Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 203

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 200Archive 201Archive 202Archive 203Archive 204Archive 205→Archive 210

Using live events as sources

I'm curious whether there's any firm consensus on the use of live events as sources, providing that there's video evidence of said events. Note that I'm not asking about using videos of events as sources. Rather, I'm asking about using the event itself as a source, while simply providing a link to the video in the url field. The reason why I'm asking about this is that are a lot of YouTube videos out there, uploaded by non-professional channels, depicting events held by professional organizations. In the case of say, a Comic-Con panel, conventional practice would seem to treat the video of the panel as the source and the channel that uploaded the video as the publisher - but I find myself wondering whether one could simply treat the panel itself as the source and Comic-Con as the publisher. There's zero doubt of the validity of the information found in these sources, as we're hearing it straight from the horse's mouth (For example, practically speaking, a YouTube video of an actor at Comic-Con talking about his experience making a movie is every bit as reliable as him doing so on a DVD commentary). And there's also zero doubt that events like Comic-Con hold a considerable amount of credibility. If this were a YouTube video of an actor talking with a fan over coffee, that the fan then uploaded to his personal YouTube channel, then sure, that would hardly pass muster. But I fail to see why a professionally organized event couldn't be deemed as a "Reliable source". There actually was a brief discussion about this on the RS Noticeboard in the past - see here WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 122#Youtube videos of panels from conventions - but that conversation (from over three years ago) was focused on whether the video could be treated as a reliable source, rather than the event. I've also noticed that Template:Cite speech exists, and while that template states that any speeches used as sources must be "published or broadcast", it never technically specifies that the publisher or broadcaster need be a reliable source in its own right. In fact, the very first example given of how to use this template doesn't even include anything in the url field. It simply names the speech, the event and location at which the speech was given, the date on which the speech was given, and the person who gave the speech. Could we use this template (or create a similar template) for things like panel discussions? --Jpcase (talk) 16:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

What specifically are you trying to find out? Whether Comic Con (etc.) may be listed as the publisher on the citation or whether a Wikieditor may work from memory? The minimum requirement is that the source exist, even if it is not cited, so in theory a Wikiedtior who attended a panel could add "so-and-so said there will be a movie next year" from memory, simply trusting that the video would come into play later, but in the interim, anyone could remove the assertion for any reason. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
@Darkfrog24: I'm not necessarily advocating that editors be allowed to cite conventions purely from memory. Again, looking toward the cite speech template as an example, it requires that speeches be "published or broadcast" in some form. What that template doesn't specify is whether the publisher or broadcaster need be a reliable source in its own right. We need live events and speeches to be recorded, simply for practical purposes, but so long as we have no reason to doubt the validity of the recording - as in the case of a clearly shot, well-filmed video - I see no reason why the recording itself need meet RS criteria, providing that some sort of consensus is reached that live events are appropriate to use as sources. So yes, my question is - could an organization like Comic Con be listed as a publisher, and if so, would that negate any issues with using a non-copyright-violating, reasonably well-filmed, but non-official video in the url field? --Jpcase (talk) 16:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
This looks like it's worth getting a broader look. I would treat an otherwise undoubted Comic Con panel as a primary source, per WP:PRIMARY. Use with care; get a secondary source for any interpretation or analysis. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC) EDIT: I mean interpretation or analysis of the panel, not interpretation or analysis given in the panel. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:59, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
@Darkfrog24: Agreed. I see the information given in panel discussions as fairly comparable to that found in DVD commentaries. So it would definitely be treated as a primary source. Given that no one else has commented here in the past couple days, what would you recommend be done in order to consolidate a broader opinion? Unless there's something that I don't know about, it doesn't seem like the Wikipedia community at large has accepted using sources like this; although, I'm not sure that there's ever been a thorough discussion about it either. If accepted, it may be that an entirely new template would have to be created - something along the lines of Template:Cite event or Template:Cite panel. A development like this could be immensely useful within the WikiProjects that I frequent, so while I'm fairly shorthanded on time these days, I'd be interested in following through with any steps that could lead toward a community-wide consensus being formed on the matter. --Jpcase (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
If you're talking about one edit on one article, do it and see what happens. You could set a precedent.
If you're talking about multiple edits across Wikiprojects, and it looks like you are, hop over to Village Pump: Policy and start an RfC.
There's no time limit on either of these things. Think and come up with a draft that you think would address the issue clearly. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

ATF quote regarding Gun show loophole

  • Source in question; [1] #3
  • Text/Reference in question; "The term refers to the viewpoint that there is an inadequacy in federal law, under which "[a]ny person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of the State where he resides as long as he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms".

This cite, while relevant, doesn't speak directly to the article's subject, let alone in the context that this reference suggests, within the lead of the article. I'm referring to WP:SYNTH and WP:Original Research, here. While I have tried to improve it without removing it, I am now being told it must be used as a direct quote. Given that this source doesn't even mention the subject in this citation, I question the "exact" context and weight it is given in the Lead Section on GSL. Darknipples (talk) 21:59, 31 January 2016 (UTC) What do you think, Zwerg Nase? - Darknipples (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I do not see any argument here that the source is unreliable. Certainly, the ATF is a reliable source regarding US firearm laws and regulations. Whether or how best to use this quote seems to be a matter of editorial judgment and consensus, to be hashed out on the article's talk page. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Cullen328, my question is whether this cite in particular is reliable in the context it is being used for. The original quote being used from this cite doesn't reference or mention GSL. How is it "reliable" in this context, let alone enough to be used as an exact quote? For example, the quote's use of the word "he" implies that it only refers to a specific gender. FYI this has been discussed on the TP. There was little to no participation, and no consensus was reached. Darknipples (talk) 23:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Also, keep in mind we are talking about a "Top Ten FAQ". Is this really Lead-worthy? Darknipples (talk) 23:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Like any other government web site, the ATF site is a primary source, not an RS. No peer review, just an administrative opinion, and a lawyer's (possibly politically driven) opinion, at that. It's use has both WP:OR and WP:RS problems. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 23:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The quote also makes no mention of background checks, which is a core aspect concerning the article's subject. Darknipples (talk) 00:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

The source is from Atf.gov. That's generally reliable. But it sounds like your core question is not "Is this page reliable?" but "Does it really support the text that it is cited to support?" I took a quick and dirty look, and the word "loophole" does not appear in this source. Since the sentence in question is meant to define the term "gun show loophole," I would say that this source does not support that specific sentence, though it may be useful elsewhere in the article. This isn't exactly an RS issue. The guys at WP:ORN might be able to tell you more.
Regarding the generic he ("state where he resides"), WP:MoS revisited that issue last year. See WP:S/HE The consensus was that Wikipedia articles may retain the generic he in direct quotes but should avoid it in Wikipedia's own voice. This is a direct quote, so the generic he is not against the rules. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • If you want to get this source declared unreliable so you can assert this in the content dispute, then I have bad news for you: that's not likely to happen. This question is not about the reliability of the source, it's about where it should fit in the article and whether it is appropriate for the definition of the gun show loophole. And that's not going to get solved here, so try WP:3O and other dispute resolution methods. Guy (Help!) 17:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
    • The source is not "unreliable" -- it is a primary source. We don't quote IRS publications, US Post Office policies, Copyright publications, or any other primary source. In this case, the ATF is stating a policy interpretation of a statute, and the interpretation is some resolution of a disputed or ambiguous element of the law. Such interpretations are often driven by the politics of the moment -- administrative decisions about what to enforce and why. We don't use these primary sources to support the major premise of an article. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 20:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I love the fact that you declare it to be similarly primary and an interpretation (i.e. secondary). Guy (Help!) 11:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Are these sources reliable?

Hi, can someone please verify if these sources are reliable or not? qubrex and GurgaonScoop are used continuously by a possible WP:COI editor to add negative content over Raheja Developers. Mr RD 05:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The QuBREX source is actually an article from the Hindustan Times. We probably shouldn't link to it because of copyright concerns but the information is prima facie ok. - Sitush (talk) 06:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
BTW, the Hindustan Times has an online presence - we may be able to link directly to their article. - Sitush (talk) 06:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Dear Sitush, we can take the link from Hindustan Times but point is these two references are nothing more than a mere opinionated blog by someone disgruntled from the company. I also found some evidences that the same person who is behind these websites is also contributing to the Raheja Developers page without disclosing his conflict of interest. Mr RD 16:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Regarding the Hindustan Times link, I added it in my last edit over the page which was reverted by you. I've also mentioned it on the talk page. Mr RD 16:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Verifiable sources

Hi, I am new to this whole thing and I wanted to do a page about the first donut shop in my hometown. I want to vote against the policy of having verifiable information from other source. My hometown heritage guild does not have info on the donut shop and I am working with them to build a history. The donut shop was started by my grandparents in 1962 and is still there as a donut shop but has been run by various people since my grandparents sold it in the mid 70's. How can I make a page for the donut shop? This is a staple of generations of people from Livermore Ca. It is even used for the facebook page,...You know you're from Livermore if....


I would appreciate any advice and help anyone is willing to give.. Thanks, Leslie≈≈≈≈

I'm not going to lie; you're probably not going to get a Wikipedia article on a local donut shop. This is less of an issue of reliable sources and more of WP:NOTABILITY. Click that link to get the page for how to tell if something is important enough to have its own article on Wikipedia.
However, maybe the shop is notable. Here's how you prove it: Has this donut shop ever been mentioned in...
  • ...a local newspaper?
  • ...any magazine?
  • ...any book?
  • ...a food or restaurant website, even if it's just a review?
  • ...your town's municipal website?
  • ...your heritage guild's newsletter or other publication (if any)?
  • And is it officially classified as a landmark by any organization?
Any of these might be RS.
I notice that there is a Wikipedia article for your town, Livermore, California. One way to make an article is, instead of starting it from a stub, create a sub-section of an existing article and then expand that sub-section until it's big enough to be its own article. I notice that Livermore has a section on local landmarks. Is this donut shop officially classified as a local landmark? I notice that Livermore has a section on industry. You could create a subsection on notable local businesses and include the donut shop. That way you could add information a little at a time, as you find each source, and other editors who work on the Livermore article would probably help you filter it (that means delete anything that doesn't belong there).
If that doesn't work, make the shop notable. Continue your work with the local heritage guild. Write your own article about the donut shop and try to get it published in a paper or magazine. Make your own website about it or write your own book. Then that might become the reliable source you'd need for a Wikipedia article. Good luck! Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
EDIT: So you're saying that Livermore, CA's official Facebook page has a picture of this donut shop? Facebook isn't usually RS. You couldn't write this article with that as your only source, but it is a good sign. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
This would be at least as much an issue of notability as sourcing. Bluntly put, Wikipedia is not going to have articles on the first donut shop in every town across the world. The shop needs to have some claim to fame that was noteworthy enough to be broadly commented upon. Did newspapers report hours-long traffic jams at the opening because people flocked to the first donut shop that opened in that part of the state? Was it the site of the famed "Donut Debate" (along the lines of the Kitchen Debate) that influenced international politics? That's the sort of thing you need to look for. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:56, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I would recommend that if you find it notable, add a mention of it on the town's article. It may be challenged for notability if someone out there is opposed to it being there for some reason, and then you'd need to find a source to keep it there. According to WP:RS, Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process. and The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations. So, if there is a claim in an article that is not controversial and not stating anything harmful to any living or recently deceased person, then it's allowable according to the policy. People often think that sourcing is required for everything on Wikipedia but that's not actually the case. It's a process of challenge. If you are challenged on the notability then it can be removed. You also must be careful of conflict of interest. However, articles about towns often get a lot of material that is unsourced, and this is ok. It seems to be a culture of Wikipedia. There is the danger of too much "cruft" and clutter on hometown articles, but there's also the benefit of local knowledge by actual people. I like how it works. I do pare back my own hometown's page sometimes, a bit, but i certainly do not remove all unsourced statements -- that would be horribly unfriendly and counterproductive for the readers of Wikipedia, as well as mean to all the editors who added their own knowledge. SageRad (talk) 16:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Slight procedural distinction, SageRad. It's not strictly a matter of challenge. If the Wikieditor believes that the content is likely to be challenged, then he or she is required to add a source even if no one has actually challenged it yet. That's highly subjective and strictly on the honor system, though, and I wouldn't say it's possible (or wise) to enforce it. Also, Leslie here is a noob and people are likely to understand if she doesn't get all our ten million rules right away. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

RT Watch Tumblr blog

I recently added the following to RT (TV network) (refs converted):

For much of 2015, graduate students at Columbia School of Journalism took part in the RT Watch project, monitoring RT's (US) output. Casey Michel, who worked on the project, wrote "RT ignores the inherent traits of journalism—checking sources, relaying facts, attempting honest reportage" and "you’ll find 'experts' lacking in expertise, conspiracy theories without backing, and, from time to time, outright fabrication for the sake of pushing a pro-Kremlin line".[3][4] The results were compiled in a Tumblr blog.[5]

I want a link to the Tumblr blog in there, but as has already happened, some editors are likely to remove it with the "Tumblr isn't RS" argument. While I'm pretty sure it is acceptable as is, I'm interested ideas to make it less of a point of conflict. Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd say Tumblr is at least as reliable as Twitter, so the question is whether this falls under WP:TWITTER or WP:BLOG. If this is the organization's official Tumblr blog and there is no reason to doubt its authenticity, then it is reliable for information about RT Watch, as in "On May 2, RT Watch announced a plan" but not "the report was inaccurate in five places." The gray area is whether it is reliable for quoting RT Watch's opinion about RT (which is a third party).
However, the hardcore facts here seem to be supported by other sources. It looks like you just want the readers to have access to the raw material. Would an external link to the Tumblr entry do the job? Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick response. You're correct that I primarily want to give access to the material, I realized to use it as source I'd have to be careful, and went for the briefest option I could think of. Now I don't think that experienced users will have a problem with it, but it's somewhere that certain editors will look for any issue to remove. On that thought, isn't there a rule about no external links in the prose? The Politico source links to the blog, and I considered a one citing the other arrangement? But as I type I'm thinking that is element isn't really an RSN issue so I understand if you have other stuff to do. Cheers Trappedinburnley (talk) 22:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
I meant an external link in the external links section. There are already two similar links there. Is there a reason why putting this information in the running text would improve the reader experience?
Other stuff? I wish. Long story. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
My primary concern was making the blog as easy to find as possible. My confidence that it will stick as is, has increased a little since I opened this post, so I think I'll see how it goes and keep the external link option as a plan b. Thanks for your help. Trappedinburnley (talk) 17:59, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Fabian Benko

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fabian Benko is claiming that https://www.football.com/en/guardiola-pleased-with-teen-benko/ and http://bundesligafanatic.com/one-for-the-future-bayern-munichs-fabian-benko/ are neither long enough for GNG and the second is claimed to definitely not be a reliable source. A journalism student who has editorial oversight seems to meed RS. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 19:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Bundeslinga Fanatic, this is a tough one. The main page suggests that this isn't exactly user-generated content. The editorial team selects articles contributed by others. Sam May, the writer of this particular article, is not listed on their staff page.[6] As for the editorial oversight, Wittmann's bio says that he's written for other publications, so he might fit our expert criteria, but it's not clear whether he's a professional journalist or a hobbyist. Bundesliga Fanatic doesn't appear to be cited in other publications (the way, say The Washington Post is).
I'd really like to see further investigation, but if the claim being made is very lightweight (Benko's age, countries he's already visited but NOT assessments of his performance or plans for the future), then it might be good as-is. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Solidarity (Polish trade union)

disruptive editing – IP repeatedly inserting wild (WP:Fringe) non-WP:RS claims. [7]. What to do? Zezen (talk) 22:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

This isn't a reliable source issue. For behavior, seek help at WP:AN/I. I'd give the IP's talk page a friendly message first just asking them to stop, though. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Darkfrog24, as I do not talk to numbers. Please note that it is a hopping IP. Zezen (talk) 07:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Bad Dryer excised an important clarification of statutory rape in a footnote to the lead of Ezra Nawi here. The given reason was that the source was a blog.’rmv blog. This is a BLP’

The source is:

Alex Massie The Last of Mr Norris, The Spectator.

'Most of the coverage of the case that I’ve seen has hyped the "rape" aspect of the matter and downplayed the "statutory" part. And with good reason since, oft-forgotten in the subsequent brouhaha, this was, and was accepted as such by the Israeli court, an episode of consensual sex. People may still find this an unsavoury episode but the Israeli court plainly accepted that though in a technical sense a crime had been committed there was no malice involved and no real victim. If that had not been the case one would have expected Nawi to spend more than just a month in prison. But that’s what happened.'

I can’t see why a clarification from a leading journalist, with a mainstream curriculum, writing in a highly respected weekly, on the distinction between rape and statutory rape, infringes WP:BLP. Indeed I put it in because I think introducing, as this and several other editors have, sources with headlines screaming ‘rapist’ (which he most definitely was not) was a BLP violation. A regular page hosted by a major journal for a noted journalist is not what we exclude as a blog (personal page run by anyone).

The editor in other words has no problem introducing Irish tabloid sources re a living person in Israel that blur a legal distinction, but objects to a major mainstream source written by an authoritative journalist which clarifies the distinction.

