable, it's clear that you're not going to persuade many editors to agree with you. Probably time to move on to other issues. Nblund ^talk 23:41, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Looks like Froglich has the facts wrong on Keith Olbermann too. I wonder how many other BLP-violating false accusations are on that list? Morty C-137 (talk) 00:48, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes. I've spent the last 20 minutes researching Dan Rather's departure from CBS, because there was something itchy about Froglich's claim, and the best explanation I've found so far is that CBS decided not to renew his contract (itself a distant leap from "firing" him) because he was in negotiations to do a show with HDNet. I'm sure the relatively minor (we don't even cover it in our article about him) controversy about the Bush National Guard story played a role, but still. This claim of Froglich's that Dan Rather was fired for lying (and the implication that he was fired for 40 years of lying) is, at best, a truly bizarre distortion of the truth. And it's all in service to the argument that World Net Daily is a reliable source, a claim which is a complete non-starter in and of itself. At least now I know that Froglich is utterly untrustworthy when it comes to claims about politics.

Also, Froglich; we are not in agreement that any claims about WND unreliability were "erroneously-presented". I have no idea why you would say such a thing, as I never implied anything that might, itself be taken as an implication that I might, possibly agree with that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:55, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

• Unreliable. This is not a forum for airing out grievances about the lamestream media. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:39, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

• No evidence of reliability This discussion seems to have taken a wayward turn. It's not the case that any website is a RS unless proven otherwise. Rather, the source needs to have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (WP:SOURCE). I see no evidence presented for such a reputation. Do they have any "professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments"? What mainstream news organization have relied on their reports? What journalistic awards have they won? None that I can see at the moment. Eperoton (talk) 04:30, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
• Unreliable - discussion of other publications is irrelevant here. Doug Weller talk 12:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
• Reality Check Reliability always relies on context. There's not enough information in the OP to even give an opinion. Even Alex Jones can be a reliable source for what Jones claims. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:32, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Good point... any source is reliable for a quote from (or close paraphrase of) that source (in fact, a source will be the most reliable source possible for itself). However... we often get so wrapped up in debates about the reliability of the source that we forget that there are other policies and guidelines that might apply. For example, we also have to consider the WP:Due weight clause of NPOV. Would even mentioning what Alex Jones (for example) says give UNDUE weight to a fringe view? In most cases the answer will be "yes, it would". In which case we should not mention what Jones says.

In other words... It may be that everyone is focused on the wrong policy. It may not matter whether the source is reliable for the statement... because the underlying issue is whether the article should contain the statement in the first place? Blueboar (talk) 14:16, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

While I don't really know much about the topic, given the subject, World Net Daily might very well be reliable as a primary source. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Follow up comment - Having looked into the specifics, it looks like AQFK and I are correct ... This is indeed a situation where a document is being cited as a PRIMARY source for a statement relating to the content of that document (specifically, a letter written by Rodriquez is being cited as a PRIMARY source for statements about what Rodriquez says in that letter).

NOW... part of the problem is that the citations are malformed. WND and Citizen News are not actually what should be cited here (they are merely hosting venues - ie they contain scanned copies of the letter). The actual source is the letter itself. AND... for a statement as to the content of the letter, a copy of the letter itself is reliable as a primary source.

HOWEVER... that leaves unanswered the question of whether mentioning the letter in the first place is UNDUE (my answer to that is... probably). Blueboar (talk) 13:22, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

If the claim is simply "Rodriguez resigned because he disagreed with Starr", then it's primary, but meaningless without context regarding Rodriguez or his role in the case. WND is almost certainly exaggerating his role by calling him the "lead prosecutor" or "lead investigator" - the lead prosecutor would have been Ken Starr. Nblund ^talk 15:00, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