Comments from experts on both WP:BLP and WP:RS are needed.Nishidani (talk) 08:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The blog is hosted by a conservative newspaper, written by a professional journalist, and in this case contains no defamatory or controversial information about Nawi. Above all BLP is meant to protect subjects against libel and defamation, obviously not things this source is being used for. -Darouet (talk) 10:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
The is a serious misreading of the WP:BLP policy, which states " Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed " Bad Dryer (talk) 16:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
As an uninvolved party, I see merit in both arguments, and I would like to pose a question, upon which the relevant policy (quoted by Bad Dryer) hinges. Is the assertion in that footnote contentious? Specifically, is there a real debate over whether he received such a lenient sentence because the sex was consensual? If not, then I think the credentials of the author serve to establish it as an RS. If it is, then it should be removed. I wish I could say this brings the discussion down to a matter of verifying a simple fact, but that's only really the case if one can find the court documents and verify the judge's rationale in sentencing. Nonetheless, I hope this helps. Feel free to ignore me if it doesn't. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
The relevant policy is not quoted by Bad Dryer, (since indeffed). There is nothing 'contentious' about a living person in citing a verbal clarification on the term used to describe his crime/offense.Nishidani (talk) 08:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
The court ruled that the relationship was 'consensual' per several sources. The defendant, while owning up to a grave flaw, went on the record as saying he thought the boy was one year older, 16, when such relationships are permitted by the law. Nishidani (talk) 18:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Actually, Nawi admitted he knew the boy's age [8]. Also, please read the source closely, it's obvious the author is speculating. This is a blog. It's not his area of expertise. He's speculating. This should not be used in a BLP. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Actually he said that, and elsewhere said the opposite, stating he did not know the boy was under the legal age.
Agree with No More Mr Nice Guy. This is (a) writing about Norris, not about Nawi; (b) apparently a blog (though it is hosted on the site of a magazine, which often makes that under the magazine's control); (c) a highly controversial matter about a living person (even if you argue it couldn't hurt Nawi, it certainly could hurt the boy he statutorily raped); (d) as NMMNG notes, speculation, and interpretation of the court's ruling, that the journalist seems to be throwing out off-handedly, without going in depth. Possibly one of these points would be OK, but not all four. This is not a statement about whether Nawi grew up in city A or city B, or the color of his hair or eyes, this is a statement about his moral guilt in the statutory rape of a 15 year old boy. This is clearly a very big deal, and very much in the area of WP:BLP; we want to get this one right. --GRuban (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Read the article (a) Massie was writing about the Norris-Nawi affair in Ireland, dealing with both (b)'"Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control.' See also Wikipedia:Verifiability#Newspaper and magazine blogs; (c) the subject of the article is Nawi, and failure to clarify the difference between rape and statutory rape potentially harms him; the boy is 40, and his identity is unknown; (d)The passage is a comment on bias in newspaper coverage, above all, bias against both Norris and Nawi, and WP:BLP strongly insists we be careful of precisely these issues. Many Irish headlines screamed 'rape', which is one thing, and left out or consigned to small print the fact that it was statutory rape, and, per other sources, deemed by the court to be 'consensual'. You say Massie is dealing with 'moral guilt'. NMMGG in asserting: I try 'to justify a 45 year old having sex with a 15 year old, NAMBLA does indeed come to mind,' is attributing to me a kind of 'moral guilt'. You don't find, I suppose, that problematical, while you think his editing out material that clarifies a legal distinction between rape and statutory rape problematical.Nishidani (talk) 11:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
...this is a statement about his moral guilt...If there are any statements about 'moral guilt' in that article, they need to be removed right now. Commenting on an individual's morality is not WP's purview, and is a blatant violation of WP:BLP. It may also be Defamation. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
On the talk page and at AN/1 both Nawi and my morality are questioned, mine because I tried to introduce legal complexities which are present in the case, and ignored by much of the tabloid press shouting at Nawi and Norris.Nishidani (talk) 11:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
It would be useful to understand the issue of what exactly the source is being sought to be used for. If it is simply a question of clarifying that the incident was statutory rape, that is fine. From what I understand of Brad Dyer's argument on the talkpage, they stated that the other sources make clear that it was statutory rape and not rape, so this source is not needed, which seems a reasonable position to me. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
He said that, but was incorrect. He introduced this source, which states, unusually, in the headline and then in the summary that Nawi is a 'rapist'. Lower down in the body of the article, we have,

The letters to the Israeli court after Mr Nawi’s conviction for statutory rape in 1997, do not mention that the pair were former lovers.

(a) there is no clarification, but rather a use of 'statutory rape' as a synonym for the bolded header that he is a 'rapist'. In law, as in BLP articles, making the distinction, not known off-hand to many readers, clear, seems obligatory (I should add that the same source falsifies things by saying Norris did not mention to the Israeli court that they were lovers. The letter at several points makes their relationship, between two known homosexuals, with Norris openly declaring his gayness, and their reciprocal stays with each other over 15 years, obvious. The source is malicious and hostile). Having added this partisan source, with clearly inexact and erroneous content, he then
removed Massie and
argued that I made a

false claim that "The Irish Independent articles fail consistently to distinguish rape from statutory rape." - the article clearly describes "Mr Nawi’s conviction for statutory rape in 1997"

The II makes no such distinction. It mixes the terms which Massie, a journalist with strong international credentials, not a provincial, distinguishes.Nishidani (talk) 15:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
(One should add that all reportage on this aspect of Nawi's life is deeply contaminated by understatement or exaggeration, and the only source we have indicates how far more complex the whole issue was is unusable (a primary source). Nishidani (talk) 15:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Brad Dyer has been indeffed, so not much point in hashing out past stuff. Looking at the lead, I am not sure what exactly is the issue under consideration. The lead already states that it was statutory rape and that the sex was consensual, so I am unsure of what Massie is sought to be used for. As to the point about reportage, that is true, but unfortunately we are limited by the sources, so we can't really do much about it. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
The major point is not the lead at all. The query is general: I don't think that Alex Massie's credentials as a topline journalist are in doubt. There is absolutely no doubt that The Spectator is a top quality source with editorial oversight. The struggle to remove Massie (I intend to rewrite the whole Norris-Nawi section) is pinioned on this, to me, stretched objection to the fact that the noted journalist, on a highly notable magazine, published his piece in the section which is for his pieces only, defined explicitly as a 'blog'. That is what is consistently objected to, as if Wikipedia automatically excluded any 'blog' (’rmv blog. This is a BLP’)) It doesn't, as repeated clarifications on this board have shown.
Massie's point more generally is a judgement on how newspapers reported the Nawi-Norris Presidential story. I would appreciate experts therefore clarifying whether Massie, writing on his page on The Spectator, can be used for the Nawi article.Nishidani (talk) 16:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
In my opinion, it comes under WP:NEWSBLOG. Massie is Scotland editor for the Spectator. It should be treated as an opinion piece or column published in a newspaper and can be used with caution. News coverage of these kind of issues are often sensationalist and inaccurate, and a wide variety of sources should be used. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikisource-hosted content - if it's locked per the wikisource protection policy, and otherwise an acceptable source, can we use it?

There's a disagreement with respect to the usability of source material which is otherwise compliant with WP:RS, WP:NOTABLE, and our other guidelines for usable source material if it's hosted in the wikisource project. While I agree that unlocked wikisource material is like any other wiki, not stable, changeable by any editor, and not acceptable under WP:RS, what about wikisource material which has been locked per the wikisource protection policy?

I'm asking this because a template for citation of wikisource material in wikipedia articles exists, Template: Cite wikisource.

On the "Cite wikisource" template page, under Template Documentation, the template states:

  • "This template is used to cite sources in Wikipedia. It is specifically for works in the sister project Wikisource."

That template also provides the scan parameter, described in the template thus:

  • "scan: Many works hosted on Wikisource are proofread from scans also hosted by the project. This parameter will provide a link to the source scan on which the citation is based, if required. Enter the pagename of the source scan at Wikisource. This pagename should include both the namespace (Index: or Page:) and the filetype (usually .djvu). Example: |scan=Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 20.djvu/127"

I've been referred to WP:UGC, with the following exegesis of the guidelines:

  • "We cannot use any wiki as a citation link in Wikipedia articles, just like we can't use Wikipedia or indeed any MediaWiki source as a citation. The wikisource articles, whatever their original genesis, are publicly editable by anyone; therefore they are not reliable to link to as citations as there is no guarantee they accurately reflect the original at any given time."

However, those guidelines pertain to wikipedia articles "and other wikis."

The wikisource protection policy states, however:

  • " Preservation of integrity and featured texts
The vast majority of documents hosted by Wikisource are not meant to evolve or be edited, since Wikisource collects material that has been published in the past. Wikisource hosts these published documents without corrections (including any typographical errors or historical inaccuracies). Once a page has been fully proofread, no further changes are necessary and the page should be protected.
These pages should contain the template Locked."

It can be argued that this level of protection of a wikisource-hosted document is as secure as other similar sources we regard as usable for wikipedia article citations hosted elsewhere on the World Wide Web.

I'd like to stimulate discussion, preparatory to an RfC, on whether "locked" wikisource-hosted documents (as defined by the policy I just quoted) ought to be considered usable in wikipedia articles. This is a case where wikipedia's own guidelines and its internal documentation aren't consistent. loupgarous (talk) 00:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Even regular wikis have situations where they aren't publicly edited--just link to a specific diff or revision rather than linking to the article itself. Situations where we would want to use a regular wiki in this way are rare, but there's no reason we should prohibit them if they turn up. Ken Arromdee (talk) 19:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

milon.walla.co.il

Two websites, milon.walla.co.il and globalresearch.org, are being used as the sources at Targeted killings by Israel Defense Forces to explain to readers that the term Targeted killing is also referred to as targeted prevention, focused foiling and extrajudicial assassination. In restoring those alternative names and the two sources mentioned above Debresser explained, "Restore sourced information. In addition, I am not sure terms need much sourcing."

Are these websites reliable sources for these alternative terms? And is Debresser correct that these terms may not "need much sourcing?" Help would be appreciated. -Darouet (talk) 01:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

They're just being used to define the terms? That shouldn't be too big of a deal if the terms are widely used elsewhere and they're only serving as examples. However, I suspect that the core issue here is NPOV, not RS.
Does milon.walla.co.il have an English version? For now, all I can say is that per WP:NONENG not being in English doesn't automatically disqualify it. However, but you do have the right to ask that the author who's using it quote the text for you in English.
Globalresearch.org describes itself as an independent research and media organization, involved in publishing and education. It looks RS. While WP:BIASED may come into play, the page is just being used to establish the definition of a term, which is a relatively straightforward claim. One minute while I check the specific page being cited in the article. EDIT: Okay Globalresearch.org designates this specific article as a Global Research Article, which means...
The views expressed in Global Research articles are the sole responsibility of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be held responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in Global Research articles.
For this reason, I think we should evaluate this particular article under WP:USERG and WP:SPS even if other articles at Globalresearch.org are RS. The author of this specific article, Stephen Lendman, is cited as a blogger but also as a published author and he's had a radio show. His publisher, Clarity Press, does seem to have a political slant, but again that's an NPOV issue. The question is whether he is generally considered an expert. I'm looking up reviews of Lendman's book. EDIT: Okay, the only one I could find was in VNN and it's not really in-depth. Here's a better one by Dr. Ludwig Watzal I'd say this source isn't great, but it meets the bare minimum. If the Israeli conflicts weren't so contentious I wouldn't be concerned about using it. Is there any controversy about saying that "extrajudicial assassination" is another term for "targeted killing"?
Per relevance, I'd say that this specific GR.org article does support the assertion that "extrajudicial assassination" is another word for "targeted killing" (but not for the other two terms; it does not mention them) but I have to wonder if there isn't something more solid out there that could do the job just as well. EDIT: This article in The Guardian supplies a few synonyms for targeted killing. It might do. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Globalresearch.org/globalresearch.ca is not RS. The quality is really variable, from decent pieces to conspiracy theories. One must use it carefully, if at all. Countercurrents.org is not RS either for the same reason. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Miss World as a source for specific biographical information for Miss World contestants

Source: [9].   For information about the publisher, [10] identifies the publisher as "Miss World Limited (registered in Jersey under Company no. 17598) ('MWL')".

Article (deleted): Tamar Nemsitsveridze

Content supported by the source:

  1. Born:

    1986 or 1987

  2. Age, which varies over the years, and assumes that the person is alive:

    1986 or 1987 (age 36–37)

  3. Birthplace:

    Kutarsi

  4. The sentence:

    She studied at the American University for Humanities.

RSN request submitted by Unscintillating (talk) 14:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:ABOUTSELF the Miss World site is reliable for information about the Miss World pageant. Please provide a link to the Wikipedia page upon which this site is being used or proposed for use as a source. Because the information is about a living person, it must be subject to extra scrutiny. WP:BLP Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
(1) I have reviewed the issue of being self-published at WP:IRS, and I am unable to verify that Miss World falls into the category of a self-published source, anymore than nbcnews.com would be considered self-published.  A Google search on ["miss world limited" legal] shows an active legal presence.  (2) As for the link to the article, I have provided this.  For non-admins, mirrors exist.  (3) I've reviewed WP:BLP.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I've thought about it, and while I'd consider the Miss World website reliable for things like Ms. Nemsitsveridze's age and the other information given here, what was bothering me is that I'm still not convinced that she meets WP:NOTABILITY. That, however, is a separate issue. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

"electronic harassment" term coined by Roger Tolces but he is not a RS?

I am attempting to contribute to the controversial Electronic Harassment article and battling with the troubling fact that the person who coined the phrase has not been reported in mainstream media or anywhere else that I can find that would be regarded as a RS. However, there are many mainstream articles that use the term and as far as I can see they are accepting his definition of the term. The term has gone up there, but not the coiner of the term. He has popularized that term in radio interviews many on Coast to Coast AM, which I expect would not be regarded as a RS as they talk about conspiracy theories. He has been a guest 67 times since 2003. He has a website in which he has clearly defined the term in ways that do not involve a conspiracy theory. He only talks about "harassers" but does not speculate or theorize about who. It has however not been RS reviewed anywhere that I can find. His intro at Coast to Coast AM: "Biography: Roger Tolces is a Los Angeles private investigator who specializes in electronic countermeasures. In the past thirty years he has swept over 2500 locations for bugs and wiretaps. In recent years his business has included helping victims of electronic harassment and mind control. Electronic harassment takes place if someone uses any electronic device to aid them in invading your person or property for the purpose of gathering information illegally, or for the purpose of causing physical harm. Mr. Tolces uses over $100,000 of high-tech equipment to try to identify the sources of electronic harassment. Website:bugsweeps.com ." So, is there some way that I can put his definition of the term into the "electronic harassment" article? It seems the article gets a bit lost without the original definition of the term.Jed Stuart (talk) 05:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Probably not. Sorry. Collect (talk) 18:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
The term is found in print before 1981. NYT first used the term in 1994, and not in any sense related to Mr. Tolces. Collect (talk) 18:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Where in print is the term found before 1981, thanks?Jed Stuart (talk) 00:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Try this from 1984: "The potential for hostile intrusion is not merely governmental. High-tech vigilante groups or apolitical hackers may also avail themselves of opportunities for electronic harassment."[1] (This text was manually transcribed. Please review carefully.) For future questions of this type, you can use Google books and sort on date. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 00:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
There is also a 1981 book (fiction novel?) that may be more on the lines of QuWave[11] issues.

References

  1. ^ Lawrence, John Shelton (1984-11-01). The electronic scholar: a guide to academic microcomputing. Ablex Pub. Corp. p. 159. ISBN 9780893912987.

bodybuilding.com

According to link search[12] bodybuilding.com is linked to 350 times. Is it a reliable source? Are we being spammed by "an American online retailer based in Boise, Idaho, specializing in dietary supplements, sports supplements, and bodybuilding supplements"? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

At least some of these are nonproblematic. For example, it's linked in Jamie Eason because Eason is one of their spokespeople. Things are less clear on Val Puccio, however. Also, this page is used to support the assertion that Dana Brooke is a fitness competitor. The page is about someone else and does not mention Brooke.
Regardless of whether this site is reliable overall, it has been used improperly in at least these two cases. However, it's also been used for some very lightweight claims, like the fact that Candace Keene won a specific competition, though there's probably a better source available. I'd case-by-case this one. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Agree with Darkfrog24, this would have to be taken case-by-case. IMO, generally it can be used as a reliable source for uncontroversial information. Not to sound like an ambassador for the company, but Bodybuilding.com does have experts writing informative articles and a team of editors. Meatsgains (talk) 03:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Vents Magazine

I'm posting here about Vents Magazine. Offhand it does seem like it's used on Wikipedia, but I can't really verify its editorial oversight or any of the other material. The website doesn't really give off the greatest impression in places, given that they have somewhat broken html in places like "[contact_form]" that doesn't go to any contact form and stuff like this "Rafa[symposium-profile][symposium-forum][symposium-members][symposium-mail]". The site is mentioned in a few places like Under the Gun Review, but I'm not finding a huge-huge amount out there to where I'd be comfortable with this given the situation.

What I'd need to know is if these interviews could be considered usable as a reliable source to establish notability. The reason for this is that there have been issues with the article for Rita Pam Tarachi, one of the most major of which is a pretty serious lack of notability. If these are usable these would be the first in-depth sources for the article, as everything else is trivial, primary, or unreliable for various reasons. (IE, self-published sources, etc. One is a review via a website that accepts payment for "expedited" reviews and refuses to give anything less than 4 stars.)

If anyone wants to help out with the article as a whole, feel free. I'm aware that it can sometimes be difficult to find sourcing for other countries like Nigeria, but there seems to be a pretty big lack of sourcing overall at times. This one looks like it can go either way. There have been some attempts to get the article creator to help find better sources, but they don't appear to be entirely helpful in that aspect and they have tried to insist that some of the dodgy sourcing is usable, despite attempts to explain why the sourcing is problematic. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

No reason to use per [13] stating that it is not a major corporation but started ("We are a free online music and entertainment magazine born in March 24th, 2009. Created by music lover Rafael Jóvine, who wanted to create a magazine to spread the word of those bands that are so often not received by other types of magazines) in order to promote some bands, and hosted by "Wordpress". IMO, fails WP:RS. Collect (talk) 14:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

JewsNews.com

Is this considered a reliable source of news? Its seems pretty horrifically biased to me. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey there Jack. Per WP:BIASED, it is okay to use biased sources in some cases. What's it being used for? Some parts of Wikipedia, like the Israeli-Palestine conflict, are under discretionary sanctions and benefit from extra scrutiny. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I went to check out this specific site and there doesn't seem to be one. Do you mean realjewnews.com or jewsnews.newsvine.com? EDIT: Holy crud; realjewnews looks WP:FRINGE on its face. The Newsvine site looks WP:USERG, so it depends on the specific author, the specific credentials and the specific context. I can't tell more without seeing the exact page in question. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
http://www.jewsnews.co.il/? Okay, yes I see what you're talking about. Their About Us page does not list any staff credentials. The author of the first article up is not named. It just says "admin" and the staff bio is blank. On the surface, I'd say Jewsnews.co.il is not reliable. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:07, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Jewsnews.com is not a reliable source. The outlet started out as a facebook page and developed into a website with no fact checking or editorial board. Meatsgains (talk) 20:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
No way is that site reliable. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:40, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Women Write About Comics: Reliable for editorial opinions/reviews of comics, et al?

Hi. Is this source reliable as a source for this addition to the Saga (comic book) article? One of the reasons why I ask is that when I look at the site's staff page, it's 14 pages long, with 10 writers on each page. Also, when clicking on the "About" link at the top of the site's pages, one of the sublinks is "Pitch to Us".

I've also noticed, when doing a search here on WP, that that site is cited as a source in five other articles. The five passages in those articles in which it is cited are as follows. Each link directs to the passage in the Wikipedia article in question, and the type of info for which it is cited is presented as the text of the external link:

  1. Used to relate a personal incident of stalking, first citesecond cite
  2. Critic's opinion that a character is transphobic
  3. Critic's editorial reaction to a comic
  4. Factual information about a comic book's content
  5. Existence of a comic book

So is it reliable? Nightscream (talk) 14:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

This one's tricky, could go either way. I ran a search for "of Women Write about Comics" to see if any other materials cite them as an expert source. We just had a discussion about Dear Author, and my own take is that if an independently published source cites a web site as an example of something, that's not an expert endorsement, but if they rely on the site's opinion or conclusions, then it is. I'd also say that something doesn't have to be RS for the endorsement to count. If bloggers consider someone an expert, they might well be an expert.
Uncanny Magazine article "Representation Matters: Embracing Change in Comics" by Caitlin Rosberg: "As Megan Byrd of Women Write About Comics points out, people are voting with their dollars in complicated ways, demanding to see the kinds of stories they want..." Endorsement.
The Mary Sue article about playlists by Tom Speelman: "...the best comics-affiliated playlist is the soundtrack to IDW’s Transformers: More Than Meets the Eye. It adds an extra dimension to what’s already the best sci-fi comic you’re not reading (as decreed by Lindsay Ellis, Hannibal Tabu, Rachel Stevens of Women Write About Comics and, um, me)." Endorsement on lightweight topic
A person in a Latinas in Comics panel mentions being interviewed by Women Write About Comics. Endorsement from personal site.
Women Write about Comics Christa Seely interviewed by Ten Tweets Endorsement from non-RS
Toweleroad "Batgirl Creative Team Apologizes for Transphobic Villain" by Charles Pulliam Moore: "Many fans of the series interpreted Dagger Type’s outing as being transphobic ... 'Murderous or deceptive men disguising themselves as women has been a trope in fiction long before the creation of cinema, and it’s shown up too many times to list or even count,’ wrote Rachel Stevens of Women Write About Comics. 'The trope isn’t even subverted here, which is the hell of it.'" I'd call this an example.
I'd say that that particular article in WWaC is sufficient for the relatively lightweight claim that the series contains sexual, racial and aesthetic diversity. If you want to play it safe, change "is distinguished by" to "contains." I also feel pretty confident about the observation that it breaks stereotypes. I've read some of the staff bios and writer Nadya Bauman lists some relevant certifications but not a lot of publications on her LinkedIn page, so I don't know if we'd rely on her for complex literary analysis. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't know if "contains" would make the passage relevant for inclusion in the Saga article's Lead, so I changed it to "lauded for". Do you think that's acceptable? Nightscream (talk) 19:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
It sounds like it would do better in critical reception. I feel pretty good about "lauded for" but when I stop and think about it, "contains" is probably best. "Lauded for" suggests that more than one set of critics took notice. I wouldn't contest either one personally, though. There's wiggle room. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
If we merely note that it "contains" or depicts such things, I don't think it would merit inclusion in the article's Lede, where it is currently located, so I changed it to "It has also been noted for...." Nightscream (talk) 06:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft:TopSpeed.com

Hi there, I'm trying to improve Draft:TopSpeed.com to increase the number of references that are about the publication itself rather than the publication's content. I found this source that seems to hit the spot, being a third-party review of the website, but I'm not sure how reliable it is. Looking forward for any advice, thanks! WikiAlexandra (talk) 10:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

This looks like it would fall under WP:USERG, but then we do list Rotten Tomatoes ratings for movies and television episodes. I think the kicker is whether the rating site is independently notable and reputable. Has anyone in mainstream media written or talked about Bestcompany.com? Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Other than press releases and guest posts, it doesn't look like that website has been mentioned in the mainstream media. I won't use it then :) WikiAlexandra (talk) 13:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

ExxonMobil climate research publication count

Article: ExxonMobil climate change controversy

Summarization 1

Content 1

ExxonMobil researchers have published dozens of academic papers on the effects of fossil fuel emissions and the associated risks to society; ExxonMobil claims more than 50 peer reviewed papers on climate research and policy between 1980 and 2015.

Sources 1

Summarization 2

Content 2

Between 1980 and 2015, Exxon and ExxonMobil researchers and academic collaborators published more than 50 peer reviewed papers on climate research and climate policy.

Sources 2

Related diff

Attempted resolution at article talk: Talk:ExxonMobil_climate_change_controversy#February_2016_OVERCITE_issues

Additional related primary source:

Discussion

Comment: When sources conflict or may appear to conflict, include the conflict. Secondary sources are preferred to primary. Independent sources are preferred to self-published sources. Respectfully request feedback on alternative sourcing and summarizations. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Is this an RS issue or a neutral point of view issue? Try this at WP:NPOVN. Regarding reliability, those fifty academic papers are considered primary sources, so we defer to the secondary source assessment of them, especially given the conflict of interest. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment. I believe consensus at article talk supports the due weight of some kind of characterization of the magnitude of ExxonMobils' publication count, thanks. I believe this is at least in part a sourcing issue. The second alternative is sourced to ExxonMobil, directly to ExxonMobil's public relations website and indirectly through an e-mail from ExxonMobil excerpted in a secondary source. The first alternative includes The New York Times. The issue is not the content of the pubs as much as which sources are best for characterizing the count in Wikipedia. Comments please? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 19:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC) The first alternative provides in-text attribution for possible bias for the portion of the claim sourced to ExxonMobil, while the second alternative states ExxonMobil's claim in Wikipedia voice. Request comments on the alternatives, but also advice on the appropriate venue for broadening community discussion of this issue. Apologies if this is not the best venue. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 21:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't know why this discussion is here. No one on the article talk page raised a RS concern with regards to any of the sources in question as used. I'm not sure what HughD means by "consensus at the article talk supports the due weight...". All the sources seem reliable for what they are being used for. Springee (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • HughD, please notify the article talk page of this discussion.

So far, two editors support deference to secondary sources over sources with a conflict of interest. Any other comments? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Exxon publications are in part primary, and in part WP:SELFPUB. They may be used as a noncontroversial record of Exxon's own positions and public statements, but are worthless for other purposes. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
@Sfarney: Thank you for your comment. May I request a finer point on it, to clarify: The New York Times credits Exxon with "dozens" of publications; Exxon claims 50; what should Wikipedia say? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 13:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Note: the comments I've added below are relevant to this discussion. Springee (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I think everyone agrees that Exxon's list of publications can only be used as record of Exxon's statements/claims. What is unclear is how this RSN question is supposed to relate to the actual article in question or discussion on the article talk page which did not raise the question proposed here. Additionally, the participants in the related article page discussion were not notified of this RSN posting. I did post a general notice to the talk page (which should have been done by the editor who opened this question) but none of the involved editors have been contacted. Anyway, until the questions here are related to the talk page discussion I'm not sure how one can be used to drive the other. Springee (talk) 20:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Exxon's assessment of their own contribution to a publication (4 Exxon of 5 co-authors; 1 of 6, a summer intern; no Exxon co-author, but using Exxon data, etc.) is subject to judgement. The classification of a journal as "peer reviewed" has no precise definition. With these opportunities for bias, a reliable secondary source must be used rather than primary or self-published sources for a statement of the publication count in Wikipedia voice. Hugh (talk) 13:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Err on th side of accuracy. Both statements can be summed so economically, why not include both statements as you have here? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 14:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestion. Of course! Perfectly reasonable. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 23:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Allow me to offer more background here since we haven't presented the full scope what the concerns were on the talk page. First, assuming reliable sourcing, there seems no reason to change the original article text of "more than 50" to the less precise "dozens". To support the original "more than 50 the article used two sources; InsideClimate New, and Exxon themselves. Both sources agree on a published list (linked from ICN article [[14]]) of over 50 publications. Thus no controversy with regards to the reliability of the 50+ claim. HughD would like to add a third citation, the NYT article mentioned above. The problem is the NYT article doesn't actually say 50+, it only says "dozens" and unlike the ICN and Exxon sources it does not contain a list of publications. So the NYT article, while not disputing, doesn't actually support the "more than 50" statement in the WP article per WP:VERIFY. So why change to a less precise statement after the fact just to include 3rd reference for a non-contested article fact?
I would add that while Exxon would normally be considered a self published source, the Exxon claim agrees with an adversarial news source. More importantly, because we have a list of actual article names we don't need to trust Exxon's claim. We can verify them independently. Hence no one has to take Exxon at their word. As an example, if Dr John Doe says he published at least 25 papers we would treat that as a self published claim, not a proven fact. However, if Dr Doe provided a list of 25 papers and then we can verify those papers were in fact published. At that point support of the the claim is independent of Dr Doe since we can verify the claim ourselves.
Anyway, so what we have is an original article text saying "more than 50" and HughD's preferred version saying "dozens". I think all involved would say, given reliable sourcing, the original, more precise statement should be retained. The original sourcing was more than sufficient to support the claim of "more than 50". There is no reason to change the article to the less precise "dozens" simply to include a NYT reference.
Finally, since this discussion isn't about the reliability of the source but instead relates to the article, this discussion really should be conducted on the article talk page where other editors can be involved. Springee (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
"we have a list of actual article names" As clearly explained above the list is from ExxonMobil, self-published, primary, strong possibility of bias, unreliable; please see comments from your colleagues above. Hugh (talk) 20:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
"To support the original "more than 50 the article used two sources; InsideClimate New, and Exxon themselves" As clearly explained above, InsideClimate News direct quotes an e-mail from ExxonMobil with in-text attribution; the 50 number is not in ICN voice. Hugh (talk)
"adversarial news source" InsideClimate News is not an adversary of ExxonMobil. Hugh (talk) 20:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  1. Your list if reasons to think Exxon's list is fake is not convincing. ICN, a source you used heavily in the article considers it genuine. Also, the NYT is using ICN as a primary source. If the list is fake how do we know the NYT's claim of "dozens" isn't based on the same list? If the list is false then it would undermine the credibility of ICN as a source for any of the article.
  2. If the ICN source wasn't reliable then why did you add it when you added the original "more than 50" to the article?[[15]]. Note that ICN doesn't challenge the claim. I would also add it appears you later added this list. Why back track now? Why add the list of article five days later if you felt it wasn't a reliable source or Exxon might be lying? [[16]]
  3. ICN is adversarial with respect to Exxon. That doesn't mean dishonest but it does mean their intent is to expose wrong doing by the company. Why would they let a claim of 50 slide if they felt it was wrong or dishonest? Why would they republish the list if their intent wasn't to show that, yet Exxon really did do this research?
Again, why is this a RS discussion vs an article talk space discussion? Springee (talk) 21:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Exxon's own list of publications may or may not be be fake but it is certainly not a reliable source for stating the publication count in Wikipedia voice; in any case an iconic-ally reliable secondary source The New York Times with a characterization of the publication count is available to our project; forgive me for repeating myself. We are here at the reliable sources noticeboard seeking patient voices from uninvolved colleagues regarding some fundamental issues of sourcing on Wikipedia. Hugh (talk) 22:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Thus far three editors have expressed a preference for the first alternative summarization above, based on our project's preference for secondary over primary sources, and independent over self-published, and one expressed preference for the second alternative. Any other new voices? Thank you! Hugh (talk) 08:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment @Springee: I think it would be wise to attribute the statement to Exxon for a few reasons. First, the document you linked from ICN (don't know how reliable this source is) appears to be produced by Exxon / Haroon S. Kheshgi and when I open it in my browser it is titled "Haroon's CV." Second, half of the "publications" listed are not peer-reviewed scientific publications, but other documents of some kind. Third, this is a sensitive topic, and Exxon, a carbon energy giant, should be expected to have a complicated relationship with climate research. Attributing the statement is the safe, easy, and noncontroversial thing to do. I'm not sure why you would resist this so strongly. I'm also not sure why you would repeatedly declare that discussion should not be occurring on this board, since the reliability of the sources and their claim is at issue. -Darouet (talk) 00:13, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
P.S. Congrats to @Springee and HughD: the article ExxonMobil climate change controversy that you and others have been editing is fascinating to read. -Darouet (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Bones (season 11)

I was wondering if somebody could cast an eye over Bones (season 11). The article uses a number of citations from unverified Twitter accounts and discussion forums like http://disqus.com. {{cite tweet}} is used 7 times and disqus.com is used 8 times. I tried removing one of these sources but it was reverted, twice now.[17][18] One of the editors who reverted me was also involved in the addition of WP:SYNTH at List of Better Call Saul episodes[19][20] and the ensuing discussion on the talk page there, so simply removing the offending citations there will only start an edit war. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I've now tagged the unreliable discussion forum citations,[21] and tweets,[22] but would still appreciate a second (or third or fourth) opinion. I did have to remove one completely,[23] as it was not from the person who it claimed to be from, as can be seen by trying to verify the citation:

--AussieLegend (✉) 17:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, since nobody seems interested in actually looking at the article, perhaps somebody could answer a simple question: Are the following tweets acceptable sources?

--AussieLegend (✉) 05:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

If Silver and Peterson are writers for the show, and we have no cause to think that these aren't their real Twitter accounts, then I'd consider them reliable WP:SPS for what little info they contain (I'm guessing the name of the episode). Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:58, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm with you on disqus, though. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Regarding the Twitter accounts, doesn't that require an assumption though? --AussieLegend (✉) 10:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Doesn't it require what assumption? That they're really who they say they are? I suppose some reasonable investigation would be appropriate, but they're not automatically unusable. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
The problem with Twitter is that anyone can create an account and say anything. Even people involved with a "product" might say something that isn't necessarily true. For example, someone who claims to be a writer might say "I started writing the 13th episode" when the episode that they are writing is the third production code, but will air as the 15th episode. As somebody not very high on the totem pole, they probably aren't privy to the higher level decisions. {{cite tweet}} actually includes the following banner:
Verified Twitter accounts have some degree of credibility, but unverified accounts belonging to mere staff members can't really be taken as authoritative. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
You're making assumptions about several things that has no evidence to back them up. "unverified accounts belonging to mere staff members can't really be taken as authoritative" says who? "As somebody not very high on the totem pole, they probably aren't privy to the higher level decisions" how would you know that and what does that have to do with anything? They're some not assistant or someone who works for craft service, they're a writer for the series. There's nothing in WP:SPS or WP:TWITTER that says a Twitter account has to be verified, as long as it meets the requirements, which it does. There's nothing to suggest that the information being provided in anything but accurate. She posts images of script pages, on-set photos, production meetings, etc. The official Bones Twitter retweets her, she followed by Bones creator Hart Hanson, and Bones actors including Emily Deschanel, John Boyd, and Tamara Taylor–all verified accounts. Every time we've used her as a source for an upcoming episode for Bones (season 11), it has been correct, obviously. I went back and found her Tweets for episode title reveals for episodes that have already been aired, thus the information in then can be verified: episode 1 (of which includes replies by the official Bones Twitter), episode 2, episode 3, episode 5, episode 6, episode 10. Again, there is nothing to suggest the information being provided is false or not authentic, because she is proven to be reliable and correct. Please apply some common sense here. Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
They're some not assistant or someone who works for craft service, they're a writer for the series. - You're assuming that they are a writer. As WP:SPS says, Anyone can create a personal web page ... and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason ... Internet forum postings, and social media postings, are largely not acceptable as sources. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
You're ignoring every fact I stated and piece of evidence I've used. To assume she is not who is she is absurd and illogical. Again, common sense would be nice. Clearly this isn't going anywhere. Moving on... Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
@Drovethrughosts: I agree with you 100% on everything you stated here. It is next to impossible to get AussieLegend to change his viewpoint on anything, so sometimes it just isn't worth trying. Not everything on Wikipedia boils down to policy, some things just need to be handled with common sense, and it appears that AussieLegend somewhat lacks in that department. Rswallis10 (talk) 21:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Please remain civil when commenting. Comment on content, not the contributor! --AussieLegend (✉) 19:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC) --AussieLegend (✉) 19:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
@AussieLegend: Apologies... Rswallis10 (talk) 19:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