• As reliable as all the other bait-click MSM sources on the internet today...and I'm including the rampant misinformation we've been inundated with by publishers who are using anonymous sources for 75% of their articles; most recent example, The New York Times with its off-the-wall crap such as this. Editors have to exercise a bit more caution than before when it comes to verifying any publication that's considered a "news source". Bait-click headlines and fallacious content are rampant, and none of them are immune. They face no consequences under the law with the repeal of the Smith-Mundt Act and absence of FCC permitting, neither of which have helped ethical journalism issues. The internet has become the "Wild, Wild West of Journalism". The news we're getting now is mostly propaganda, and written to satisfy the voracious appetites of high-up execs, and their respective political views. To think "editorial review" changes anything is laughable in light of the retractions - retractions don't make a publication trustworthy rather it proves they are not dependable - they all make mistakes. Notice if you will that retractions only come when the publication is challenged. Lots of people have an insatiable appetite for conspiracy theories and sensationalism - news is now entertainment - it's far more profitable - and that's exactly how it's being handled in numerous MSM published sources, regardless of political leanings. Use inline text attribution, follow the RS guideline for material that may be challenged, avoid policy noncompliance and apply BRD to rid an article of biased garbage and fallacious claims. ^{Atsme📞📧} 12:08, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, stopped reading when you claimed that WND is as reliable as the NYT. Objective3000 (talk) 12:14, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

No need to apologize. I dismissed your comment when I realized the inadvertent irony in your sig. New York Times controversies<---which barely scratches the surface. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:05, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

• You've got to be kidding - Looking at comments from Froglich/Atsme/etc, what the heck is going on here? Did Something Awful decide to attack? Is this a Chan Raid organized by /r/The_Donald or something??? Morty C-137 (talk) 14:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing about the opposing comments but at least I have facts supporting my position, and of course, first and foremost: WP:PAG, including NPOV, RS, and WP:NEWSORG. I've not seen one argument against the source that warrants condemning it. Alexa ranks it 6,044 globally, and 1,567 in the US, not exceptional but not a bad place to be. I also noticed it has lost a bit of its ranking, not unlike most in the MSM as more readers lose faith in what's being reported. Oh, and then there's the real fake news articles, like this one WaPo published [66].

Your primary argument seems to be extremist right-wing "I HATE MSM" screaming. You link to a blog on "Forbes Sites" - aka an unvetted blog - it even carries a disclaimer Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own. Oh and if we're comparing Alexa rankings, The Onion has a rank of 3876 (or #895 in the USA), but at least they admit they're not real news. Morty C-137 (talk) 17:16, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

And your primary argument seems to comprise left-wing mantra...and??? Let me be clear - this Harvard report is a RS of the highest quality so my suggestion to you is to rethink your PAs and learn how the WP community works before you go shouting down veteran editors. What you're doing is considered disruptive behavior. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Taken from the classic Shorenstein study the anti-MSM crowd loves: "the fact that Trump has received more negative coverage than his predecessor is hardly surprising. The early days of his presidency have been marked by far more missteps and miss-hits, often self-inflicted, than any presidency in memory, perhaps ever." Please see WP:BIASED. Bias is not proof of unreliability. NYT, WashPo and other outlets you hate are miles more accurate and reputable than WND, Infowars and other clickbait fringe websites. Your tirade against the MSM in a discussion about WND is better taken elsewhere. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 00:07, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