When I say that some reasonable investigation is appropriate before using a Twitter account, I mean things like whether the account is retweeted by or otherwise clearly has the confidence of something official, whether it is attributed to an expert (a writer for a show is an expert on that show), etc. I'd say Drovethrughosts has done this investigation, and my take is that the Twitter account is usable with caution per WP:SPS unless some specific reason to doubt its veracity should emerge. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24:Fair enough, I'll respect your opinion. Interestingly though, after removing the tags from the article,[24] Drovethrughosts contacted the editor who apparently added the disqus links.[25] That editor subsequently replaced the {{unreliable source}} tags with notes claiming that the citations were reliable.[26] His claims are similar to those put forward by ChaosMaster16, an editor who was indef-blocked for insisting on using pifeedback.com after this discussion. There still seems to be a strong belief in a number of editors, especially in the TV project, that unreliable sources can be used when there are no reliable sources (or it's too hard to find them). --AussieLegend (✉) 06:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Well I certainly don't agree that unreliable sources are usable if there are no reliable ones available. Per my interpretation of WP:NEWSBLOG, it is never okay to use comments left by readers as sources. But what it looks like is going on here is that the information was in the body of a reliable source that used to be available. This is covered in the WP:LINKROT essay. If the Wikieditor saw the original source with his or her own eyes and that original source was RS, then he or she may cite that original source even if it is no longer available online. This does not apply if the Wikieditor only ever saw the current Disqus link and replies.
But the content here is just ratings. Can't you guys just look this up in TVBytheNumbers or something? Even a local paper might have this information. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't think that LINKROT applies here as the content was never cited to another website. The first source was added in October 2015, sourced to disqus.[27] The whole table was removed in November because of this,[28] but was restored, along with more citations sourced to the same forum.[29] There is no way for anyone to verify that these comments were ever part of another website. All we have is a discussion forum. Your suggestion regarding TVBytheNumbers is spot on. I've already mentioned this on the editor's talk page, and the article's talk page as well. Ironically, there are citations in the article's episode list. I don't know why these aren't being used. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
If the other Wikieditor never saw the information in a reliable source, then the other Wikieditor never saw the information in a reliable source. What I'd do is contact the commenter, SonoftheBronx, and ask him where he found that ratings information, but the comment is not RS by itself. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
@Darkfrog24: Hello, I'm the "other Wikieditor" that you've been referring to. I think it's time for me to add to this discussion since it's pretty much about me. First of all in response to your most recent comment, I did see the information on TV Media Insights before the page was deleted because that is only way how I knew where to get the DISQUS URL. Second, SonoftheBronx has been providing Nielsen ratings since 2011, and has never been called into question once (see item 3 in the list below). Finally, here is a list of reasons why I think these DISQUS comments are reliable sources, I left on my talk page for AussieLegend to read:
1. DISQUS IS NOT A FORUM. I don't know how many times I can say that. It is a program that allows comments to be archived even after a page or website is deleted.
2. The data on that page comes from TV Media Insights (WHICH IS A RELIABLE SOURCE); however, that site was deleted, and therefore all of the content can no longer be found on the active web.
3. The person who runs the website (Douglas Pucci aka SONOFTHEBRONX) is a reliable source, because his data has been used on The Futon Critic [30][31] AND TV by the Numbers [32] Archived 2016-02-20 at the Wayback Machine[33] Archived 2016-02-20 at the Wayback Machine[34] Archived 2016-02-20 at the Wayback Machine, both of which you refer to as "reliable sources".
4. I personally do not like the DISQUS link either, but it is the ONLY way to retrieve the RELIABLE data. The website was deleted, and the comments are NOT archived by the Wayback Machine since they are saved on the DISQUS servers rather than the TV Media Insights servers. Since they are stored offline, they were saved when the website went down.
5. There is no other "better" source to use, which is why I am using the DISQUS links. Bones is a show that doesn't always make the TVBTN Live+7 Top 25 lists, so when it doesnt, I use the data from Douglas Pucci to fill in the chart. If you looked at the Live+7 data from TVBTN, you would see that the data isn't always there.
6. Also, this one last thing should really help my case. You said that there is no way to tell if the data was ever ACTUALLY on the TV Media Insights page. I completely forgot that when Google Caches the pages, it does archive the comments. Here [35] is a link to a cached page from TVMI that has the comments in the bottom (this is from a season 10 rating). This proves that the comments were originally from the page and not "posted on a discussion forum". You too "can see with your own eyes" that the comments are there.
I hope this give you all the assurances you need about the validity and reliability of the data. If there was a better source to use, you'd better bet I would use that one instead, but there just isn't any other source. Rswallis10 (talk) 18:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Did you originally see this information in an article or in a comment/reply?
5. I can see why it's desirable to have the whole chart match, but if there's no reliable source for a piece of information, then it shouldn't be included, even if that leaves the article lopsided.
1. Yes, it's true that DISQUS is not a forum. But regardless of whether DISQUS articles are RS, replies and comments made to those articles by readers are not.
2. If you read this information in an article in TV Media Insights, then write up a ref tag citing that article. (I'd say that their contributor Marc Berman, for example, is a good source [36].) However, if you only saw this information in a comment/reply to that article, that's another matter.
3. Douglas Pucci looks like he meets WP:SPS expert criteria.
4. Sources do not have to have up-to-date links to be usable and valid, per WP:SOURCEACCESS. Adding a convenience link to DISQUS could be acceptable, but it looks like citing it as the sole reference has led people to believe that it was the sole reference. It sounds like you're saying that's not the case.
It looks like the core question is one of these two things, "Is an article written by known expert Douglas Pucci acceptable as a source even after that article is no longer available online?" I say yes it is. However, "Is a reply or comment written by known expert Douglas Pucci a reliable source?" is a much grayer area, possibly worth an RfC. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
At this point I'd welcome an RfC, as Rswallis10 seems more interested in simply removing the tags in the article,[37] rather than determining whether the comments are acceptable. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
@AussieLegend: When we are going for a consensus, isn't the protocal to return the page to the way it was BEFORE the problem started?? I think yes. You added the maintenance tags which caused this discussion, so if we are going to have an RfC, then we should return the page to the way it was before correct? Rswallis10 (talk) 20:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
If we were talking about content changes this might apply, but we're talking about verifiability and the appropriateness of sources. The addition of maintenance tags to highlight problems in an article is appropriate. You should be aware of this from your attempts to remove maintenance tags from List of Better Call Saul episodes, and Geraldo Perez had to revert your persistent removal of tags there.[38][39] --AussieLegend (✉) 19:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
@Darkfrog24: first of all, I appreciate you being reasonable about this, and trying to have a discussion. Second, to answer your question, YES I did originally see this information in a comment/reply on the article. Douglas Pucci said that he was going to stop adding L+7 tables in his articles. but we were welcome to request them in the comments, and he would answer them. There are many cases on Wikipedia where ratings are found in the comments section of a webpage. Most notably, in Summer 2009, TVBTN only provided the Top 20 shows in their articles, but the authors of the site (Robert Seidman and Bill Gorman) responded to requests in the comments. I think that as long as the information is coming from a reliable source (which we agree that Douglas Pucci is), the medium through which the information is coming from becomes irrelevant. Why is a number provided by Mr. Pucci on his website more reliable than that same number provided as a comment, or as a tweet? I think common sense would tell us that all 3 are reliable because it is essentially the same source (Mr. Pucci). The link to DISQUS is a convenience link as you said; you click the link, and it takes you right to where the rating is. However, if AussieLegend is as vehemently against DISQUS as he says he is, then I'll be perfectly fine linking it to the page that doesnt exist anymore (but really what would be the point of that?). I really think logic needs to prevail here, but based on my previous run-ins with AussieLegend, it will be his way or the highway. Rswallis10 (talk) 20:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't mean linking to the deadlink article. I mean writing out the ref for that article. Name the author and the title and the publisher and the date and all that. Use the "quote" option. Leave a hidden note explaining that SonoftheBronx is established expert Douglas Pucci. Make it very clear that the information did not come DISQUS initially and the link is only provided for convenience. The rules do not require you to use the long-form citation format every time, but if you had done so, it might have been obvious to AussieLegend and others that this was a reliable (or at least arguably reliable) source. Frankly, if I clicked the link and saw nothing but a comment by "SonoftheBronx," I'd delete it too.
As to whether the information should go out or stay in while the RfC is in progress, I could see this going either way. With the season not set to restart for a while yet, it's not heavily time-sensitive but neither do the facts seem to be in doubt. Either one of you could be gracious and defer to the other's preferences for the week or so that it would take to resolve this. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
@Darkfrog24: If you look at the references on the article that I wrote, all of them actually site the original article. The author says Douglas Pucci, the publisher says TV Media Insights, and I even included the date of the original article publication, rather than the date of the comment. The URL is to the disqus comment page, but everything else in the references relates to the original article itself. I personally don't like the way the table looks right now with the maintenance tags (and any readers who visit the page will not like them either), but AussieLegend needs to get his way, so I will allow them to stay until the RfC is done. Thank you for your input. Rswallis10 (talk) 21:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
So you did. I had your diff confused with someone else's. Sorry about that. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
"SonoftheBronx has been providing Nielsen ratings since 2011, and has never been called into question once" - That's not correct. SonoftheBronx has been discussed many times here.[40][41] It is also listed at WP:TVFAQ#No consensus on reliability as not having achieved consensus as to reliability. Relevant discussions are here, here, here and here. The Son of the Bronx website was apparently closed because of copyright violations, which itself raises alarm bells.[42] Apparently he was posting raw Nielsen data, which other sites also have access to.
"that site was deleted, and therefore all of the content can no longer be found on the active web." - Let's get some perspective here. The episodes being cited are from October and November 2015 over a 7 week period. That's only 2-4 months ago and the citations were added at that time, with the site apparently dead as soon as episodes aired. It's not like we're talking ratings for a program that aired in the 1970s. Ratings are clearly available on other sites. The figures for episode 9, which aired in December 2015, are cited to Tv By the Numbers. That being the case, there is no reason that the comments section of a dead site should be used just because it's the preference of a single editor.
"Bones is a show that doesn't always make the TVBTN Live+7 Top 25 lists, so when it doesnt, I use the data from Douglas Pucci to fill in the chart." - If Bones doesn't always make the lists then do we really gain anything by having this information? For quite some time now, ratings tables have been problematic. Unnecessary pretty colours, multiple MOS violations (MOS:ACCESS/MOS:DTT, MOS:HASH, MOS:CAPS, MOS:BOLD are common problems), redundant HTML code, overcomplicated code and ridiculous formatting are just a few of the issues. For that reason, {{Television episode ratings}} was created to standardise ratings tables, and the information being added to the article exceeds what {{Television episode ratings}} includes. Ratings have been discussed on numerous occasions, including when we added a section on series overview tables to the MOS (see this discussion).
The citations added by Rswallis10 are, at the very best, confusing. They cite Douglas Pucci as the author, but he isn't mentioned anywhere in the source. They cite "TV Media Insights" in the |work= field, but the citations link to disqus, which is just forum type posts. Any reader without intricate knowledge is only going to see these as discussion forum posts, especially when the url includes the word "discussion". Even assuming that somebody can work out that the author is SonOfTheBronx, looking at the SonOfTheBronx disqus page provides no indication that Douglas Pucci = SonOfTheBronx. Following a link to "Programming Insider" from that page sends you to https://disqus.com/home/forum/programminginsider, which is clearly a discussion forum on disqus. Despite protestations to the contrary, these are all forums meant for discussions. "Disqus" is not a misspelling of "discus", it's a play on "discuss". The homepage includes the explanations "Great discussions are happening here" and "Disqus offers publishers the best tools in the universe to power discussions". Let's get rid of this silly notion that these "comments" sections are not discussion forums, when they clearly are. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
@AussieLegend: "Let's get rid of this silly notion that these "comments" sections are not discussion forums, when they clearly are." <- Pardon my French, but that's bulls**t. Please pick any "discussion" from a Programming Insider or TV Media Insights page and find me an actual discussion. Sure, there are some sites that use DISQUS for discussions, but that is NOT the purpose of them on by these 2 sites. The DISQUS is a COMMENT SECTION, not a FORUM. Are things discussed in the comment section? Sure they are, that's the point of them, but IT IS NOT A FORUM. There is no grandiose topic that everything is talking about or adding advice about, it is simply a place for people to request Nielsen data from a reliable expert. SonOfTheBronx is NOT a reader, he is the person who writes the articles and has access to Nielsen data that most every people don't have. It's quite a simple fact that NOT EVERYTHING can make it into an article, so for the things that don't make the article, they are requested in the COMMENTS. In this case, DISQUS does NOT serve as a discussion forum, but rather an extension of he article itself and therefore reliable. @Darkfrog24: do you agree with that? Rswallis10 (talk) 17:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
If somebody posts something and somebody replies to it, as happens in the "comments" section, that's a discussion. It doesn't matter whether you call it a "comments" section, it's still a discussion forum. Regardless, these are exactly the sort of comments that WP:SPS is aimed at when it says "Internet forum posts". --AussieLegend (✉) 18:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
@AussieLegend: I actually don't think that WP:SPS applies here at all. Simple fact: SonOfTheBronx writes the articles on ProgrammingInsider.com which is published by Marc Berman (a known Television expert). While SonOfTheBronx.com may be a self published source, Programming Insider obviously isn't, and that's what we're currently discussing. Rswallis10 (talk) 19:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
WP:SPS applies everywhere. Wikipedia:Verifiability is a core policy and can't be ignored. The citations you included are not on "Programming Insider". They are sourced to disqus.com with no verifiable evidence that they came from anywhere else. The comments are allegedly from SonofTheBronx, not Marc Berman, and there is no consensus as to SonofTheBronx's acceptability as a source, as has already been discussed. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I checked the links to old RSN discussions and they do not seem conclusive. The WikiProject Television archive similarly closed with no consensus either way. That doesn't mean that SotB is reliable but it doesn't mean he isn't either. I'd say an RfC specifically about Son of the Bronx might be appropriate.
As for whether there's any value in these ratings figures, yes, I'd say that if the other figures are notable then these are too. It's acceptable for a chart to be lopsided but it's best for it not to be. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
The outcome of the previous discussions is why SoTB is listed in the "No consensus on reliability" section of WP:TVFAQ. However, the fact that SoTB website was closed because of copyright concerns is something we should be at least a little bit concerned about. Are the SoTB posts LINKVIOs? I don't know, and we do still use ratings figures from SoTB. I agree regarding the RfC. My question regarding the value of the ratings figures was probably a little bit ambiguous. Perhaps I should have asked, are the figures important enough that we are willing to accept using forum comments as a source, when forum comments are not reliable sources? --AussieLegend (✉) 05:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
@AussieLegend: @Darkfrog24: What exactly are we trying to do here? How many RfC's do we need? Darkfrog24 has been very good at reading both sides of the story, and coming to the conclusion that we need an RfC on whether or not "comments/reply's from a reliable source are considered reliable" which is pretty much what your problem was origninally. Now, it looks like your problem is with THE WORLD itself. You want an RfC for the reliability of SonOfTheBronx, and one for the importance of a ratings table, etc. Second, It is pretty obvious to me that SonOfTheBronx is a reliable source, and even Darkfrog24 agrees that it's evident. AussieLegend please tell me what makes you so untrustworthy of people? First, you assume that the Twitter account of the Bones people are "fake" even though they are followed by members of the cast (all verified), and the show itself (verified), and now you assume that SonOfTheBronx isn't reliable because his site was shut down? Nielsen did not have his site shut down, it was blogger. He said that the pages were removed "Despite numerous references to sources of ratings information (included in every single blog post)," so I don't think that bogus copyright infringement should still not make SonOfTheBronx a relible source. Here is SonOfTheBronx's thoughts on this nonsense: [43] its a good read. Third, yes we could leave most of the ratings table blank, BUT WHAT WOULD BE THE POINT OF THAT? If we have a reliable source for the information (SOTB), then WHY WOULD WE LEAVE IT BLANK? That thinking just doesn't make any sense to me at all. Common sense REALLY, REALLY, REALLY needs to prevail here, and I truly hope that it does. There is only so much "policy quoting" that you can do (Seems to Aussie's favorite thing) before we just need to step back and look at this logically. Rswallis10 (talk) 14:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

A few things: 1) Neither I nor anyone else at this noticeboard gets to decide this issue. It's not binding arbitration. We're just adding our voices because at least one of you thought more voices were needed. 2) My own take is that if SonoftheBronx has been concretely identified as Douglas Pucci, and if Pucci is reliable then comments that he leaves in response to readers in articles that he wrote can sometimes be used if they're straightforward. This seems to be one of those times. 3) The issue is whether Pucci is reliable. So the question is this: Did those previous RfCs deal with Pucci specifically? Was there anything wrong or missing?

The other question: Is there anywhere else we could get this information that would not involve all this controversy? I think that discussing sources on RSN is a perfectly valid way to spend one's time and energy—if it doesn't produce results for this content then everyone involved gets more familiar with the policies for next time—but would reinvesting any of it in further searching be more helpful?

Hang on... Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

  • We do not 'need an RfC on whether or not "comments/reply's from a reliable source are considered reliable"'. That's a confusion of a reputable author (i.e. an expert, a professional journalist working for a serious publication, etc.) and a reliable source. A reliable source is a book, article, etc. by a reputable author, from a reputable publisher. Not all output from a reputable author is from a reputable publisher, so it's not all reliable (otherwise every single person who ever got an article or a book published would be auto-reliable for everything, all the time). Not even every reliable source, in one context, from such an author and publisher is a reliable source in other contexts. An article by Stan Lee on the history of American comics, published in a professionally edited anthology on comics, from something other than a self-publishing house, is probably a reliable source (aside from Marvel Comics biases) on American comics, but it would not be one for physics information Lee mentioned in it, like why it might actually be plausible for a superhero to fly. We might treat a blog self-published by Lee as a low-quality primary source we could use with caution for certain things, with proper direct attribution. But if he just tweets something or posts a comment on someone else's blog, that's not a reliable source for much of anything, even if he can be positively identified as the real post, except the simple facts that Lee seems to have posted there, and what it is he seems to have posted. It would be shaky to even use it directly quoted to attribute an opinion to him, and we certainly can't use it for WP:AEIS material of any kind. I agree with comments above that if the information in the case at hand – these statistics – are real, they must be obtainable from something other than random passers-by on random blogs. Just because some consider SonOfTheBronx to be a more-or-less reputable blogger in a certain narrow set of topics does not mean that every off-the-cuff comment they make reflects even the unexamined diligence level we hope is applied to their blog-journalism.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: Some clarifications on this. First, SonOfTheBronx is not just a more-or-less reputable blogger, so can you please do your research before you come here and say stuff like that? He writes for ProgrammingInsider.com, which is not just some "blog," it is a top tier entertainment website. Second, I understand your example about Stan Lee, but I'm not sure that applies here. SonOfTheBronx's comments are not subjective opinions, they are objective ratings coming from Nielsen. He is not expressing an expert opinion, or explaining anything, he is simply stating objective facts in a comment. Rswallis10 (talk) 04:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
This is totally irrelevant, and you missed the point, despite also having it explained to you on you talk page in more detail. It doesn't matter if this person were the #1 foremost authority on entertainment news and trivia in the entire world, their passerby-comments on someone else's blog are not a reliable source, because a RS requires a reputable publisher. J. Schmoe and their blog are not a reputable publisher of Super-mega Expert's comment. Even if they were posted at a competing newsblog, not a J. Schmoe blog. The reason is obvious: Reader's letters to the editor are not reliable sources, even when the come from a newspaper, which does typically exert a degree of editorial control over them (e.g. censoring profanity, and redacting asides, for length), and total editorial control about whether they see print in the first place. If a letter to the editor in The Times or The New York Times, including from a purported expert, is not am RS, it is not even remotely possible that a comment on a blog is an RS. That's enough to just stop and move on.