• Not Reliable. Reliability of MSM aside, there is no way this could be considered reliable. You could argue over Breitbart (which is becoming more mainstream and newsworthy, though possibly not there yet) - though probably still a lost cause on WP (as attested by discussions here). WND (and Citizenwells) is a total nonstarter.Icewhiz (talk) 14:58, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Today’s lead story in WND asks: “Has Rabbi Schneerson been resurrected?” and goes on to suggest the end of times is nigh. Is there any reason for this discussion to continue here? Objective3000 (talk) 15:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
• Not reliable. Reliability on Wikipedia is based on a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy in reporting. There is no evidence of such a reputation. To the contrary, our article on WND states: "WND has drawn controversy for its promotion of conspiracy theories, including ones about Barack Obama's citizenship, and is considered to be a far right fringe website." Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
• Not reliable While WP:BDP is usually restricted to less than 2 years, the principles behind it still apply. Note the bit about living relatives, contentious info, suicide etc. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
• WND should be fine for use for opinions and commentary, but probably not for reporting facts, and do not meet WP:RS. Bottomline, if a story WND reported has not been reported by reliable sources as well, it's most likely false and should be left out of WP. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 23:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
• WND is never reliable. Normally, reputation is contextual, but WND routinely invents stories and even quotes whole-cloth. I wouldn't even cite it for opinion pieces - even opinion pieces require at least some degree of WP:RS for the site where they were posted, to establish the credentials of the person whose opinion is being cited and the relevance of their opinion, to perform basic fact-checking against egregious falsehood and so on. WND simply fails RS entirely - they regularly and unabashedly invent stories whole-cloth without regard for accuracy and without any effort at corrections, retractions, or fact-checking. If something worthwhile appears there and nowhere else, it does not belong on Wikipedia at all, and if it appears anywhere better, that secondary site ought to be our source. I don't feel there's any legitimate reason to site WND outside of the vanishingly rare situation where WND itself is the topic of discussion, and even then I'd require a secondary source to establish noteworthiness and relevance (and would probably argue against citing WND even then, since the secondary source is sufficient and I feel that WND's reputation is bad enough that citing it at all even under that one situation where we theoretically could without violating policy still damages the reputation of both that article and the encyclopedia as a whole.) --Aquillion (talk) 06:10, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
• Definitely no for WND. Haven't analysed the other source to definitely comment but I'd lean no from what I read above. Nil Einne (talk) 09:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

• These sources are still not reliable for their intended use at Vince Foster. Jytdog (talk) 05:11, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
• Not reliable for anything beyond their own (fringe) opinion, if that. Indeed so obviously not reliable that someone who argues otherwise is a joker, disruptive, or at least really really badly informed. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:29, 13 August 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.

Ráŕh – The Cradle of Civilization

Ráŕh – The Cradle of Civilization is a book written by Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. It was published by Ananda Marga, an organization established by the author. Excerpts from the book can be read at [67] or [68].

I believe that the book is not a good source to describe the geography or history of the Rarh region, because it is aims to glorify the region, with little consideration for academic or scholarly rigour. The author mixes mythology, legends and pseudo-science, which is made worse by poetic verbosity.

Another user insists that this is a reliable source although it does not adhere to "the strict Western academic style". The complete arguments can be read at Talk:Rarh region#Ráŕh – The Cradle of Civilization.

Would love to hear others' views. utcursch | talk 19:42, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Definitely not a reliable source. The author was the leader of a quasi-religious movement and not a historian. If there are claims made in that book that are worth including then, doubtless, there are academic scholars who have evaluated those claims and given them their approval. --regentspark (comment) 20:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

According to Prof. Timothy Dolan [69]

Sarkar's writings on historical processes offer a refreshing alternative to the orthodox interpretations of Toynbee, Hegal and Marx. He makes Samuel Huntington's Clash Of Civilizations seem parochial in comparison.

The former president of India Zail Singh has said that:

Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar was one of the greatest modern philosophers of India.

Sohail Inayatullah has called called him as:

one of India's greatest philosophers and macrohistorians

Author and Professor Emeritus in the University of Houston-Clear Lake Oliver W. Markley has said:

P.R. Sarkar, in his own way, is more than the equal of the great historian Arnold Toynbee. Sarkar not only illuminated the growth and inevitable decline that comes from the “Acquisitive-Capitalist” stage in societal evolution that has now deeply infected the West, but offers wise counsel on what to do instead.