I'll address the other points because they seem to need it, to improve your approach to these matters, even if this particular case doesn't require these notes. As for even SonOfTheBronx's own blog material at ProgrammingInsider.com: Unless his work on those posts is subject to the same level of editorial control as articles at a newspaper, it's a low-quality primary source that must be used "with caution" if at all, as a matter of policy. It doesn't matter how popular and well-regarded the site is. Thirdly, if SonOfTheBronx's comments about the Nielsen ratings cannot be verified with an RS, they are in fact simply that commenter's opinion. Anyone can say "according to The Huffington Post's "Intelligence Community" section and The New York Times' "U.S. Intelligence Community News section", the NSA and MI-6 have confirmed space aliens have spies in almost every country" (a claim with two secondary and two primary sources of high reliability); if we can find no such news articles or agency/ministry press releases, it's just Internet noise we cannot cite as a source (exception: if the claim itself were notable, e.g. for causing an Orson Welles, War of the Worlds-style panic, then it could be cited as a primary source for its own wording, date, and by-line). If SonOfTheBronx's Nielsen Ratings source is real, we should be able to find that (these ratings are published), and cite it. There is no need to ever even try to cite that blog comment, either way. Please do your homework about policy before telling others to do theirs about some website. Our policies are written to address general classes of circumstance, so that we don't have agonize over particular cases as if there's no precedent for how to handle them. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:35, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Accuracy of SonoftheBronx figures

Sorry. I should have thought of this days ago. I searched for Bones ratings and found this TVseriesfinale.com and then I found this by searching for "Bones" and "6.197" tvratings.telekomanda.com tviv.org. These sources do not meet our expert criteria, but the information that they contain contradicts what we see in the DISQUS comment. Searches for "Bones" and "8.618" to corroborate SonoftheBronx's figures produced only forums. Regardless of whether Pucci is reliable in general, and even experts can make mistakes, the accuracy of this specific content is now in question. Determining whether or not he has expert status is not just a formality. I'd say "don't use." Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:10, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24: Hi, can I clarify a couple things? The issue on the Bones article is with DVR ratings table, not the Live+SD ratings that appear in the episode table. The 6.197 refers to the number of L+SD (people who watched it on the night it aired), and that number can be found on other reliable sources including TV Media Insights (SonOfTheBronx himself reported it) [44], ShowBuzzDaily [45] Archived 2015-10-02 at the Wayback Machine, and even TVBTN (but it was rounded) [46] Archived 2015-10-04 at the Wayback Machine. No one is questioning the validity of the 6.197 figure, as that can be found in many places, the thing being questioned is the number of people who watched the show on their DVR's (which is referred to as Live +7 ratings). The show had 2.42M DVR viewers in its first week (for a total of 8.62M, because 6.20M (Live) + 2.42M (DVR) = 8.62M) according to SonOfTheBronx here: [47]. As you can see from the TVBTN L+7 chart from that week [48] Archived 2015-10-20 at the Wayback Machine, Bones is nowhere to be found (which is why it was requested).
Now that I hope I've shown that Douglas Pucci is reliable, let me bring up the TV Series Finale issue. Ironically, TV Series Finale also requests data from SonOfTheBronx, as you can see in the following links: [49], [50], [51], [52], and here [53]; there's more, but I think that more than proves my point. Rswallis10 (talk) 00:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Okay, so the figures differ because they're not talking about the same thing. Got it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
@Darkfrog24:. One more thing: I found 2 TVBTN articles that actually have 'Bones' in it. I'm going to link the TVBTN article, and the SonOfTheBronx reply, so you can do a side-by-side comparison of the data. You will see that both sources say the exact same thing. My point is that if SOTB's data matches the TVBTN data (for the 2 weeks that I have it), can't we use common sense to say that all of the SonOfTheBronx data is correct as well (even if it isn't on TVBTN for that week)???
Example 1. October 29 Episode: TVBTN [54] Archived 2015-11-17 at WebCite. SonOfTheBronx [55]
Example 2. December 10 Episode: TVBTN [56] Archived 2015-12-31 at WebCite, SonOfTheBronx [57]
My thought is that, even though TVBTN doesn't have all of the Bones data, if the data it has DOES MATCH the data SonOfTheBronx provided for those 2 days, isn't logical to conclude that the rest of the data SOTB provided is also correct? Rswallis10 (talk) 00:54, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
My concerns about accuracy have been assuaged. I can see why the previous discussion couldn't form consensus on this source. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
@Darkfrog24: So do you believe that these DISQUS comments are okay to use as citations on the page? That's pretty much what this whole discussion boils down to. Also, when you say "I can see why the previous discussion couldn't form consensus on this source" what exactly do you mean? Like in regards to the complexity of the issue, or something else? Again, I thank you for taking an active role in this discussion. Rswallis10 (talk) 03:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I think you need more than I can do for you. AussieLegend has agreed to do an RfC. If you guys have trouble agreeing on a neutral wording, I can review a draft. My belief is that the issue is whether Pucci is a reliable expert source per WP:SPS, not whether comments he makes in the articles he writes should be rejected because they are comments; they should not. However, if that is in dispute, it should also be addressed. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
@Darkfrog24: I know what an RfC is; however, I have never done one before. I'm ready to do one whenever @AussieLegend: wants to, but where is the proper place to put it, and how do we get more editors involved? I know you've reached your limit on what more you can do here, but some guidance on this process would be greatly appreciated. And yes, I think both of these issues need to be addressed in the RfC because AussieLegend seems have a problem with both aspects. Rswallis10 (talk) 03:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
The RfC should be run at the Bones season 11 talk page. It should be phrased clearly and neutrally. The instructions are at WP:RFC. You are allowed to tell people that the RfC is in progress and to encourage them to participate. The instructions are at WP:CANVASS. A notice should probably be placed on Wikiproject: Television. The trick to a successful RfC is to phrase the issue at hand very clearly. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

List of ministers of the Universal Life Church

uses sources directly linked to the ULC and published by the ULC.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/12/fashion/weddings/12FIELD.html?_r=0 specifically states the famous people are claimed by the ULC, not they are ministers as a statement of fact

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/12/fashion/weddings/12FIELD.html?_r=0 has Glenn Beck making an apparent joke about the ULC - as he is a LDS member, I think this must be interpreted in a manner other than as seriously being connected to the ULC

"The Modesto messiah: The famous mail-order minister" published by the ULC is used as a source for famous persons being members and ministers. In the case at hand, is this SPS a reliable source for claims about membership and ordinations?

http://www.presstelegram.com/20131009/how-we-totally-screwed-up-a-marriage-with-a-wee-error mentions the ULC claims - then notes the ministership was not valid for the writer (anecdote)

http://thedevilanddanvojir.blogspot.ca/2009_07_02_archive.html is a blog - which also attributes the "famous names" to the ... ULC

And on and on and on. (like "bustle.com" etc.)

Labeling any person as having a specific "religion" is problematic in itself, but using any SPS to label a person as an "ordained minister" of that religion should be at least as problematic. The question is -- are there any actual "reliable sources" in that entire "list" that the famous people are or were "ordained ministers" in that church? Many thanks. Collect (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Can you list the articles or (preferably) add the difs showing where these sources were used? Is it BLP infoboxes? Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:09, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
The sources above are used as cites in the list. The list article includes over eighty persons - including Madalyn Murray O'Hair, Doris Day, James Stewart, Ringo Starr, and Mae West. All of whom are only mentioned in ... sources published by the ULC, and where there are zero outside references (there are about five who "performed marriages" but it is likely that the "ordination" had no effect on the paperwork at all). In many cases, the person self-identified with a church other than the ULC, so it is possible that the ULC manufactured some of the "ordinations" and possible that pranksters obtained "ordinations" in the names of famous persons. The ULC did not require any actual identification in order to for a person to be "ordained." Any editor could get "Jimbo Wales" placed onto the list for a few dollars <g>. And yes - there were a few living persons on the "list". Thanks. Collect (talk) 19:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
The second two look like blogs on the surface, and the Press Telegram site just mentions the matter in passing. That would usually be enough for me, but if the accuracy of the content is in dispute, I'd say something more solid is needed. As for the NY Times articles, they're reliable, but it sounds like you're saying that they don't flat-out say "so-and-so is a ULC minister"; they say something a little to the side like "ULC says that so-and-so is a minister." That's not an RS issue. It's a "how much editorializing is appropriate?" issue. My take on that is, when in doubt, just quote the source directly and let the readers make their own interpretation. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Where the source is self-published by the ULC, and no one states that they got the information about any famous people other than from that organization, and the categorization of anyone by religion is required to be strongly sourced, the sourced used are not "reliable sources" for the purposes to which they are being used. And since this is a "list" article, there is no text in the list wherein to make clear that the source is the organization itself <g>. Collect (talk) 18:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
EDIT: The Press Telegram source is an editorial, not a blog, so it's covered by WP:PRIMARY. I'd say that since the matter is in doubt and requires high standards, the information should be supported by something more direct. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Should be taken to WP:AFD on WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE grounds. There are millions of ULC ministers; I am one myself, and I know dozens of others. There is no barrier to entry, of any kind whatsoever. You simply ask to be ordained and you get ordained. So, this is exactly the same as having an article called "People with blue pants" or "Fans of Star Trek", or "Individuals who don't like curry".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Jerusalem: A City and Its Future Western Wall#Jewish

At the Western Wall#Jewish section there is a quote attributed to Shlomo Goren (Chief Rabbi of the IDF, Chief Rabbi of Israel, so not a light weight as far as being a scholar, etc.) He wrote that the tradition to pray at the Western Wall is only about 300 years old. [1]

The problem is that this is factually incorrect. See the very same article: Western_Wall#Prayer_at_the_Wall and some highlights:

  1. The Scroll of Ahimaaz, a historical document written in 1050 CE, distinctly describes the Western Wall as a place of prayer for the Jews.[2]
  2. In around 1167 CE during the late Crusader Period, Benjamin of Tudela wrote that "In front of this place is the Western Wall, which is one of the walls of the Holy of Holies. This is called the Gate of Mercy, and hither come all the Jews to pray before the Wall in the open court".[3]
  3. In 1334, Jewish traveller Isaac Chelo wrote: "It is this Western Wall which stands before the temple of Omar ibn al Khattab, and which is called the Gate of Mercy. The Jews resort thither to say their prayers, as Rabbi Benjamin has already related. Today, this wall is one of the seven wonders of the Holy City."[4]

So, do we keep the Goren quote and just mark it with something? Do we not include the quote? It is a notable quote because Goren is notable but it is not factual and it also not a reliable source since it clearly goes against the factual evidence. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Look up Gate of Mercy the above sources site, which is on the east side, not on the Westerhn side. Whether it is factual or not is not for us to judge, unless we can bring to bear sources, not by WP:OR as you did, but sources that detail this continuity. The problem is the notion of exclusivity implied by the Western Wall. The Jews prayed around the Temple Mount, at various locations, and not just at the Western Wall. Their praying on the Mount of Olives rather than there is much better attested. There are extremely meager sources on the period 0 CE to 1,500 C E. You haven't even noted that one of them you cite from the page, Isaac Chelo is a forgery, that should have been removed long ago. Nishidani (talk) 19:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
How is my bringing sources OR? Even if you utilize your POV and disregard Chelo, there are other sources. You may wish to have it that Jews didn't pray at the Western Wall until recently but the facts are that they did pray there since it was clearly the only wall left standing, unless of course you claim there was no Jewish temple either? Are you also claiming Benjamin of Tudela is a forgery? Are all other sources a forgery? Is every other source but Goren a forgery? Since the destruction of the Temple, the Western Wall has been the last remaining remnant of the Temple and as such that is where Jews gathered to pray, as the sources all state, your obvious POV bias notwithstanding. If you looked at the sources you will see why the Western Wall was used more often than other sources, since it was the last remnant of the Temple. The other sites were just around Jerusalem. Furthermore, the Gate of Mercy was inaccessible. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
"Reliable" != "infallible." One might easily surmise that the specific tradition may be only 300 years old, although the wall and other locations were places where Jews prayed in the past. Ascribe the statement to the person making it. Collect (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
But that is not true, Nishidani is using Goren to say that Jews have started to pray at the Wall only in the past 300 years. That is factually incorrect. The sources I showed above and in the section in the main article show that Jews have been praying at the wall ever since the destruction of the Temple. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
If they said in the article, Jews have only been praying at the west wall 300 years and then used this source then I would see an issue but that's not the case. Here hey are attributing Goron for the statement. The question that we can really answer here is if this source is reliable to show that these are the words of Goron.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
And that's a valid question, I don't know if Goren said it. The book said Goren said it. At this point it's dubious, the Talmud says Jews pray by the Wall because that is now the closest spot to the Temple (that is in the article), certainly the Talmud is a better source than Goren. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
The talmud is not a reliable source to dispute Whether Goren said this or not. It long predates him. This source is either reliable or it's not, to say that Goren said this. The section this is presented in is the views section. Reviewing the source, can it be held as reliable that Goren said this? -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
I brought the Talmud because it obviously predates him and that and the obvious long history of the Jews praying at the Western Wall and the fact that it's the only remaining link to the Temple makes it dubious that he said that Jews have only been praying at the Wall for 300 years. Reading that quote on Wikipedia was the first time I have ever heard that idea, not that I am a RS. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree. Original copies of the Talmud predate Goren by a thousand years. Though the Talmud would not be a reliable source to state that WW prayers were offered in 400 AD, it is a powerful argument against the Goren (alleged) statement that WW prayer was invented only 300 years ago. And given the assertion in the Talmud, it is hard to credit that Rabbi Goren contradicted it. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, if the Talmud does mention Jews praying at the wall, then the claim that they have only been doing it for 300 years would be dubious even though the Talmud wouldn't seem to be a RS. However the article doesn't say that Jews have only been praying at the wall for 300 years. It said Goren has said that Jews had only been praying at the wall that long.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
A rabbi contradicting the Talmud? Are we out of the frying pan and into the cholent, then? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 22:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
So, he's a rabbi and as a rabbi he could certainly never contradict the Talmud? And you reasonable expect that to be accepted as a reason for why this source in not reliable? That would be like me suggesting priests can't molest little alter boys because they are priests. And it certainly nothing to consider in whether this source is reliable or not.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
As mentioned above, it is not just a matter of being "contradicted." As a rabbi, he could be expected to know the statement is in the Talmud and that the statement would gainsay him (prove him a liar), as argued above. Not only the Talmud, but common tradition argues against him: "During the 1,900-year exile, Jews would travel to Jerusalem at great expense and danger, just to have the chance to pray at the Wall. In the face of disease, lack of water, and marauding bandits, the Jews refused to abandon Jerusalem. Barred by law or wiped out by Crusaders, the Jews always returned."[58] He would need strong scholarly evidence to contradict it -- and none is presented. It seems to be a casual comment with no historical backing. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Whether or not rabbis contradict the Talmud is irrelevant, in this case the Talmud says we pray to the Wall because that's the last remnant of the Temple. It's a factual statement. It's not a question of what ruling and then we have a disagreement. As for rabbis disagreeing, no, if there is no factual disagreeing in the Talmud, you won't have rabbis disagreeing and certainly not a 20th Century one there are rules for that. And allow me to correct myself, it's not actually in the Talmud, it predates it, it's in the Mishna which is even earlier and it is undisputed, there is no Talmud on that tractate. "According to the Mishna, of all the four walls of the Temple Mount, the Western Wall was the closest to the Holy of Holies,[123] and therefore that to pray by the Wall is particularly beneficial."[5] After all that, I have to say it's really dubious if he said it. Like I said before I've never heard this 300 year business before. The Wall was THE place to pray. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Mebbe it was a typo -- they left out a "0". Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
The source looks very much to be both a reliable source and a scholarly source. From the book editors to the writer of the listed essay (Amnon Ramon). No persuasive argument has been made as to why this would not be a reliable source for Goren's position. However, I notice that the wikipedia article lacks any context. While it's certain Goren did say this, the article gives no actual context. What is the context? That the Western Wall was a replacement for the Temple mount. Really here the problem is all contextual. Read the source. [59] Page 300-301 at least. This section in article should be expanded to include more of this source so the context of Goren's statement is clear.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:30, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
This complaint started off the wrong foot, is flawed from the outset, and thus is meaningless, because the complaint is ill-formulated, and based on a false preconception drawn from wiki, not from reliable sources.
(1)Kotel org. is not a reliable source
(2)’ Original copies of the Talmud predate Goren by a thousand years.' Nope. The oldest manuscript of the Jerusalem Talmud dates to 1289 (Leiden Jerusalem Talmud). The Munich Talmud which is the complete compendium dates to 1342.
(3) ‘the Western Wall has been the last remaining remnant of the Temple’ Wrong. It was built centuries after the Temple.
The evidence given to challenge the view of an authoritative rabbi deeply prepossessed by the idea that the Temple Mount should be made over to Israel, not just a piece of wall, all comes from a dubious set of edits in Wikipedia that try to substantiate an idea that has yet to find strong textual confirmation.
  • (a) We use it to document the mention of the WW in the Scroll of Ahimaaz. If you want a source for that point you use aan authority like Moshe Gil, in Joshua Prawer, Haggai Ben-Shammai (eds.), The History of Jerusalem: The Early Muslim Period (638-1099), NYU Press, 1996 p.176 which however refers to the purchase of oil in a subterranean synagogue adjacent to the Western Wall, which he locates in the (what Moslems call) Masjid al-Buraq.
  • (b) Benjamin of Tudela wrote that

"In front of this place is the Western Wall, which is one of the walls of the Holy of Holies. This is called the Gate of Mercy.

As noted by User:Zero0000 and myself, this is confusing, since Benjamin of Tudela associates the Gate of Mercy which is on the other side (eastern side) of the Temple Mount, with the Western Wall, when they are diametrically opposed.

So Sir Joseph is citing wikipedia’s bad content, with 3 sources that do not sustain the contention, being references to a synagogue near the WW, or to a confusion of the Western Wall with the Eastern Wall site, or a forgery. This is done to challenge a reference by an authority on the wall, Shlomo Goren, in an eminently good secondary source. Jews prayed all round Jerusalem, and the Temple Mount and its recent sanctification as the only site for a millenial observance is just POV pushing to suit a post-1967 political agenda, which retroactively strives to justify its new centrality by asserting what is not proven. This is absurd. If anything, that section’s 3 citations to ‘prove’ Jewish worship at the Wall before the 15th century should be reworked to fix the errors noted above. It cannot be used to discredit Shlomo Goren’s judgement. Sir Joseph is using Wikipedia as a reliable source to challenge what an external reliable source cites as an authoritative rabbinical opinion. That turns the whole method of Wikipedia on its head.Nishidani (talk) 13:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, the Goren source states that he agrees the wall was a prayer site (as was the Temple Mount) until the Ottoman restrictions left only one site available for Jewish prayer -- the reason for his pronouncement, moreover, was in the context of him supporting building of a synagogue on an added part of the Temple Mount. As this gives context to the "300 years" quote, the full context should be given. Collect (talk) 13:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I should add that while Shlomo Goren was likely to have looked closely into this matter, and was an authoritative voice, his view is not what we call 'authoritative' in historical terms. As far as I can see the question is as yet indeterminate. But we must be very careful in this area as elsewhere of Invented Traditions being passed off anachronistically as facts. Only focused scholarship on the specifics can hold weight here.Nishidani (talk) 18:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
as I pointed out earlier, it wasn't the Talmud, it was the mishna which is even earlier. In addition, there are two Talmud, the Babylonian and Jerusalem, and the latest one was from around 500 or so. Secondly, the claim that the wall is built only centuries after the temple is historical revisionism. The wall has been modified for centuries but it's been there by the temple.

There is a lot of confusion over details here. The entire west wall of the Temple Mount is very long but the part of it called the Western Wall/Wailing Wall/Kotel is quite short. I'll apply capitalisation carefully to distinguish. There are old writings about the west wall in general, such as in the Misha, but there are not any pre-medieval writings that clearly identify the Western Wall as a special place for prayer. Many authors feed this confusion by adding capital letters to "western wall" in old writings when the originals have no such indication. To address the Misha, it says that of the four walls of the mount the west wall is the one closest to the "holy of holies", but that doesn't support the Western Wall being a special place because it is quite far south from the most likely location of the "holy of holies" (namely, where the Dome of the Rock is now). The first sources that might refer to the region of the Western Wall are from the Fatmid period, where a few surviving letters refer to a cave used for prayer somewhere in that general area. Moshe Gil suggested it was located in the passage behind Barclay's Gate (at the south end of the Western Wall, long since sealed up), but more recent authors prefer Warren's Gate to the north of the Western Wall. About Goren, although he probably had the facts at his fingertips, he was extremely biased and would have said whatever suited him. In 1967 he tried to convince the local IDF commander to blow up all the Islamic buildings on the Mount; that's a fair summary of his nature. Zerotalk 22:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Goren's statement is offered as a view, specifically a Jewish view. It is attributed to him and not in wikipedia voice. The only real problem is that as in in the article it lacks context. They leave out the real meat of what is being said and they Cherry Pick the bones. It probably shouldn't remain as is. There's nothing I can see as wrong with including the views represented by Goren in the source as long as they are carefully attributed and given in context.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:40, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

There is no reason not to include Goren within proper context. The text from Jerusalem: A City and Its Future:

Goren also tried to explain that the tradition of the Western Wall as a Jewish prayer site is only three hundred years old and had its origins in restrictions imposed by the Ottoman authorities on Jewish worship elsewhere in the Temple Mount area. “We cannot claim rights at the Western Wall,” Goren wrote to PM Yitzchak Rabin in August 1994. “Its sanctity lies entirely in the fact that it demarcates the Temple Mount, in being a substitute for the Mount of the Lord… As for the haredi rabbis, whose lack of topographic and halakhic knowledge makes them afraid to ascend the Temple Mount and worship there — good luck to them. But we and the entire nation should be permitted to pray freely on the Temple Mount and the Muslims given free access and control of their mosques" (qtd. in Shragai 1994a).

Another source:

For Rabbi Goren, the Western Wall, at which Jews had prayed at for only 300 years, was an extremely important, but nonetheless, secondary, sight. The heart of Jewish longing for 2,000 years was not the Western Wall, but the Beit HaMikdash on Har Habayit, the Temple on the Temple Mount. P. 69 (Rabbi Shlomo Goren: Torah Sage and General) pp. 300-1

Goren's letter:

Honored Ministers! Your decision by which you forbid me, as an individual, and the Jews as a whole, from praying on the Temple Mount shocked me to the depths of my soul. Your decision means that the only place in the world in which an express and specific ban has been placed on the Jew, as a Jew, to pray, is Mount Moriah, the mount of the L-rd to which all of Israel's prayers are directed, the location of the nation's Holy of Holies...

From the destruction of the Second Temple until three hundred years ago, the prayers of Jews on the Temple Mount did not cease... The uniqueness of the Kotel (Western Wall) as a place of prayer is a historical innovation, and is not more than three hundred years old. It began after the decrees and limitations placed by the Muslim rulers on the Jews, and the abrogation of the 'synagogue' ... that had existed for centuries on the Temple Mount... In no manner or form is the Western Wall entitled to be a substitute for the Mount of the Lord. The prayers at the Wall symbolize the exile of the people and its expulsion from the Temple Mount, while our prayers on the Temple Mount represent the return of the people to its land and the place of its Temple. 'Who could conceive that Israel's security forces would be compelled to obstruct Jews from praying before the Lord, when the Temple Mount is under the government of Israel? And is this our situation now, after our dazzling victory? Is this what we waited for - that the government of Israel would discriminate between Jew and Muslim, and place guards lest, Heaven forbid, Jewish prayer would be uttered on the Temple Mount, about which the Prophets prophesied, 'For My House shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples' [Isaiah 56:7]? Jewish history shall not forgive us for this. 'My request is to open wide the gates of the Temple Mount to all Jews and for everyone in the world. Save the Holy of Holies of the nation, do not hand over the Temple Mount to those who defile it.

'Signed in grief, in hope, and in blessing, Shlomo Goren, General, Chief Rabbi of Israel.'"

In note 2 to temple mount western wall israeli law S. Berkowitz writes: Former Chief Rabbi S Goren believes that the Western Wall became a permanent Jewish prayer site in the 16th century.See Goren, S. The Temple Mount, Jerusalem 1992, p.4.

And, contrary to Sir Joseph above, there is no reference to Jewish prayer by the western wall in early rabbinic texts, as far as I'm aware. "To pray by the Wall is particularly beneficial" does not appear in the the Mishna or Talmud. Chesdovi (talk) 16:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ pg. 300.
  2. ^ "The Western Wall Plaza". Western Wall Heritage Foundation. Retrieved October 19, 2008.
  3. ^ Adler N. M. (1927) The Itinerary of Benjamin of Tudela London; pages 222–223.
  4. ^ Adler, Elkan Nathan; David, Judah (2004). "The Roads from Jerusalem, by Isaac ben Joseph ibn Chelo (1334)". Jewish Travellers. Routledge. pp. g.131. ISBN 0-415-34466-2.
  5. ^ Middot 2:1
What is clear from the above is that the whole section needs close revision, since it is badly sourced, or inaccurate. It is obvious that Goren had his own motive for underplaying the importance of the WW, since his aim was to get hold of the Temple site itself beyond it, and evidently thought reverence for the wall a sop that distracted eyes from the central quest beyond it. That in itself doesn't undermine the authority of his statement: he wouldn't have made it were it easily discreditable, and his remark fits what we know (which is distorted in what should be objected to, the line up of B of Tudela, Chelo et al., to assert the contrary. The source used is impeccable, and no good arguments have been given to deny it a place on the page.Nishidani (talk) 16:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Well said NIshidani. It is really simple. If there are contradictory sources, we can bring both, with attribution. This is the rule always, and in this case as well. Debresser (talk) 20:23, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Gary T. Schwartz "The Myth of the Ford Pinto Case"

http://www.pointoflaw.com/articles/The_Myth_of_the_Ford_Pinto_Case.pdf

A claque of editors at the Ford Pinto article would like to suppress virtually all mention of the above paper by a reasonably well known law professor. http://articles.latimes.com/2001/jul/30/local/me-28306

This article presents a revised view of the Pinto fuel tank case, in which, with hindsight destroys many of the exaggerated claims made by the Mother Jones article and various trial lawyers. It has been referred to in various other published sources eg http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/05/04/the-engineers-lament http://www.aurelbrudan.com/tag/business-ethics/ etc, all available via a google search.

Specific claims addressed by the paper include the number of deaths that actually occurred, the fact that the memo was not written about rear end impacts or the Pinto, the relative safety of Pinto compared with other cars.

Schwartz's study said:

−

  • The Pinto Memo wasn't used or consulted internally by Ford, but rather was attached to a letter written to NHTSA about proposed regulation. When plaintiffs tried to use the memo in support of punitive damages, the trial judge ruled it inadmissible for that purpose

−

  • The Pinto's fuel tank location behind the axle, ostensibly its design defect, was "commonplace at the time in American cars"

−

  • The precedent of the California Supreme Court at the time not only tolerated manufacturers trading off safety for cost, but apparently encouraged manufacturers to consider such trade-offs

Greglocock (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

To be clear: At least from my perspective, the dispute is less over WP:RS and more over WP:UNDUE. As I said on the talk page, I have no objection to devoting a sentence or two to this paper; but I object to referencing it directly in the lead, or to structuring the entire discussion of the Pinto case in order to make this paper central. It is not, going by most sources, that significant. It is one point of view among many others, and deserves the same amount of weight any of those other sources would get, not (say) an entire section. --Aquillion (talk) 00:56, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Ditto to Aquillion's comments. Greglocock is incorrect in saying we're trying to exclude this source. We're trying to stop Greg from dedicating huge portions of the article to it. NickCT (talk) 06:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Given that it seems to be a more authoritative and accurate document, why shouldn't it get more weight? Anmccaff (talk) 06:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
@Anmccaff: - The editors supporting the inclusion are giving the paper an entire subsection and a paragraph in the lead. You think that's appropriate given the existence of hundreds of more authoritative, accurate and secondary sources on the topic? NickCT (talk) 07:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

That depends. If these "hundreds" of sources essentially flow from the same initial sources, it is quite possible for them to be all equally good, or equally bad; they are, in effect, only one source repeated. Anmccaff (talk) 07:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

@Anmccaff: - Fair enough. I think we're going to find a compromise solution on the article's talkpage. That compromise will probably keep the Scwartz source albeit in some less prominent way. Either way, the discussion here seems a little silly as no one seems to be arguing against the source in question being reliable. NickCT (talk) 07:39, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
For the record, the article has not recently given a "huge" portion of the article to Schwartz paper; it explains the Schwartz paper and why it's meaningful to the controversy. It does not give an entire paragraph in the lead to the Schwartz paper, rather one paragraph in the lead cites three factors affecting the legacy of the Ford Pinto:
The Pinto's legacy was affected by media controversy and legal cases surrounding its fuel tank safety, a recall of the car in 1978, and a later study examining incident data, concluding the Pinto was as safe as, or safer than, other cars in its class. The Pinto has been cited as a noted business ethics case.
The article has not most recently (as an offered compromise) had a formal subsection devoted to the Schwartz paper, but rather is formatted as a sub-sub-section -- giving the Schwartz Paper a part of a section, but giving it no mention in the table of contents. This makes it more important to mention in the lead, otherwise it is buried in the article (i.e., no mention in the lead, no mention in the table of contents, the article subjugating a cogent and reliable argument pertaining directly to the subject of the article, the Ford Pinto.
Most recently the article was reverted repeatedly to completely remove ANY mention of the Schwartz paper (e.g., right now). So even though the Schwartz paper is notably cited in post-litigation reporting (and it's no more cherry-picking to find these references, than it is cherry-pick them out of a Wikipedia article). The Schwartz paper was cited by noted legal scholar Walter Olson, has been cited in the New York Times numerous times, and was cited by noted author Malcom Gladwell. There has been an extremely careful and concerted effort to find a balance on this issue. And clearly it has little to do with the reliability of Schwartz as a source.842U (talk)
  • Comments as to how to include the Schwartz paper in the article are likely best discussed on the article's talk page. As a source of retrospective facts the Schwartz article is very significant. It appears to the first comprehensive work attempting to asses if the predictions of many deaths etc turned out to be true. It was long after the hype of the Pinto cases had died down so it had the advantage of hind sight. It was also an academic work published in a law review journal rather than a new article or a new magazine. Additionally, the facts it presents have since been cited as reliable by other academics such as Danley, "Polishing up the Pinto: Legal Liability, Moral Blame, and Risk" Business Ethics Quarterly and Lee and Ermann, "Madness as a Flawed Landmark Narrative: An Organizational Network Analysis", Social Problems. Springee (talk) 03:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

catholic-hierarchy.org

Hi, I added some information to a website and provided a source to www.catholic-hierarchy.org. I was told do not re-add the references since it was unreliable and if I disagree to make my case here. all the entries were either biographies of long deceased Roman Catholic bishops or listings of bishops on the diocese/archdiocese wikipage. This website has been used for years on English Wikipedia and has not been questioned by its contributors; and there are literally 1000s of Wikipedia articles using the reference. It is also heavily used by Wikipedia in other languages.

The reason for the removal is non-reliable source which I disagree with as there is ample support on the internet that it is reliable. It is also self-published but as I read it " 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." So I went out to get a variety of sources that cite the website which I would include sufficient third party publications. Thanks for your consideration.

catholic-hierarchy.org is recommended by several archdioceses and archdioceses and referenced by Vatican Radio

Several prominent Catholic church watchers and journalists have used catholic-hierarchy.org as a reference including:

Various libraries and similar organizations list catholic-hierarchy.org as a reference

Mainstream newspapers cite catholic-hierarchy.org as a resource

Catholic newspapers list catholic-hierarchy.org as a reference

Numerous books cite catholic-hierarchy.org in their bibliography

  • [64] The Next Pope By Anura Guruge
  • [65] The Virgin Mary and Catholic Identities in Chinese History By Jeremy Clarke
  • [66] Religions of the World: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Beliefs and Practices : Six Volumes by J. Gordon Melton and Martin Baumann
  • [67] Two Texts By Edward Everett Hale by Edward Everett Hale, Hsuan L. Hsu, Susan Kalter
  • [68] Uncertain Honor: Modern Motherhood in an African Crisis By Jennifer Johnson-Hanks
  • [69] Religion and Post-Conflict Statebuilding: Roman Catholic and Sunni Islamic Perspectives (Palgrave Studies in Compromise) Mar 4, 2015 by Denis Dragovi
  • [70] Imagining the Creole City : The Rise of Literary Culture in Nineteenth-Century New Orleans by Rien Fertel
  • [71] Church Confronts Modernity: Catholicism since 1950 in the United States, Ireland, and Quebec / Edition 1 - by Leslie Woodcock Tentler
  • [72] The Encyclopedia of Caribbean Religions: Volume 1: A-L; Volume 2: M-Z by Patrick Taylor
  • [73] Charity and the Great Hunger in Ireland: The Kindness of Strangers by Christine Kinealy
  • [74] Democracy, Culture, Catholicism: Voices from Four Continents edited by Michael Schuck, John Crowley-Buck
  • [75] Mission, Communion and Relationship: A Roman Catholic Response to the Crisis of Male Youths in Africa Mission, Communion and Relationship: A Roman Catholic Response to the Crisis of Male Youths in Africa by Peter Addai-Mensah
  • PLOS
  • [76] Diplomatic Missions of the Holy See in Hungary and East-Central Europe after theSecond World War by Margit BALOGH
  • [77] University of Southern California: "WHY IS THE NUMBER OF CATHOLIC PRIESTS DIMINISHING IN PORTUGAL? ANALYSIS OF THE PERIOD 1960-2002 MOURAO, Paulo R.
  • [78] Light a Candle. Encounters and Friendship with China. Festschrift in Honour of Angelo S. Lazzarotto P.I.M.E. Edited by Roman MALEK and Gianni CRIVELLER. (Collectanea Serica). Sankt Augustin, Institut Monumenta Serica; Nettetal, Steyler Verlag, 2010. viii+564 pp.
  • [79] To Whom Does Christianity Belong?: Critical Issues in World Christianity By Dyron B. Daughrity
  • [80] The Changing World Religion Map: Sacred Places, Identities, Practices and Politics Feb 3, 2015 by Stanley D. Brunn
  • [81] Eine Marienerscheinung in Zeiten der Diktatur: der Konflikt um Peñablanca By Oliver Grasmück