Not my words...What can I add is that:

1. How fair is to judge a person from the appearance of one of the 30 movements he created, while barely not knowing anything about him?
2. The reference in question here is whether the Rarh region extends to include small parts of the modern Bihar state or not. Sarkar say that it does. Well, also when you check other sources telling you the geographical boundaries of Rarh and you draw a line in Google Maps or Google Earth..it does include parts of Bihar. --Universal Life (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

If there are "other sources", please use those sources. And no, my objection to use of Sarkar as a reference is not limited to the geography part. I believe that he should not be used as a reference at all, maybe unless we are talking about philosophy.

As for the reviews, they are about Sarkar's views in the areas of philosophy and economic history, not geography or political history. Toynbee, Hegel and Marx are not suitable sources for a history-related article either. utcursch | talk 22:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• This is a run-of-the-mill example of self-publishing. Lacking any expertise, I would not refer to this author for any such use. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Is Hollywood.com a reliable source?

This site has been previously discussed on here, but none of the discussions reached a solid verdict. Here are some reasons why I think hollywood.com should be considered a reliable source:

• Formally owned by Times Mirror Company where it was used for the entertainment section in the Los Angeles Times
• Not a IMDb counterpart at all. It does not have user-generated content and doesn't scrape information from the web.
• The site is currently owned by Mitchell Rubenstein and Laurie Silvers who previously founded the Sci-Fi Channel.
• Biographical data comes from Baseline StudioSystems, an online database and research service that was previously owned by The New York Times. Its data is used by "almost every major studio, broadcast and cable TV network".

Thoughts on this? Eden5 (talk) 17:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

It's a tertiary website that does not meet the reliable sourcing criteria required to include private and personal information in biography articles. As you want to use the database to include a specific date of birth in a BLP, this policy applies which states "Wikipedia includes...dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources" (emphasis mine). A celebrity database that states in their Terms of Use "Hollywood.com, through its affiliates, subsidiaries, and licensors do not warrant that the Hollywood Site is accurate, reliable or correct...or that any defects or errors will be corrected" and "You understand that you will be exposed to User material from a variety of publishers and that Hollywood.com is not responsible for the accuracy, usefulness, safety, or intellectual property rights of or relating to such User material. You further understand and acknowledge that you may be exposed to User material that is inaccurate..."" does not meet the extremely high standard required by our policies in this case. Who owns the site is irrelevant.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:04, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Your claim has been mentioned in other threads. That's just a standard legal disclaimer that many news organizations use and legal disclaimers should not be used in judging how reliable a source is. I still believe the biographical data is reliable because it comes from a database that was formally owned by the NYT and is used by many studio, broadcast and cable TV networks; unsure why that's irrelevant. WP:BLPPRIVACY is duly noted in this case and I will remove DOBs for BLPs that only cite Hollywood. Eden5 (talk) 18:41, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Xulon Press

Most scientists reject the belief that God formed the universe.

References

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=God&type=revision&diff=796181719&oldid=796181194 What is the problem with Xulon Press? QuackGuru (talk) 01:57, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

It's a vanity press (i.e., self-publishing house). Neutrality^talk 03:02, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Jigsaw article sources

Main article: Jigsaw (2017 film)

I'm just checking to be sure (I am unfamiliar with these sites), but are The Reel World and Film School Rejects considered reliable sources for news on upcoming films? DarkKnight2149 22:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

The first doesn't look reliable to me. It doesn't have an about page where we can find out anything. Regarding Film School Rejects I think it is reliable. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

The Reel World

Regarding The Reel World, the only "About" information that I can find is on their Facebook and on Twitter. Suspiciously, neither is verified. Should I go ahead and add a "Better source needed" template, or would it potentially be acceptable for citing on Wikipedia? I really wish I knew more about the site, but I'm handcuffed in this situation. Tagging: Emir of Wikipedia , DarkKnight2149 02:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I would say that based a better source needed template should be used. A bit more information about the site was found by myself. This guy called Guillermo Troncoso looks to be the owner, and calls himself "Screen aficionado and proud Manager of @REELWORD". Neither of those two things he has called himself make me think this source is reliable. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:22, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

RfC about references and airport articles

Hello, your input would be appreciated at this RfC about how we should give references for the "Airlines and destinations" tables of articles about airports. Thank you. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 11:49, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