Numerous Catholic churches and schools cite catholic-hierarchy.org as a resource

  • [82] Archdiocese of Washington uses it as a resource for student assignments
  • [83] Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Westminister: "Obtaining Proof of Membership of the Catholic Church – Guidance for Schools"
  • [84] RC Church of Christ the King recommended websites
  • [85] Catholic Family News: "Dangerous Synod Proposal: New Language” for Natural Law" by John Vennari
  • [86] St Brendan the Navigator Parish recommended websites
  • [87] St Mary of the Desert Catholic Church recommended websites
  • Catholic Parish of St Gregory the Great recommended websites
  • [88] St Paul the Apostle Catholic Church recommended websites
  • [89] Our Lady of Mercy Church recommended websites
  • [90] St Pascal Church recommended websites
  • [91] St Paul Catholic Church recommended websites
  • [92] St Thomas Benedictine Abbey Kappadu recommended websites
  • [93] Sacred hearts of Jesus and Mary recommended websites
  • [94] Carmelites of Mary Immaculate recommended websites
  • [95] Holy Family Parish in Poland Ohio recommended websites
  • [96] St Mary of the Immaculate Conception Greenville recommended websites
  • [97] Blessed Sacrament Church of Buffalo recommended websites
  • [98] St Alphonsa Catholic Church recommended websites
  • [99] St Charles Borromeo Parish and School recommended websites
  • [100] Good Shepherd Parish recommended websites
  • [101] Claretian Missionaires Sri Lanka recommended websites
  • [102] Catholic Parish of Ivanhoe recommended websites
  • [103] The Catholic Community of Our Lady of Fatima recommended websites
  • [104] RC Church of Christ the King
  • [105] St Pius Parish bulletin
  • [106] St Francis Cathedral bulletin
  • [107] St Christopher Church recommended websites
  • [108] St Mary's Parish - Navan Ireland recommended websites
  • [109] Saint John Neuman Sunbury recommended websites
  • [110] Diocese of Plymouth: "Churches in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Plymouth An Architectural and Historical Review"
  • [111] St Joseph de Clairval Abbey in Flavigny Links
  • [112] St Hugh of Lincoln references it in a biography
  • [113] St William Catholic Church spiritual links
The website is actually named catholic-hierarchy.org. I have changed the topic thread to match. The reasons it is not acceptable on Wikipedia, as I have told Patapsco913, are manifold: (1) it is WP:USERG user-generated content. (2) it is a WP:SPS run by one guy, Dcheney (talk · contribs), with no "editorial oversight or reputation for fact-checking." (3) it has been proven inaccurate on many occasions, as it puts bishops in their sees after appointment rather than upon installation, in violation of Canon Law procedure. Elizium23 (talk) 02:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Technically, Elizium, that is not a violation of canon law. Instead, it is a difference between appointment and possession, which is rightly illustrated on the website. The Holy See website (http://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino.html) announces the appointment of the new bishop, and the diocese announces the date of the ceremonies of canonical possession and installation. This is true from the smallest diocese to the Diocese of Rome.Vlaams243 (talk) 23:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I cannot believe that all these Catholic churches and dioceses would use a webpage that is so horribly unreliable. The Archdiocese of Chicago lists it as one of four references on the page above. If it is seen as a good reference by the Catholic Church about the Catholic Church then we should use it on Wikipedia. It by and large only lists the names and terms of long-deceased bishops, the time line of various dioceses, and Catholic populations in those dioceses. John L. Allen, Jr. and Sandro Magister are top journalists regarding the Catholic church. I would think that they would investigate it before using it as a reference. The rule 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." There seem to be enough reliable third party publications. Anyhow, where has it been proven false in a reliable third party source?Patapsco913 (talk) 02:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Doesn't really matter, it fails the RS tests. Guy (Help!) 11:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
"Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Catholic-Hierarchy.org is reliable and has a reputation for fact-checking based on the opinion of 1) the Catholic Church (as evidenced by all Archdiocese, Dioceses, and parishes that recommend it as a reliable source - and Vatican Radio even uses it); 2) the academic community (as evidenced by the numerous books and publications that use it as a reference); 3) the mainstream news community (Washington Post, Boston Globe) who use it as a reference; 4) prominent Catholic commentators (John L. Allen, Jr., Sandro Magister, Rocco Palmo) and canon lawyer (Edward N. Peters) who use it as a reference; and 5) Catholic institutions (Society of St Pius the X), university libraries (Stanford), and Catholic newspapers (The Tablet, National Catholic Reporter) who use it as a reference. So how does it fail?Patapsco913 (talk) 13:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

A source might be incredibly factually accurate, but that doesn't necessarily make it a reliable source for wikipedia. For instance, the WP articles about high-concept physics subjects tend to be extremely accurate and very detailed, but we can't use them as a source for other pages, because it's user generated content. It's a matter of verifiability, not truth. If that website provides its sources, however, you can probably use those. Don't just copy their citations though, check them out and verify them , first. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Patapsco913 (talk · contribs) has been busy making mass-postings to user talk pages to garner discussion on this thread. Patapsco, please limit your postings. Also, the text you have been using is not entirely neutral in tone. Elizium23 (talk) 23:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
There are somewhere between 3,500 and 4,000 wikipages that will be affected by this change - many that have been around for a long time - so I think it prudent that we should have as wide a discussion as possible. It should not be decided by five or six people.Patapsco913 (talk) 00:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I do not believe it is accurate to describe catholic-hierarchy.org as unreliable or user-generated content. It is the reporting of facts from other sources, organized in a convenient and hyperlinked manner. Furthermore, if you were to look at the Sources/Bibliography section of the website ([114]), you would notice sources such as the Annuario Pontificio Collection from 1914, 1921, 1924, 1927-1928, 1931, 1933, 1937-1938, 1941, 1949, 1950-1953, and 1955-2015. The Annuario Pontificio is the ultimate source for pages such as this, and cannot be considered unreliable. Vlaams243 (talk) 23:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

So I can start a blogspot site and use the New York Times and Washington Post as sources, that doesn't make my blog a reliable source by Wikipedia's definition. I think that's important to note here that we're not talking about YOUR definition of "reliable" but WIKIPEDIA's definition. Elizium23 (talk) 00:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Catholic-Hierarchy would fit Wikipedia's definition based on Wikipedia's Scholarship, Self-published sources, and Usage by other sources policies. Vlaams243 (talk) 00:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the reliability of the site, since it's just a bunch of lists anyway. It is simple and convenient, as Vlaams says. The same is true for GigaCatholic, which is often used as a source here (and which I actually find more useful than Catholic-Hierarchy). Is it literally unreliable? Are there mistakes in it? If it's accurately reporting the information from its own sources, what does it matter? We could use those sources instead, I suppose, but why? What is a reliable source in this case? Adam Bishop (talk) 02:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it makes chronic mistakes, as I explained above. It can't be trusted for the time a bishop takes possession of a diocese. Elizium23 (talk) 02:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Right, but is that a mistake introduced by Catholic-Hierarchy, or is the same information in its sources (whatever they may be?) Adam Bishop (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Even though this discussion is whether or not Catholic Hierarchy is reliable, I would like to report my activites for WikiProject Catholicism articles. Since I joined Wikipedia in April 2014, I have completed assessments on thousands of WikiProject Catholicism articles. Here's what I have been doing:

  • If Catholic Hierarchy is in the References section, I add the Self-published source template.
  • If the CH entry is in the External links section, the article is a Stub, I add the Self-published source template, hoping this may help another editor to find reliable sources elsewhere.
  • If the CH entry is in the External links section, the article is not a Stub, I delete the CH External link line.

* Opinion: From the perspective of a Wikipedia reader, it's my opinion that leaving this Self-published source template in place serves as a cautionary alert that the reference is not held to the same higher standard of a Reliable source. What would be helpful is a BOT that tags articles for every CH Reference with the Self-published source template. Regards,  JoeHebda (talk)  02:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Thought - I have read, studied and used the Catholic hierarchy website for many years, and I have no doubt it is a reliable source. In fact, I know the information it contains is reliable because it all comes from the Catholic Statistical yearbook Annuario Pontificio published by the Roman Catholic Church itself. I own several copies of this yearbook for various years, and the data is accurate. The trouble comes from the fact that the Vatican sells the yearbook and as far as I know there is no open source for this data, or even an online, easily accessible version of it for data crunching or easy access. Thus a vacuum is formed and people use this website instead of the yearbook itself, which cost 60$ and is printed in Italian paperback only. I am too close to this to render a definitive opinion about the website, but for this to be a Reliable Source for Wikipedia, we must at the least have strict assurances that all the facts and data are straight from the yearbook the church itself publishes. Otherwise, we must rely on those who have copies of the yearbook for reliable sourcing. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I just wanted to acknowledge that I am the author/owner/whatever of the website in question and I would be happy to answer any questions in that regard. I have no opinion whether or not it should be cited in Wikipedia - that is for others to decide.--Dcheney (talk) 04:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I take the Catholic Hierarchy site to be a "reliable source" under our normal usage of that term. The description of its publishing process doesn't make me shift that opinion. It has been pointed out that it provides reference material, rather than "original research", and from an authoritative source. If, in effect, it is an online version of a print publication that we would accept, this discussion seems overblown. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

  • This is a reliable source. It has a reputation for accuracy and attention to detail. Some people seek to apply the term too narrowly. We need to use it broadly so that Wikipedia can reflect the understandings of a large swath of the population not just those of jet set yuppies living in lofts in NYC and avoiding flyover country and distaining the political goals of people in Uganda and Nigeria.

I can make some general observations about Catholic Hierarchy, as well as GCatholic. They both are reliable as long as they are based on reliable sources. Not all their sources are reliable. They are certainly very useful and highly reliable with regard to the recent appointments (I mean recent two centuries or so). They clearly base their data on official sources such as Annuario Pontificio. But deeper in the past, the things go worse. Miranda's website is a source for many data about cardinals in Catholic Hierarchy and GCatholic. Miranda's website, for 20th and 21 century is based mainly on the official reports of the Holy See, the best possible sources. For the centuries 13th to 19th it is based mainly on the nine volumes of Hierarchia Catholica by Eubel, Ritzler and Gauchat, which is generally a good source, but its earliest volumes (13th to 16th century) contain many errors. And for the period before 13th century, Miranda's website is completely unreliable (basing on outdated sources and contradicting modern prosopographies of the cardinals). Since Miranda is a source also for Catholic Hierarchy and GCatholic, the same can be told about them. In conclusion, all three websites are reliable for the most recent centuries, but with every earlier century, they became less and less reliable. CarlosPn (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Just wanted to agree with this - Giga Catholic seems to be better for older stuff, earlier than (say) the 17th century, but only as good as its sources, like Eubel, which is itself only as good as its sources (Gams, Lequien, whoever else). The Vatican doesn't actually keep lists of bishops of all its dioceses, so they don't really know anything more than we do, using the same sources. There are often academic works which will have more up-to-date lists for medieval bishops, and I suppose the same is true for other eras. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • This seems a far, far more reliable source on most of the articles that it references than anything else we have and discussions over the publishing process are interesting but beside the point. SPS is a sound guideline, but it shouldn't be dogma. I'd prefer that we'd refer to the sources underneath the site, but until then the site should be sufficient. JASpencer (talk) 07:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • One other note of clarification, although the Annuario Pontificio (AP) is a good resource, the lag in its publication means that it is not a good source for recent changes. For example, changes that occurred in 2015 will be included in AP 2016 - which will be published in the next month or two. Other official sources such as Acta Apostolicae Sedis can have an even longer lag time. --Dcheney (talk) 10:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I've used it for years and found it more accurate than many other blue-chip sources. JoeHebda makes a good observation; it's reliable but it may be worthwhile to note that it's a self-published source. Majoreditor (talk) 13:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Reliable Source does not mean 100%, 100% of the time; it means well-researched and non-self-referential source. All sources for most bishops before 1300 are pretty uncertain; every modern iteration has to pick one. If he picked 2nd best, argue he isn't reliable for bishops before 1300 or something like that. For 1600 on, all he's done is collect various divergent sources such as the Annuario Pontificio into an accessible format. I'm not a good enough Church history expert to know sourcing for ancient bishops so I leave this aside. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 14:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

There are several things to consider here. 1st, the number of references to it by experts of various types in the field seem to overcome the issue of WP:SPS. For a large part it isn't WP:SPS in the sense of WP:NOR as he is more of an editor/compiler of existing content than an originator. Tons of web content relies on a single editor and making all single-editor content fall under WP:SPS seems extreme. 2nd, it is, for most of it's content, a more accessible version of the source, the Annuario Pontificio which is a costly offline source. Even though, WP:SOURCEACCESS & WP:OFFLINE says offline sources are acceptable, I think the policy of WP:VERIFY would prefer an online version or reference were the content the same (for example, give me a link to a magazine article, not just the page number). Thus, I would argue to include at least the relatively modern content as reliable. I add 2 caveats: 1. someone mentioned issues with pre-1300 content here and I didn't study up on that enough. 2. If an error is found, I suggest posting on the talk page of that article to indicate that it is not reliable FOR THAT ARTICLE, and User_talk:Dcheney since he's indicated he's the editor and willing to fix issues. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 15:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I added a discussion on the WP:VERIFY talk page in relation to this. I suggest a variation to the expert exemption for WP:SPS so it includes pages extensively used as references by 3rd parties as I think the 1st post in this change demonstrates. Link: Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#.22Self-published.22_when_online_compilation_of_offline_sources. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 15:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

"A source might be incredibly factually accurate, but that doesn't necessarily make it a reliable source for Wikipedia". In this case, it's easy enough to establish verifiability. Does the content on the wiki match that in the Annuario Pontificado? Yes? Then it is up to Elizum to demonstrate instances in which the currently posted content is at variance. I've not seen any citations by Elizum where there is a discreprency, and I encourage him to take the time to do his homework. Benkenobi18 (talk) 13:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

E-mail as a source?

I need some advice - I'm working with an editor on the article for Draft:Our London Lives (2016 film). The article is a little light on sources. Most of the sources either didn't mention the film (were just used to verify data in the article) or they were routine notifications of events, primary sources, or were problematic in one way or another.

The strongest thing that the film has going for it was that it was displayed at the Museum of London, which is quite an achievement. It's supposed to be part of their permanent collections, but at this point in time the only thing that can be verified was that it was displayed. If it is part of their permanent collections then this by itself would likely be enough to assert notability under criteria 4 of WP:NFILM "The film was selected for preservation in a national archive." The museum isn't an archive, but it could argued to be its equivalent.

The film is still on display and hasn't been cataloged at this point in time from what I can see from the MoL's website, so here's my question: what can we do to verify that it's part of their collection? If the MoL was willing to send an email to WP:OTRS verifying that it was part of the permanent collections, would that suffice? Or could the museum just e-mail an admin and verify it that way? Or would a tweet suffice, as long as it came from an official account? The main thing I'm worried about is others being able to verify the source, as an OTRS ticket or tweet would be something that would be a bit more firm than if I were to get an e-mail from the MoL.

Pinging @Amanda Paul: since it's her draft article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

  • It's just tricky since this is very close to passing but without a more firm way to establish notability I'm not sure that this could do more than just serve as a subsection in the main article for Atherton. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Wouldn't a tweet pass WP:SPS? I'd say no to the email, but a tweet should still count as "published" and would be readily accessible to anyone who wanted to verify the information. People have cited tweets before (not me, since I mostly write about early 20th century cinema, but others). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
      • Per WP:TWITTER tweets from official sources are acceptable (so long as they are not used for info on a living person, which doesn't seem to be the case here). Emails usually are not suitable sources for articles, but they can be useful on talk pages. For example, I once messaged an author to confirm that he had personally written the material in question rather than using an intern. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
        • Thanks @Tokyogirl79:. The film is on display in a gallery which is only for recently acquired items into the collection or ones already there called Show Space
          Show Space Gallery sign at Museum of London (Taken 11th February 2016 at Recording A Life Exhibition including film - Our London Lives) - in the lower ground exhibition space.

The museum have tweeted about its inclusion here https://twitter.com/MuseumofLondon/status/695257396134989824?lang=en Amanda Paul (talk) 14:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Igor Beuker - dubious sources

Could somebody have a look at the article on Igor Beuker as I don't think the references used are reliable. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 10:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Most of the references are in a different language. I don't speak Dutch so I think a second set of eyes would be helpful but I removed a few of the poor sources referenced to blogs. Meatsgains (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Dutch happens to be my mother tongue. Not a single source qualifies as a reliable secondary source. Press releases, self-published material, blogs etc. WP:PROD is right. Mduvekot (talk) 21:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Looks like he was a speaker on a TED talk? That may qualify for some notability and this is a reliable source. Just my opinion. Meatsgains (talk) 03:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

R1a-M458 and the Indo-European case

Dear users, as Andrew Lancaster has expressed the edit in concern requires a overview. The Ip is already blocked from editing for 1,5 days because of disruptive editing and edit warring with multiple Ip's. We need expert users on this. Do you know some users which can help us in the issue?

Here is what the paper states: "R1a1a-M17 diversity declines toward the Pontic-Caspian steppe where the mid-Holocene R1a1a7-M458 sublineage is dominant [46]. R1a1a7-M458 was absent in Afghanistan, suggesting that R1a1a-M17 does not support, as previously thought [47], expansions from the Pontic Steppe [3], bringing Indo-European languages to Central Asia and India." (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0034288)

--Gushtasp (talk) 09:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

But is there any real dispute about whether that source is usable or not? (That would be what this forum is for, as opposed to the article talk page where you have also posted.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Title of New Scientist web article

In the transhumanist politics article, referring to politician Giuseppe Vatinno, it says, "New Scientist dubbed him 'the world's first transhumanist politician.' " The source for this is the title -- not the body -- of an article on the New Scientist website: "Meet the world's first transhumanist politician", which is an interview with the man. An editor removed this content, saying that it is unreliable and suggesting that this is because it uses the title -- which they consider to be clickbait -- instead of the body.

Is the title of a New Scientist web article a reliable source for simply quoting that title and attributing it to the publisher?

--Haptic Feedback (talk) 01:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Article titles are not part of the article as written - the aim is to get people to read the article, even if the title is not absolutely 100% representative of the contents. One needs to find relevant claims within the article in such cases as a rule. Collect (talk) 01:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
@Collect: I do not understand your explanation, but thank you for your opinion. --Haptic Feedback (talk) 04:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Claims should not be sourced to "source titles" as they are generally written to "get readers" and are often not the same as the actual claims made by the source. This is especially true of "popular publications" and the like, but even respected journals find the allure of "get the person to read this!" quite appealing. Collect (talk) 14:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, the article also calls him a "transhumanist politician" in the introduction to the interview, implies "transhumanist politician" in one of the questions, and states that he is "the world’s first transhumanist to be elected as a member of a parliament" in the "profile" section. So it's not really much of a stretch. Would it be a compromise to write "New Scientist described him as 'the world's first transhumanist politician elected to a parliament'"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
If that is in the article proper, then that is the source to use, not the "article title." It is also possible that the descriptor is in the nature of opinion in any event. Collect (talk) 16:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I vaguely remember someone saying "every source is reliable for its own opinion" or words to a similar effect... ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Not too vague - I believe it is "opinions must be sourced and cited as opinions" as opposed to "take someone's opinion and call it a 'fact' in Wikipedia's voice" which seems to be how some edit <g>. More likely "(writer A) refers to him as (opinion B)" would work admirably. Collect (talk) 00:04, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
  • It is entirely reasonable, on the basis of this source, to write that "New Scientist dubbed Vatinno 'the world's first transhumanist politician'." The quibbles about headline vs. article seem exceedingly silly in this instance. The headline was written by New Scientist staff, approved by a New Scientist editor, and subject to the editorial control of the New Scientist. Thus, the reliability of New Scientist attaches to the headline just as much as to the remainder of the article. Moreover, there is no conflict between the headline and the article body; it seems to be an accurate summary. Finally, the proposed addition properly uses in-text attribution, rather than Wikipedia's voice. It boggles the mind that people would dispute this usage. MastCell Talk 18:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree with MastCell. I think article bodies are not the only published sources we can use on WP. Nearly anything ever published can probably be a reasonable source for something, and this specific usage (simply saying that someone has been called something) certainly seems to allow using a title.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Is primary source not acceptable for Indian caste?