John Wiley & Sons

Is Wiley a reliable publisher? If so, can someone review this deletion of a source that uses Wiley as its publisher please? 92.13.137.81 (talk) 21:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, generally speaking they are a reliable source. I do not have access to the source so I cannot be more specific, but, generally speaking, they are a reliable source. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:49, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I would agree that Wiley is a reliable publisher... that said (having looked at the specifics) the deletion was not based on whether the publisher is reliable or not. The issue is whether the cited source supports the specific statement included in the article. It is more an OR (interpretation of the source) dispute than an RS (reliability) dispute. Blueboar (talk) 13:30, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Watercolor painting

Are these sources for the page Watercolor painting reliable? or do they run afoul of the external links policy I heard another editor refer to them as a link farm, and one was removed from a possible-COI editor's contribution.

• http://watercolor.net/history-overview/

• https://www.boundless.com/art-history/textbooks/boundless-art-history-textbook/south-and-southeast-asia-after-1200-ce-28/india-under-british-imperialism-179/indian-painting-under-british-imperialism-972-17378/

• http://www.betsyporter.com/Ethiopia.html

• http://watercolormisfit.com/category/30-watercolor-tips/

• http://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/water.html

• http://watercolorpainting.com

• http://www.chinese5art.com/info/2/watercolor_painting_technique_in_the_East.html

• http://www.paintingwithwatercolors.com/

Thanks, Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 09:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Unless they are actually being used to reference something they are not sources they are external links and covered by WP:EL. Generally one or two detailed in-depth websites may be suitable as an EL. (Point 3 of WP:ELYES and point 5 of WP:ELMAYBE. There are a number of points of WP:ELNO which apply to some of the links above. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

OK, it looks like some were actually sources, and some were just external links. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 09:34, 21 August 2017 (UTC) They were actually considered sources, I didn't check very closely. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 09:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

uselectionatlas.org

This site appears to be a one-man show. There is no information on where the actual data come from. Is it a reliable source for city/county election data? 32.218.46.176 (talk) 22:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Well my answer would be, who is he? If he is not a noted expert then (what is in effect) some blokes website is not RS.Slatersteven (talk) 08:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• The about page linked above says Leip got his data from the 1993 World Almanac and Book of Facts initially, and later from the Secretary of State offices.

Uselectionatlas.org is self-published, with no editorial oversight. Yet, if Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections is correct, its usage by high-quality reliable sources indicates a reputation for accuracy.

The best and most reputable authoritative sources for Presidential election results for Shawano County, Wisconsin would be the Wisconsin Elections Commission (and its forerunners), the County Clerk's Office, or an academic publisher such as CQ Press's CQ Voting and Elections Collection. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:54, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

The question isn't about Shawano County, Wisconsin; it's about the thousands of articles that use Uselectionatlas.org as a source. 32.218.34.190 (talk) 02:00, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

This noticeboard does not generally make blanket statements about the reliability of a source. Readers may extrapolate from the arguments here, but we only consider a source with respect to a particular article and specific content within that article. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Well according to the encyclopedia Britannica I have a high reputation for accuracy (which must be true I said I use the encyclopedia Britannica as a source). Sorry but just claiming you use high quality sources says nothing about how you use the data, a reputation for accuracy is something you get by other people using you as a source, not the other way around.Slatersteven (talk) 09:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Mannatech

I was just looking at Mannatech#Company-funded studies and saw what appear to be some questionable claims attributed to various scientific papers. I could use some more eyes on that section before I jump in and try to fix it. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:58, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

comments.ua

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

comments.ua (Комментарии.ua, "commentaries") is the sole source for Yandex Maps in particular the claim that it is the largest mapping service in Russia. Would like RSN's opinion on this source. It doesn't seem to have a Wikipedia article on English Wikipedia nor Russian. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:01, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Important summary for the future

Link to previous discussion: Talk:Muhammad/images#Important summary for the future

The reliable sources issue is this: If source (A) states as fact (B) (of which he has no personal knowledge) and cites source (C) as authority for it, is the reliability of (A) with respect to (B) dependent on the reliability of (C)?

Commentary

Reference 1: With his use of the word "perhaps" Hillenbrand indicates that the use of a picture of Muslims at Friday prayer to depict the prohibition of intercalation is only a possibility. He states that the Muhammad pictures are "permeated by strong sectarian feeling". Now, there is nothing sectarian about a portrayal of Muhammad sitting on his camel discussing intercalation with thousands of pilgrims at a time when Islam was unified. A picture of the Ahl al - Bayt gathered round the imam at Friday prayers, on the other hand, is very sectarian.

Reference 2: This is the study by Priscilla Soucek. It's the most detailed analysis, four times longer than Hillenbrand's, but AstroLynx doesn't want to reveal her conclusions. The picture concerned merits only a passing reference on a single page. Therein may lie the clue. There's not enough space for her to discuss the elephant in the room - that Muhammad was outdoors sitting on a camel when he prohibited intercalation and the picture shows a service in a mosque. Is AstroLynx hiding the fact that she doesn't mention this, and may indeed be unaware of where the farewell sermon was delivered, which would render her an unreliable source? This omission would explain why Hillenbrand felt the need to highlight it in his paper.

Reference 3: This is the attribution by the Bibliothèque Nationale. It would be more convincing if the library had not also published a description of the painting which makes no mention of intercalation (reference 8).

Reference 4: A detailed study which does not mention intercalation.

Reference 5: Only as good as its sources - Bibliothèque Nationale, Hillenbrand and Priscilla Soucek.

Reference 6: The author identifies the picture as Muhammad and then goes on to discuss his prohibition of intercalation. Significantly, he does not link the two together.

Reference 7: Only as good as its sources, none of which positively identify the scene as Muhammad prohibiting intercalation.

Reference 8: Does not mention intercalation.

None of the sources claim with any confidence that this mosque scene is prohibition of intercalation, and given the misleading impression the caption leaves on the readers (they will think the farewell pilgrimage consisted of a few people in a mosque) it fails WP:RS and WP:V. 78.145.20.245 (talk) 16:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Although AstroLynx claims that reference 3 cites references 1 and 2 it doesn't. 78.145.20.245 (talk) 12:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

What seems to be happening here is that the phrase "artistic licence" is being used to push a POV. We can see the limits of artistic licence in depictions of the Last Supper, the repast most commonly featured in mediaeval Christian art. The following Biblical scenes have all been featured in drawings/paintings/mosaics etc.: Genesis 14¹⁶, Genesis 18⁸, Exodus16^18-19, Job 1^4-5, Daniel 5^1-4. None of these have been incorrectly identified as portrayals of the Last Supper. Where the venue has been identified as indoor or outdoor (e.g. the Daniel scene includes writing on the wall) the artist has not reversed this. No Last Supper portrait is given an outdoor setting. Artistic licence goes no further than contemporarising the details - for example dressing the participants in Roman garments and showing them reclining on Roman furniture. This is also a feature of the Job and Daniel pictures. 78.145.20.245 (talk) 09:46, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

References

steemit.com

• steemit.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• insource:"steemit.com" (used in 14 mainspace articles other than its own Steemit page).
• Recent addition (which I removed for now): [70]

If I understand this is a Reddit-like social network with user-submitted content with user ratings, where post authors can also get some renumeration. I'm not sure if this is usable as reference or as external link, and if so, in which case it would be. Input welcome; thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 12:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Love Don't Live Here Anymore

In this article, would anyone be able to verify the content supported by Ref #1 by the book (Cole, George (2007), The Last Miles: The Music of Miles Davis, University of Michigan Press, ISBN 0-472-03260-7). —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 08:36, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@IndianBio: You might be better off asking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:04, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 13:18, 24 August 2017 (UTC)