Hi, I wanted to restore the page Mathur Vaishya to its previous state which was based on the primary reference [115]. However, Sitush is banking very hard that primary sources are not acceptable for castes. I want to ask if it is true? If yes, why? Finding 3rd party sources for Indian caste system is very hard because of the nature of the subject and language barrier as well. Mr RD 19:41, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Sitush is right. Basically, the reason is that primary sources need to be interpreted, and Wikipedia editors aren't the right people to interpret them, as that would be original research, which is not allowed. We have to refer to interpretation by reliable secondary sources. See WP:PRIMARY for details. I see you have posted your question on several noticeboards — I don't quite understand why. One is enough. Indeed, IMO, listening to Sitush is enough. He knows a lot about caste pages and their sources.Bishonen | talk 20:00, 14 February 2016 (UTC).
It is a long-established consensus that caste association websites are not reliable. Caste articles are very prone to puffery instigated by members of the relevant caste, and caste-affiliated websites spout the same nonsense. Furthermore, despite their sometimes vocal claims, no caste association of which I am aware is anything other than a group of like-minded people who are members of the caste: they have no particular academic qualification, no official status and, indeed, no "proof" that they are even accepted by the majority of those who share the same caste. Their websites are vanity publications, highly biassed in tone and usually with a socio-political agenda. PRIMARY per se is thus not even the major issue here.
There are plenty of academic etc studies of castes knocking around. If all we can find is stuff published by a caste association then, frankly, the community is not notable. Please also bear in mind that many castes come and go: there is a process of fission and fusion as people jostle for position, which is one reason why they shout so loudly. - Sitush (talk) 20:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. I was unaware about it. However my opinion is that in stuff like caste history and sub-castes there is not much scope for incorrect information. Puffery will be there which will have to be rectified before updating to Wikipedia. I posted on the WP:India talk page as I wanted more participation from Indian community to whom the topic concerned. Mr RD 05:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
User:Mr RD, maybe it is helpful to note that secondary sources which are not in English can be reliable. Language is not theoretically a reason not use a source. In practice there can be concerns raised about correct interpretation if the language is unusual, but there even ways to track fluent editors and ask for a third opinion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:04, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Dear Andrew Lancaster, it's not about the language. The actual problem kicks in when most of the local language sources like books etc. aren't available online or aren't documented properly by search engines. This actually happens with Indian English newspaper articles as well for which we have Indian English Newspaper Search tool. Mr RD 19:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

BroadwayWorld.com?

I have another site to question - would BroadwayWorld.com be considered reliable? I've always questioned its usability and my first impulse is that it isn't, as the site sells tickets and runs as a job site. That makes it a little too close for comfort, since it'd be well within their best interest to cover things that they're selling. It's used a lot on Wikipedia and I do see it listed as a source in academic works like this one.

What's your take on this? It's certainly popular. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Not per WP:RS and I note the reference use is to an article from a press release in any event. OUP should have noted, by the way, that duplicates of the exact same article are cited in that footnote as though they were separate and distinct articles. This is one of the failings of "reliable sources" in the past decade or so - they no longer have people researching and fact checking what they write - they simply cut-and-paste press releases. No time to yank its uses - but it ain't a "reliable source" as Wikipedia officially defines the term. It is a commercial site running press releases. Collect (talk) 13:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Banglapedia, Encyclopedia Brittanica, YouTube and IMDb

My question is a general question regarding three different mediums of sources. As the section heading implies, how is the use of Banglapedia, Encyclopedia Brittanica and YouTube videos as WP:RS? Banglapedia seams like an exact replica of Wikipedia pages, although they claim that they have paid scholars working for them but no one knows the whereabouts of those scholars or their notability. Whenever a piece of content on a Wikipedia:WikiProject Bangladesh is lacking sources and a push comes for the sources, they shove Banglapedia in, because you are sure to find that content in there since its almost the exact replica. Same question for Encyclopedia Brittanica. As for videos, how is it to use videos as a source in general and also specifically from YouTube and what if it's a video from a major news channel. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

That would be covered by WP:CIRCULAR. If you know that they're citing Wikipedia, it's cut and dried. If you merely suspect it, that's another matter. I checked one random article in Banglapedia, Fairy Tales, and they list their bibliography. It looks legit to me. Can you name a particular case in which you believe the information is suspect?
Britannica is covered by WP:TERTIARY. It is RS.
Youtube videos can be reliable sources because they have been published on YouTube, though WP:SPS applies. Basically, if it's an expert speaking, it's reliable. If it's just some random person with a video blog, then it's not. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • If it's a YT video from a known expert, it might be usable, under the rules for primary sources, if it's material that is within the realm of their expertise. If it's controversial (e.g. polemic in nature) it can probably not be used (per WP:UNDUE), except as a self-source (per WP:ABOUTSELF) for what a notable speaker's position on something is (with a strong relevance connection between the speaker and the topic of our article), but not for any alleged facts they're presenting. UNDUE might be satisfied if the view was presented as a directly attributed opinion and counterbalanced by other sources. Such a source cannot be used at all for WP:AEIS claims, nor to help establish notability (both of which require secondary sources). Basically, it is no different from a self-published blog; it lacks much reliability (is a low-quality source), because it does not have a reputable publisher, per WP:RS (YouTube is not the publisher for RS purposes, since they exercise no editorial control over content, other then removing flagged porn, etc.; they are simply the medium, the carrier, as Google Books is for what they've scanned). The above (including the OP) is confusing the medium with the message. Not only does which site the expert is using to self-publish not matter, the fact that Banglapedia is using MediaWiki is also irrelevant, just as many reliable online news sources are published with WordPress and various other platforms that were developed for individual blogging. What matters is the real-world reputability of the publisher, the reputability of the writer, the editorial control exercised over the latter by the former, the nature of the material in question (original thought, or AEIS of previously published work?), and the relevance of the material and the author's and their sources' expertise/reputability to the context (i.e. a physics publication is not a reliable source for anthropology material, and a literary criticism source isn't one for sports news, or vice versa).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
So, can someone answer with 100% surety that whether Banglapedia is a WP:RS and WP:NPOV source especially when it comes to matters related to Bangladesh and Pakistan and their complicated relationship. How about the notability of an author or scholar who wrote the article inside Banglapedia? I have added IMDb to my list as well. How about sourcing an actor's article to his profile at IMDb to establish his/her notability? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
No - per WP:RS/IMDB IMDb cannot be used as a reference. It is WP:USERGENERATED (as is Banglapedia BTW) and the oversight there is sadly lacking. In the past they had listings for Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Yuri Gadyukin, Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Bucharest Film Festival and all of the films covered here User:Rhododendrites/Chaney. All of these stayed on the website until the hoaxes were uncovered here. MarnetteD|Talk 18:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Banglapedia is not user generated. It's like Britannica except published by Bangladeshis rather than the British.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for correcting my error Volunteer Marek. I have struck through my parenthetical. MarnetteD|Talk 20:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Donetsk People's Republic article

Guys, we have problem here[116], can you help a little bit? Some ukranian according to profile (seems not objective) moderator doesn't want to fix a mistake (propaganda) in article. DPR Poll Support discussion.

Does this have to do with whether or not a source is reliable? Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, for some reason in article used reprint from so called "reliable source" (UNIAN) which took it with mistakes (or distorted it on purporse) from "not reliable" source (DPR site).

There is a discussion concerning English Democrats where, among other things, The Economist is proposed to be used as a source for the claim that the English Democrats are not a "far-right" party, because the newspaper published this correction to one previous article which claimed otherwise.

However, we know from the statement of a leader of the involved party that The Economist most likely received legal threats which led to their retractation. The same editor and party leader (as well as some of his colleagues) has been known for making legal threats against Wikipedia editors. That these editors actually are who they purport to be was proven by posts on party-affiliated blogs concerning the events on Wikipedia in which they were involved.

Given these facts, is the "correction" by The Economist to be considered a reliable source for the English Democrats' political position, considering we have ample reasons to suspect it was obtained by employing legal threats?

LjL (talk) 19:17, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

We use published sources. What that means in this case is that we should trust the Economist editorial team's judgment. We don't know that they only retracted the source for reasons not related to accuracy; we merely suspect it. What if it was retracted because of legal threats and misstated facts? While it is right and good for us to wonder why a retraction was made and there may be extreme situations in which something may be disregarded, I personally see that happening in cases with a large number of corroborating sources, and even then the retraction would have to be acknowledged, as in "In an article in the The Economist that was later retracted, Specific Author wrote '...'" Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
We don't simply use published sources, we use reliable sources, which has more stringent criteria. There are many possible reasons why an otherwise reliable source may be (or become) unreliable for a specific fact: a source that has likely been coerced into stating something may not become wrong, but it does lose reliability: how can we rely on it anymore? It's similar to how we often can't rely on government-controlled agency when they make government-backed claims. LjL (talk) 21:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I mean that we should rely on the editorial judgment that they used when the issued the retraction. Yes, this source becomes suspect when retracted. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't think a retraction is a great source for a statement of fact (that the party "is not" far right). Certainly, we can't rely on the original, now retracted, claim - but given that lots of other sources also describe the party as far right, I can't see how the economists' retraction could trump (or be used to dismiss) those other sources. This seems more like an issue of weight than of source reliability though. The question of why the retraction was printed doesn't really matter so much - how much weight it carries is a much more important question. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:58, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree that we can't rely on the original claim: we can rely on neither. The Economist simply stops being a reliable source for this matter, in my opinion. I prefer to leave issues of weight to other editors at the moment, as I do not have the time or inclination to analyze all the sources available, but I do want to ensure that sources that have been invalidated by events (and potentially by bad-faith threats) cannot be used. LjL (talk) 21:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
As a general rule, I think a reliable source publishing a correction is a reliable indication that a statement is incorrect or at least too dubious to be asserted as true in Wikipedia's voice without a much higher standard of supporting evidence than usual. In this specific case speculation about "legal threats" appears to be off the mark. One of the parties involved has published what purports to be the conversation online, which appears to be them stating their case and requesting a "right of reply", and the editor of the WP:RS saying "I accept this was inaccurate" and offering to publish a correction. [117] (for the avoidance of doubt, the Press Complaints Commission mentioned in the first letter had no power to do anything other than rule on whether a correction should be published or not) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtellett (talk • contribs)
I agree that publishing a correction is a reliable indication that the original statement shouldn't be used on Wikipedia in the absence of other reliable sources making that statement. I just do not think that the new, "corrected" statement is a valid reliable source, either (especially when we have the party leader directly implying that it was effectively a legal threat). LjL (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Surely the only way to treat this is as though the orig. was never written (which is what a retraction effectively is). Both orig. and retraction become unusable.Pincrete (talk) 20:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
We must not consider that a presumed "legal threat" always indicates coerced deviation from courageous truth. Given the (probable) legal war chest of the Economist, the paper could well withstand a nuisance suit. Therefore, a legal threat and correction is likely an indication that the original statement was grossly mistaken, and that any court would find the same. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
... or that, big chest or small chest, The Economist found it much easier to just publish a correction on something that seemed like such a small detail as whether they should write "right" or "far right", than to embark in a legal suit. I don't understand why we can't presume that the presumed threat indicates deviation from truth, but we must presume that the original statement was grossly mistaken. Seems like evident double standard to me. I am in agreement with Pincrete for the record. LjL (talk) 20:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
I am in agreement with LjL for the record. We can cheerfully speculate as to probable reasons for recanting, and we may possibly be right. It's sometimes easier to apologise and move on for one of a multitude of reasons. In this instance, yes, The Economist is unlikely to have been seriously coerced, (you need deep pockets to use libel law thus), but is 'far' provable? Is it worth fighting for? In terms of RS info, we are left with nothing either way. Pincrete (talk) 21:49, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

If The Economist decided to retract (whether due to legal threats or otherwise) then we obviously can't use them as support for the claim any longer. But it's also not a positive claim on their behalf that the converse is true. Whether or not the retraction was made in response to a legal threat is beside the point; newspapers and magazines get such threats pretty frequently, and if they're willing to stand behind the story, they'll say "Okay, sue us then. We've got our facts straight, you'll lose." If, however, plenty of other reliable sources do still stand behind the characterization as "far right", then we'd still go with the consensus of sources. The Economist's statement should be considered, but it is not dispositive. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Here is a scholar's opinion that the English Democrats are "far right" -- but as our own article on the subject shows, the label is a protean term of disparagement that means almost anything the speaker wants it to mean -- racism, nationalism, anti-government, pro-tyranny, anti-tyranny, individualism, antisemitism, traditionalism, feudalism, elitism, anti-globalism -- anything. Incidentally, all publishers -- particularly news organs -- must by standing policy resist any coercion by legal threat. No publisher can afford to be pushed around by the whim of every lawyer with a typewriter. The consequence would be pages of retractions and a rapid death of any news integrity. In this case, the cite shows that the accusation has for years been a huge issue with the English Democrats. Pincrete stated that neither the original statement nor the retraction could be used, and my post was intended as a note of agreement, with reasons. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 23:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Context is everything. This was before the Defamation Act 2013 became law. In the climate of the time, it was easier and vastly less expensive to issue a retraction than to defend a defamation case, becvause the law was notoriously favourable to plaintiffs and because the legal costs were likely to be enormous. As such, coerced retractions cannot be taken as an indication of anything - and that is pretty much why the law was changed. If the original story had been published after Jan 1 2014, then this might mean something, but it wasn't, so it doesn't - and we continue go with the numerous reliable sources that correctly characterise ED as far-right. Guy (Help!) 14:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Australian Dictionary of Biography

Seems at first sight to be a tertiary source for information and its website[118] states clearly:

No reliance should be made by a user of the material, information or publication accessed via this site.

It is being used quite extensively at the Harold Holt biography as a "catch-all" reference. I rather think that actual secondary sources should be used rather than using a single tertiary source for much of any article.

Opinions please? Should the biography seek actual secondary sources rather than rely so extensively on the ADB as the main source for details? Collect (talk) 13:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

That looks like boilerplate legalese. The ADB is a project of Australian National University and appears to be structured like a traditional academic encyclopedia: "The Australian Dictionary of Biography is a national, co-operative enterprise, founded and maintained by the ANU. The project is headed by the General Editor, based at the ANU, and an Editorial Board, which discusses matters of general policy. ADB Working Parties draw up lists of individuals selected for inclusion in the ADB and give advice on appropriate authors. The General Editor then commissions the entries. Section editors, drawn from each of the Working Parties, and Editorial Fellows, who are eminent academic historians, read and review all entries." [119] Seems like a perfectly appropriate RS to use. Of course, whenever possible we should try to avoid relying on a single source, even a high quality source. Gamaliel (talk) 14:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
It still appears to be a non-secondary source alas. The extensive use looks more like editors not actually looking for secondary sources when there is a catch-all available. More like the EB which is also "reviewed" and is also a tertiary source, and which is deprecated for use as a current RS on Wikipedia, no? Collect (talk) 14:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
No, imho you read too much in that policy formulation. Nor we do we have any mandate of how extensive a subject needs to be researched by editor as long as the information they add is reliable and sourced. You are of course free to overhaul such an article and replace or augment the reliable tertiary sources by reliable secondary sources (of somewhat equal reputation/quality).--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
I think there is a bit of a misunderstanding here with an overemphasis of the formal difference between secondary and tertiary sources. There is usually no issue with using high quality tertiary sources (like reputable special subject encyclopedias) and even more so a high quality/highly reputable tertiary source is usually a better choice than a low quality secondary source.
Keeping that in mind it is usually unproblematic to use various national biographies as sources as long as they have a good reputation in general. That is at least the default assumption, unless a specific national biography is known be unreliable/has a bad reputation or a specific article is contradicted by reputable secondary sources.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
It is tertiary, so it can be used, presumptively, for some things, just not anything described at WP:AEIS policy, and not to established WP:Notability; both of those require secondary sources. I say "presumptively", because the publisher being good-seeming doesn't tell us what the editorial process is, and we should look into that, to ensure they a) do not take paid submissions the way all the "who's who" publications do, and b) do some research, and don't simply take subject-submitted information at face value.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:17, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't quite follow that, if anything a reputable tertiary source suggests dealing with some subject suggests more notability than just a reputable secondary source secondary source dealing with that subject. So in terms of notability tertiary sources are in doubt a better indicator. As far as WP:AEIS is concerned, that hasn't really anything to do with tertiary, secondary or even primary sources, but it about how you combine sources and what you shouldn't do in that case. That applies however whether the source is tertiary or secondary (or even primary).
Other than you seem to be arguing more reputable versus less reputable and high quality versus low quality (like no paid submission). That assessment is very important, but it holds for tertiary and secondary sources alike.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
The statement above about tertiary sources not counting towards notability is incorrect. They certainly do. Sources need to simply be independently published, dealing substantially with a topic, and of presumed reliability. There is no rule or tradition at AfD casting out specialized encyclopedia listings, for example, because they are not scholarly monographs or newspaper articles. Such sources are highly valued at AfD. Carrite (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Epguides a reliable source?

Would Epguides be a reliable source for airdates? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think so, according to WP:USERG.- MrX 01:32, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_203&oldid=1252143057"
pFad - Phonifier reborn

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

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy