Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 224

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 220←Archive 222Archive 223Archive 224Archive 225Archive 226→Archive 230

DEA as a source for deaths

In the article on Mitragyna speciosa (aka Kratom), the following occurs in a subsection of the "Adverse effects" section:

15 deaths in the United States between 2014 and 2016 were kratom-related.[1]

References

  1. ^ "DEA Announces Intent to Schedule Kratom: SE Asian drug is imminent hazard to public safety". US Drug Enforcement Administration. 30 August 2016. Retrieved 31 August 2016.

At the talk page, the claim has been made that the DEA ref is not reliable for this statement. Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 10:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

As noted on the talk page, you can plausibly argue the DEA has an agenda, if not to invent things then at least perhaps to overemphasise certain aspects of drug-related issues (it may well be of course for example that the "deaths" attributed to this substance were more complicated causally than this simple statistic suggests). Plus this is just a press release rather than a scientific study. But prima facie the DEA is a sound source for basic drugs statistics, surely. Attributing the figures to the agency would presumably solve any problem. N-HH talk/edits 10:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I would consider the DEA reliable when reporting death(s) (in the USA) due to a substance. That they are not a "scientific" body is not really germane to this question. — soupvector (talk) 12:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
    TBH I would only consider them reliable for reporting deaths they are aware of related to drugs. As a relevant attributed (to the DEA) figure its perfectly fine. You wouldnt for example state thats its a low impact drug due to 'only 16 deaths' for example, as there are likely more deaths they are unaware of. At best that figure is a minimum. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Now that some folks have weighed in I will give my perspective. As that ref itself notes, the US (like other countries) is moving toward restricting kratom, because it has adverse effects and people are being harmed. This has made a lot of people who use it, very angry. Some of these people use it to control pain (and whether it is actually effective for that, or there is a placebo thing, we don't know...) but there is a very vocal group who say it helps them. It is also increasingly used recreationally. So our article gets bombed from time by people coming through, raging about this or that statement about its adverse effects especially. The current protestor has made some good edits but the objections to this ref have been a) conspiracy theories about what goes on today based on stuff that happened at the DEA under Nixon (45 years ago!) and b) their doing their own peer-review on the source. If there is reliable reporting that the DEA lies about deaths due to drug use today, that would be another matter. But as it stands, in my view the DEA is a reliable source about drugs and their impact in the US, and the ref is fine to support the statement, in WP's voice. The attribution option is just mushifying in the face of invalid objections. Jytdog (talk) 06:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
I understand and appreciate the context of this sort of debate, and that the arguments presented against the use of the figure do not necessarily stack up, but per my comment above I think it's reasonable, not to be sceptical as such of the figure, but wary of what such a headline figure is actually saying. Also attribution does not necessarily suggest the figure is invalid or dubious; it's simply information about where the information comes from, as it were, which can be useful in itself. Plus if it solves a debate about the use of material, I can't see the problem. N-HH talk/edits 07:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
A scientific paper? That is not necessary, but it would be a better source. N-HH talk/edits 07:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The DEA is NOT a reliable source on scientific matters, since it bends the truth towards its law enforcement objectives:
...in science...
"Critics of the DEA (including recipient of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, Milton Friedman, prior to his death a member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) point out that demand for illegal drugs is inelastic; the people who are buying drugs will continue to buy them with little regard to price, often turning to crime to support expensive drug habits when the drug prices rise. One recent study by the DEA showed that the price of cocaine and methamphetamine is the highest it has ever been while the quality of both is at its lowest point ever.[20] This is contrary to a collection of data done by the Office of National Drug Control Policy, which states that purity of street drugs has increased, while price has decreased.[21][22][23] In contrast to the statistics presented by the DEA, the United States Department of Justice released data in 2003 showing that purity of methamphetamine was on the rise.[24]" - Drug_Enforcement_Administration#Impact_on_the_drug_trade
"The Science behind the DEA's Long War on Marijuana ... Experts say listing cannabis among the world’s deadliest drugs ignores decades of scientific and medical data." https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-science-behind-the-dea-s-long-war-on-marijuana/
...and even in court (!)
"Special Operations Division fabricated evidence trails." - Drug_Enforcement_Administration#Special_Operations_Division_fabricated_evidence_trails
However, it's OK with me to present its claims, as claims, only under law enforcement/regulation, not as science. If however, a DEA claim is accompanied with a citation to an outside reliable source, that's different, of course. Kolyvansky (talk) 16:49, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd consider the DEA as a reliable source for deaths being reported as related to XYZ. Since the state a local agencies would be the ones actually making the determination as to the relationship to deaths and the DEA is simply the clearing house that they're reporting to, I don't see the conflict. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
  • State law enforcement agencies have an even worse reputation for bending the truth towards law enforcement objectives. Only independent, reliable scientific sources should be cited on matters of "scientific fact". Keep DEA claims under the unsupported claims by law enforcement agencies. unless supported by independent, reliable scientific sources. Kolyvansky (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Whatever your feelings about law enforcement are, state and local LE agencies aren't the ones making determinations of death. That is medical examiners/coroners making those and reporting them. There source that did the autopsy is a better one than some magazine writer. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
  • We'll never know how they concluded anything without documentation, and they have a documented history of twisting the facts to fit their purpose. Kolyvansky (talk) 23:11, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
No, lack of documentation from an agency with a bad reputation on telling the truth is exactly the point. We should not cite, as fact, any of its claims (as anything other than its claim) without reliable independent backup. Kolyvansky (talk) 15:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Please don't bludgeon the discussion. You have made your perspective clear. (see WP:BLUDGEON). Other folks will weigh in with time and we will get a good sense of community consensus on the use of this source, for this statement. Jytdog (talk) 23:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
I've not seen any evidence of you taking this seriously yourself, but I do understand it, now. You do it. I'll try to refrain and respond to points of fact only. You should try that. Kolyvansky (talk) 15:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

It's unfortunate the DEA statement is not referenced like a scientific publication, but the number is broadly of the same order you find searching pubmed for case reports. I found reports of 2 deaths in the US, 2 in Germany, 9 in Sweden, and one in Norway, all since 2011. We can assume that not all deaths result in a published case report, and the number claimed by the DEA thus appears unremarkable. I see no reason to doubt it. I was going to say something about the fact that in most case reports I saw, kratom was not the only possible cause of death, but this appears to already be mentioned in the article. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh this article has been fine-tooth combed. Jytdog (talk) 05:01, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
...not to the point of being encyclopedic. Dump the DEA as a source on anything other than what it thinks it must do. Kolyvansky (talk) 15:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Someguy, where's "this appears to already be mentioned in the article"? I tried to introduce such doubt from scientific articles only to have those removed by Jytdog and others. The DEA announcement contains no such doubt, and that's part of the problem. Kolyvansky (talk) 15:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
"although in none was kratom the sole factor.[7]" Bottom of the third paragraph straight after "In the United States, there were fifteen kratom-related deaths between 2014 and 2016" - which is where you expect it to be when its clearly clarifying 'kratom-related'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
This is a matter of selective ignorance by Koylvansky to whom I offered explanation before here. As a subdivision of the US Department of Justice, DEA has obligation to understand the scientific background and has ready access to all the scientific expertise of the federal government among various departments and entities like the CDC and NIH for understanding drug actions and outcomes like death rates. It's explained here, but Koylvansky chooses to ignore the obvious collective weight of government scientific interaction on national drug and health issues. --Zefr (talk) 16:00, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Calling me names and the DEA's own bureaucratic whitewash are not offers of explanation. You have not appeared to consider the origin of the DEA (Nixon's counterweight to his own Presidential Commission report on recreational drug use, see "...Science behind the DEA's Long War..." above) or the DEA's documented history (also above) of twisting the truth. Kolyvansky (talk) 17:35, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Only in death, "although in none was kratom..." refers to a different source. The DEA source in question has no such caveat, or even a cit. Kolyvansky (talk) 14:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

A thesis as a source

Wondering if this thesis could be considered a reliable source for an article. From what I can tell it isn't widely cited and neither is its author, but apparently the supervisors are. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

It would be unusual for a thesis or dissertation to be widely cited or for its author, a new graduate, to be widely known. Luckily, neither of those are criteria that are closely related to how we evaluate reliability in Wikipedia. In general, if the institution is respected and the committee members, especially the chair, is in good standing then those are good assurances that the document meets our standards for reliability.
But that doesn't answer any questions about whether the document should be included in any article. It seems that many theses and dissertations are unlikely to pass the due weight test(s) since they are, by definition, student-written documents and as already discussed they are unlikely to be widely cited. ElKevbo (talk) 20:51, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, I was checking whether WP:USEDBYOTHERS would apply, seeing as it is the most complete discussion of Isluga that I can find. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
I guess it depends on what you're citing it for. (That link doesn't load for me, which is probably just a reflection on my ancient computer and not the link; as long as the thesis is held somewhere where it's reasonably accessible to a civilian, it meets the "published" criteria I think. Since I don't know what it's about, bear with me with my examples).
If it's a statement of fact -- let's say "between 1950 and 1980, the bird population in Lanao del Norte Province fell by 25%". How rigorously has that statement been fact-checked? I don't know; I'm asking. I know if the thesis was published in Journal of Avian Biology that a qualified person has actually checked that statement against the author's notes and other sources and was satisfied that it is true -- otherwise it would have been removed. Does this happen for unpublished thesi? Maybe it does -- maybe the examining committee does this. Probably they do. Anybody know? Or is it more like "well, 95% of the research is accurate, so pass; and its not our remit to actually correct any errors in the document, since we're not reviewing for publication"? Does it depend on the institution?
If it's a more analytical statement -- let's say ""The avian population of Lanao del Norte Province entered a crisis in the mid 20th century" -- based on the thesis, I wouldn't use it unless the author became notable later as an expert on the subject. Even then its a little sketchy, since she wasn't an expert at the time. Herostratus (talk) 21:16, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
It depends a lot on the level of the student. I can't get this page to load, either, so I can't make a guess at the level of the student - undergraduate, Master's student, PhD candidate, etc. - in this specific instance. At the higher levels, especially for a doctoral thesis or dissertation, a good committee (which is what the previous quality indicators I offered above are attempting to get at) will provide oversight similar to that provided by journal article reviewers. I don't know if many doctoral dissertation committees often get into the level of detail of checking every factual assertion but a good committee is formed of content and method experts that are directly aligned with the topic of the research so they should catch those things. It's similar to what happens with many journal articles except that much of the feedback can be provided in person during the defense and the stakes are much higher (and hopefully your committee is much more supportive than a random group of experts). In fact, most chairs and some committees will demand to see one or more drafts of each chapter to provide formative feedback months (or more!) before the student is even permitted to schedule a final defense. My understanding is that things are generally less rigorous for lower-level degrees with some undergraduate theses being reviewed by a single faculty member instead of a committee. ElKevbo (talk) 21:26, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Not loading for me either. I would treat a thesis as a self-published source, that is with caution. A very good sign is that the thesis is eventually published as a book, as happens with some PhD theses. A good thesis should produce at least a journal article or two. It may be worthwhile to see if the author is published elsewhere. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:32, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Right, I was assuming a Ph. D. thesis. I would think anything below that level would not be something we want to use. But it sounds like it'd be a good deal more reliable than a self-published source, since its been gone over by an examining committee. Herostratus (talk) 21:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
@Herostratus, K.e.coffman, and ElKevbo: Got the link working again: https://web.archive.org/web/20170409083045/http://repositorio.uchile.cl/handle/2250/134143 Seems like it's a master thesis though, or postgraduate. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

It has the name "Cascante Matamoros, Monserrat. "Evolución geológica y magmática del volcán Isluga, 19° S, región de Tarapacá, Chile." (2015).", the link does not work at the moment appparently. JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 22:32, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't make much sense... "Reliable" means "we can be (reasonably) confident that its statements are true". Right? "Significant scholarly influence" means how worthwhile or notable or whatever it is. There's some statistical relationship between the two but quite weak I would imagine. Certainly I can imagine rejecting a ref on the grounds of "who cares what some student says?" but that's not a question of reliability, it's a question of standing. (I mean, at the other end, Kapital has had enormous scholarly influence -- does that mean we take its various statements of fact as prima facie true?...) Herostratus (talk) 15:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, that's partly why I italicized "guideline" and qualified with "fyi." It's not a policy, just a suggestion, and probably not too well thought out since it's an afterthought to the rest of the guideline. First Light (talk) 15:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
The degree is listed as Magíster en Ciencias, Mención Geología, i.e., M.S. in Geology. In the geosciences we'd ordinarily cite a journal paper that resulted from the thesis. (Here "we" refers both to academic practice and to Wikipedia.) If the thesis (a) produced no journal publications and (b) hasn't been cited in the literature then Wikipedia probably shouldn't be citing it, especially for anything likely to be challenged. It might be citeable for very mundane, non-controversial information. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
It does have a serious committee, but I do think it's important to know what the Thesis is supposed to be used for. Incidental remarks on political boundaries between Chile and Argentina: No. Basic geology: Possibly, but there should be better sources out there. Specifics of the topic: Maybe, but with care. The thesis was apparently handed in in 2015. With journal publishing times being what they are, its quite possible that a corresponding journal article is still to come. So the problem may resolve itself by waiting. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
To clarify why it matters what statements it is being used to support: a Masters will include synthesis and analysis of existing data, and new data. If the statement is derived from existing data which has been accepted into the realm of academic knowledge then we would usually prefer to cite it directly. If it is new knowledge in the thesis, in using it we are trusting that the student, their supervisor, and the examining committee have applied a rigorous standard based on intimate knowledge of the specialist field and have decided that the finding is indeed true, accurate and important. It would be much better to rely on a formal academic publication derived from the thesis, since we would have much stronger grounds for believing that this new knowledge has been evaluated by those with the specialist knowledge to consider its implications. Including statements sourced to theses runs the risk of clogging up WP with inaccurate or misleading content derived from a single student's work.Martinlc (talk) 10:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
There are better sources for the border in the area than this thesis. That said, since I was thinking of writing a detailed description of the geology of the volcano, I suppose that putting it off for a while to see if it receives citations may be a better bet. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
@Martinlc: Just out of curiosity, what do you think that an journal editor and peer reviewers do that a well-formed thesis or dissertation committee doesn't do? I ask because I am wary that some Wikipedia editors seem to fetishize academic peer review, at least for well-known journals, without really understanding the peer review process that they employ and how that process compares to other similar processes. ElKevbo (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
I think your merging of thesis and dissertation committee highlights my point. A Masters dissertation need not be subject to the same level of specialist oversight as a PhD thesis. It will be supervised by the person in the university with the most relevant expertise, but that may or may not constitute sufficient knowledge of the subject matter to evaluate whether the results are profound and significant, or typical and expected. Depending on the university, the dissertation may be marked by two members of staff and then reviewed by an external examiner. The role of the external examiner is to ensure that the QA process has been followed and the learning outcomes achieved, not that the dissertation's every statement is accurate. Taking into account that a moderately good dissertation would still pass, it would be hard to argue that dissertations as a class of material should be considered as especially reliable. In contrast, journal peer review should mean that the editor (who knows about the gendral subject area) and the reviewer(s) who know about the specific topic, have looekd at the article and made a judgement about the value, significance and reliability of its content.Martinlc (talk) 14:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
I readily concede your point about the different standards applied to the documents produced by students at different levels e.g., Master's, doctorate. However, we must be clear that universities have inconsistent usage of "thesis" and "dissertation" and we cannot determine the level of the degree simply using the name of the document. For example, you are discussing "dissertation" as if it's only a Master's-level document but the word is also used at many universities to describe the doctoral-level document and the same kind of switching/inconsistency happens for "thesis," too. I don't know which words are more commonly used or how that decision is made (I wonder if there is a generalized split between U.S. and European institutions...). ElKevbo (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
I used to teach on a Master's course. There was a thesis but it was really only a ten thousand word essay and there's no way they'd meet our criteria for reliable sources. I agree with our guideline as it stands. Doug Weller talk 14:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • A PhD thesis is considered published if it is held in a publicly-accessable depository and, assuming it gets examined and passed at some form of viva voce, that acts as a level of peer review. No problem. Put it another way, if the institute / examiners, etc, themselves are 'reliable', then they will alost certainly only produce reliably-researched theses- speaking extremely generally, of course. As for MA / BA theses, almost certainly not, as they do not undergo the same level of scrutiny, or per-review. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 16:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

RS for politicians

I have a few general questions about good sourcing for politicians, especially when running for office. I have been comparing WP:RS for several similar politicians.

Here are my questions:

(1) External links:

Are external "official campaign" links acceptable, as those found here Cincinnati_mayoral_election,_2017#External_links:

either on that page or on the page of the candidate who is running?

(2) For links above, is there anything from these campaign self-published sites that might be acceptable for material in the candidate's article? Like birthdate, high school, residence, age, degrees, clubs, orgs, endorsements, etc.?


(3) For links like these that are published by in .gov about the elected official:

which are provided by the government administration, which I believe are written and/or controlled by the office holder. My guess is that they are still somewhat promotional but a little less POV than the similar .coms.

I have the same question as (2): is there anything from these campaign self-published sites that might be acceptable for material in the candidate's article? Like birthdate, high school, residence, age, degrees, clubs, orgs, endorsements, etc.?


(4) regarding questions (2) and (3), I asked a related question here: Template_talk:Infobox_officeholder#website_parameter

--David Tornheim (talk) 02:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll take a crack at it based on my own experiences and thoughts.
For (1) I think those kind of external links are generally OK, but not mandatory. The problems are: (a) after the campaign those websites usually go defunct or are switched over (to some new campaign for a different office); and (b) for elections with a large number of candidates, it is unwieldy to list all of the candidates — or alternatively to decide what minor candidates to exclude.
For (2) on the use of campaign websites, the general five criteria in the policy on "self-published sources as sources on themselves" (WP:SELFPUB) would control. Refer to that policy for criteria.
For (3) I would still consider these self-published, so WP:SELFPUB would also apply because these official bios are usually written by the office-holder or his/her aides. Note that this doesn't necessarily apply to all governmental biographies; for example, I would not consider the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress and the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges to be "self-published sources as sources on themselves." But for "mayor of Smallville John Doe" then it would be. Neutralitytalk 20:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
@Neutrality: Thanks for the feedback. That's helpful. That was my inclination on the answer to all of those questions, but I wanted to be sure. I have always been a bit leery about self-published claims--especially from politicians--about facts such as participating in various orgs, since the author might not remember the dates correctly and could exaggerate their role and/or under-report on controversial involvement. I have certainly seen politicians do the later two. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

MLWERKE

This site is very web 1.0 and looks like a personal project to me, but my German is not great (I only know about trout, the Lutheran Bible and linden trees). Is it an appropriately neutral resource or should we be pushing to get these replaced by links to PD texts on Gutenberg and the like? Guy (Help!) 10:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Daily Express RfC

I know the Daily Express is to be "treated with caution", but if The Daily Mail is to be banned as "unreliable", I feel that a newspaper that publishes articles like this should follow suit: https://www.express.co.uk/journalist/122435/Jon-Austin (Example headline: "Aliens CREATED GOD… and now they want him back - shock claim of how religion began") Thoughts? Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 16:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

The author specifically covers aliens/conspiracies etc and most of the articles are posted in the 'Weird' section where you would expect them to be. As an example this article labels claims 'bizarre' and 'shocking', attributes them to 'conspiracy theory' websites, uses scare quotes around 'evidence' etc as well as 'alleged translations'. Its clearly not even pretending the story is real. Its just covering weird conspiracy junk in a tabloid manner. The problem with the Daily Mail was that it presented its fake crap as real, while *making stuff up*. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
The problem is that the Express does publish made up stuff.Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Unlike the Daily Mail it doesnt systematically present it as true. Covering conspiracy theories and made up gumpf *while calling them conspiracy theories* etc etc is fine. Per parity you could get away with citing the express when it calls something a conspiracy theory! Look, we get that people who like to read the cancer-scaring, immigrant-hating, tabloid rag-of-choice of small-minded people are upset because wikipedia has said its not reliable. Pointing out that other organisations are sometimes also not reliable is not going to make the Daily Mail look any better given its sustained track record of shite. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
The author is credited as "Online science reporter" for the Daily Express. Although these articles are published in the "Weird" section, they are pure fiction presented as fact. I don't know of any other "serious" newspaper that does this, but maybe I'm not paying enough attention. Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 10:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
They are not presented as fact. They are attributed 'claims' and clearly labelled as such. Granted they do not have a giant banner stating 'THIS IS ENTIRELY MADE UP' but then most people do not actually need that to understand when someone writes 'it is claimed' it does not mean 'this is a fact'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Everything you've said is true about every other news article that features quotes from someone. It's how the Express, and every other newspaper, reports stories. Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 13:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

The Mail is probably the bottom of the barrel, but the Express, Mirror, and Sun aren't far off. If we see a cite to any of them, it is generally a good idea to replace it to a cite to more reliable source. If no such source exists, and if a given statement is only seen there, then editors should carefully consider whether to remove the text at issue entirely, because coverage only by low-quality tabloids that's a pretty strong signal that something is not encyclopedic, would be given undue weight, etc. But of course a lot of this is based on context / case-by-case. Neutralitytalk 16:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

  • What sold the Daily Mail "ban" was numerous examples of egregiously made-up articles (fabricated stories/interviews/etc.), not mere clickbait/poor fact-checking, and none could provide another reasonably widely-read newspaper with such a track record. Unless you have the same with the DE, I doubt a similar "ban" would pass. (This is a comment on the politics, not on the merits of banning the DE.) TigraanClick here to contact me 18:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
  • for pete's sake. The RfC on daily mail happened because we kept having the same discussion over and over (Q: "is (article X) from Daily Mail reliable to support (content Y)?" A: "No") and all that the RfC did, was confirm what every editor with a clue already knew from those many discussions here -- namely that the Mail is rarely a reliable source for encyclopedic content. That is all that the RfC did. Clueful editors also know already that Express etc are also rarely reliable. If there is a better source, use the better source, and if there is no better source, think five times before using Express et al and be ready to explain why the content is DUE and the content is reliably sourced. Enough with these efforts to legislate clue. Jytdog (talk) 20:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't have a firm view personally on whether a RfC is necessary. I agree most editors would already approach the Daily Express with caution. However, I disagree that the Express has a better record than the Mail when it comes to fabricating stories. For example:

This is just a sample - whether a RfC happens or not, I find it hard to see circumstances in which this paper should be used as a source. AusLondonder (talk) 21:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I find it hard to see circumstances in which this paper should be used as a source. Well, I suppose if they made up a bizarre enough concoction that it captured the public interest, they'd be useful for sourcing the things they wrote about it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Toward the above evidence by AusLondonder, while I do see some evidence of a cavalier attitude toward accuracy, I am not seeing quite the same level of blatant fabrication that we saw in numerous examples in the Daily Mail RfC. Speculation taken too far (such as the Madeleine McCann article) or hyperbolic exaggeration (the English schools incident), are not quite the same as having a reputation for blatantly fabricating entire interviews, as the Daily Mail has done on numerous occasions. It isn't a great source, but largely the Express can be dealt with through editor judgement with regards to reliability of a given article. The problem with the daily mail is that outright fabrication of otherwise plausible stories made it impossible to judge if they were lying or not in some cases, which was one of the primary reasons for the 'ban'. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 22:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
That may be true, the Mail Online and their celebrity "churnalism" is probably part of that. Given questions about the suitability of BuzzFeed I was amused to see an article by them pointing out an instance of the Express taking stories without attribution and then drawing their own rather malicious conclusions from the statistics - not to mention actually stealing and taking interview quotes completely out of context. AusLondonder (talk) 22:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Use of Maxirmilien de LaFayette for a source - for just about anything

Maximilien de LaFayette claims to have written over 2500 books .[1] His own website[2] shows that he specialialises in UFOs, Sitchin type fringe, etc. His 'dictionaries' and many of his other books are self-published by Lulu or CreativeSpace. He doesn't seem to claim any credentials (saying this on the basis of his Amazon site where he dismisses them) but does say "In 2004, as an expert linguist and a lawyer (Int'l law, French Law, Comparative Arabic Laws, and Islamic Law), de Lafayette was commissioned by Yale University, School of Law to translate from English to Arabic, The White House Draft of the New Constitution of Iraq. He is internationally known for his expertise in the history and languages of ancient civilizations & social-legal studies of the Middle East, with a strong emphasis on tribal dialects, comparative social systems, laws & Islam. In addition, he wrote & produced numerous musicals, screenplays, documentaries & world premieres around the world. He wrote about so many subjects, encompassing Opera, Divas, Hollywood, Cinema, Jazz, Afro-American influence on American music, pioneering work of legends in showbiz, cabaret, fashion, history of art and civilization from 7,000 BC to the present day, extraterrestrials, aliens spaceships, UFOS, mysticism, spiritism, channeling, earth energy, healing, metaphysics, quantum physics, parallel universes, languages, Mesopotamia, international law, Islam, religions, cubism and abstract art, theology, anthropology, world literature, French history, American history, food and beverage, leadership, you name it." I think he may have some books that aren't self-published, but I can't see him as a source for anything. Doug Weller talk 15:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Kinda Hanna

Some of these sources (which can be translated easily by those using Chrome) seem dubious. The one about her nickname is a blog. But I'd like a 2nd opinion. Doug Weller talk 18:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

expo.se

Is this a neutral, reliable source without serving a political agenda? The organization behind claims to be "informing the population about racism and xenophobia". The magazine publishes content criticizing right-wing political parties and politics, e.g. [3]. Its founders and editors, i.e. Tobias Hübinette, Stieg Larsson et al., are public far-leftist figures in Sweden, Hübinette being notorious, for instance, for stating that "to feel or even think that the white race is inferior in every conceivable way is natural with regards to its history and current actions. Let the Western countries of the white race perish in blood and suffering." --176.23.1.95 (talk) 23:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

See WP:QUESTIONABLE. The quote you attribute to the founders doesn't necessarily mean the publication exclusively reflects their views, but if it does, this would squarely fall under the category of "extremist". General Ization Talk 23:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Washington Exec

Washington Exec is used as a bio/corp source in articles about some topics I'd consider marginal. Inspecting the source, despite sounding like a print magazine title, it appears to be in fact a two-person blog: https://www.washingtonexec.com/about/. Examples:

All in all this looks indistinguishable from paid placement I've seen in promotional articles before. What does the community think? - Bri (talk) 00:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I would not count this as an RS with regard to notability; interviews generally don't count. Would not source anything beyond simple facts from it - no great achievements. Jytdog (talk) 22:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Can other reliable sources make an unreliably-published source reliable?

Sometimes scholarly content is published on web sources that we would normally consider unreliable (for instance, questions or answers on MathOverflow by people who would not necessarily pass the "recognized expert" clause of WP:SPS). And if it stopped there, those sources would clearly not be reliable. But in some cases, later reliably-published scholarly literature (e.g. journal papers) cites that web content as the definitive reference for a certain fact or claim. When this happens, can we then consider the original web source as becoming reliable? And if so can we include language in WP:RS to allow for this case? (Of course, there's still the issue that the original source is primary and not secondary, but that's a separate issue. My general feeling on the primary/secondary distinction in mathematical subjects is that we need to include both types of sources: secondary sources to provide appropriate reliability and verifiability for our subjects, and primary sources because failing to cite the originators of ideas is just bad scholarship.) —David Eppstein (talk) 19:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources occasionally fall for unreliable information. That's a strike against it. On the other hand, other reliable sources verifying and using information from a normally unrecognized source can add credence to that unrecognized source. WP:USEBYOTHERS is pertinent. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
WP:USEBYOTHERS is what I was looking for (and I don't know how I missed it before posting this). Thanks! —David Eppstein (talk) 22:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
David, I agree entirely with your last sentence. Scientists (and presumably some other scholars) are taught the reverse of what is recommended on WP. We are taught to go back to the original, primary source for fact checking, and this is the source we cite in journal papers, not a textbook or a web-page. On WP, I tend to rely on primary sources, probably more than some editors would like. However, if I use a secondary source, I trace back to the original source and if I can, I cite this as well. I feel this is only fair recognition for the scholars that generated the knowledge. DrChrissy (talk) 22:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
I also agree with David, but when I discussed a particular source finding only positive reviews (with none offered suggesting otherwise), I was subsequently taken to ARBPS#Discretionary sanctions, and topic banned. It seems that consensus trumps WP:USEBYOTHERS and all the sources available. --Iantresman (talk) 22:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
  • David, I would be slightly careful of taking Dr Chrissy or Iantresman as authorities, since both have a history of sanctions for promoting pseudoscience. MathOverflow and ArXiv are both interesting edge cases for WP:RS and I think would need to be taken case by case. Guy (Help!) 13:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • No. Sometimes source analysis can require some sophistication but this sort of "reaching back" through an RS to an SPS is not OK in my view. Why not just cite the RS itself instead of reaching back to the SPS? Jytdog (talk) 22:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

InPublishing website and magazine: a reliable source?

I wonder if anyone could advise whether this website (the publishers also produced a bi-monthly magazine, would be considered and independent, verifiable source for notability of a specialist publishing company?

http://www.inpublishing.co.uk

The references I wish to use to support a profile of my company Green Star Media Ltd are as follows:

http://www.inpublishing.co.uk/kb/articles/media_innovation_awards_2014_green_star_media_1366.aspx

http://www.inpublishing.co.uk/news/articles/green_star_media_secures_venture_capital_funding_7539.aspx

http://www.inpublishing.co.uk/news/articles/green_star_media_acquires_two_brands_from_electric_word_7609.aspx

http://www.inpublishing.co.uk/news/articles/trevor_goulwheeker_joins_green_star_media_as_chairman.aspx

All assistance gratefully received Rugbyboy2 (talk) 20:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Those are all blog postings on the website of a trade rag. People are not going to find them very compelling with regard to notability; they may be OK for content once notability is met but use with care. Jytdog (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Can this citation be used to cite a person's surname in an article?

Over at the article Kotoko (musician), no surname is given as she has not publicly disclosed her surname. However, this Chinese government source, which apparently is some form of permit to perform in China, gives a surname for her. Assuming good faith, is it advisable to include the surname in the article with the link I have given as a source, or not? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:06, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I would be extremely reluctant to use it. Even if that's completely reliable, it's still a WP:PRIMARY source at best, and if it's the only place to report that, digging through someone's official records to discover their surname, when it has not been covered or published anywhere else, feels like extreme original research. If some other reliable source were to reference it, we could cite that, but I don't think we should cite it directly ourselves if nobody else has done so. --Aquillion (talk) 01:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Aquillion. Oddly, I would be okay with this source if her surname were widely attested because at that point, it's just a relatively minor detail. But if that's the only source, then I'd hold off on adding a surname to the article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Yeah. It's a BLP issue to some degree. WP:BLP tells us to give "due regard to the subject's privacy" and "Material from primary sources should generally not be used" and "include only information relevant to their notability". It's mostly talking about stuff like what they paid for the house or their DUI, and actual legal name is different, since it's a basic vital statistic that we or any any encyclopedia usually include. But still. I would at least wait for a good secondary source to put the cat out of the bag first, and even then it'd something to discuss from a BLP angle. Herostratus (talk) 02:58, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
What they said. We went through the same circumstances with the somewhat higher-profile case of That Poppy—while it's trivially easy to find primary sources confirming that this is a stage name of Moriah Pereira, because the secondary sources don't exist the real name doesn't appear once in the article. ‑ Iridescent 23:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Etymologist Sevan Nişanyan?

Recently, I started expanding the Etymology section of the "Pasha" page. Here I stumbled across the phrase; "According to Etymologist Sevan Nişanyan, the word is derived from Turkish beşe ('boy, prince'), which is cognate with Persian baççe (بچّه).[5]".

According to the Wiki page of the gentleman in question, he is a "intellectual, travel writer, researcher and polymath". Apart from some information on his website, ("A graduate of Yale (BA 1979) and Columbia (MA 1983), he taught linguistic history at Istanbul’s prestigious Bilgi University. His Etymological Dictionary of Modern Turkish (first ed. 2002, currently in 3rd ed.) is the main work of reference in its field.") I couldn't really find more precise info about his relations to this field of scholarship.

I'm therefore wondering, is he a reliable source on matters pertaining to linguistics and/or etymology? Thanks - LouisAragon (talk) 13:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Are sources that comments on press releases be considered as reliable?

In the article List of highest-grossing films in the Philippines, there's an issue whether news articles that comments on press releases be considered as reliable sources. These sources are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and many more. These news articles use box office grosses that came from the film distributors. Here is my revision including these sources: Special:Diff/775469427/775468578. Another user disagrees with my sources and sees Box Office Mojo as the only source for box office grosses. My argument is that BOM doesn't track all-year round in the Philippines. To include highest grossing films that which were not tracked by BOM, I've used news articles that comments on box office grosses released by the film distributors as the primary references. Janbryan (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

The sources do not say what the actual figures were but just state what the producers said. So we cannot state as fact those were the actual amounts. It is possible that they were preliminary results, which could contain estimates, errors and omissions. You could exclude the figures and note in the list that it did not account for the most recent films or you could include them and add a footnote that the figures come from the producers. TFD (talk) 19:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

When Trump dropped the MOAB, print media dropped the Mother of all Lazy Journalism

Last week "credible," fact-checking outlets including the The New York Times claimed that the Mother of All Bombs dropped in Afghanistan costs $16 million. Still others claimed it was $314 million. Actually, as Business Insider first reported, the bomb costs a mere $170,000. The $16 million and $314 million figures cited by mainstream media evidently came from an older report by The Los Angeles Times which was reporting the program cost of a different bomb. The NY Times and most other outlets did not cite their source - and, as of today, two days after the news broke, The NY Times has not issued a correction.

It's time to start thinking of reliable sources on a case-by-case basis. When outlets with a mixed record for fact-checking like Business Insider do original reporting and correct the record, we should consider those reports to be generally reliable. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 23:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

So, do you have any CONCRETE proof -- other than "an anonymous somebody told a reporter at Business Insider" -- that this is true? And no, putting the word "credible" inside scare quotes when referring to the New York Times doesn't make it true. --Calton | Talk 16:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm dubious of the BI article as a definitive source. It's sorely lacking on detail. If anything, we should say that sources disagree about how much the bombs cost.- MrX 16:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
"Cost of one bomb" is also a slippery concept. One way to arrive at it is to divide the entire cost over their lifetime of the various projects to design, develop, and manufacture the bombs (and you could also add some share of the overhead cost of maintaining the various organizations that store, maintain, and deploy the bombs) by the total number of bombs made to date. If you do that you will arrive at a high number. If you just look at the line-item for the amount paid to a contractor for just one bomb, you might get a lower figure. Neither figure is necessarily "better", they are different ways of answering the question "how much do these bombs cost us?".
The Guardian says "Each Moab... costs $16 million out of a total programme cost of $314 million which produced about 20 of the bombs". So there you have it. The $314 million is the total cost of the program (which presumably goes back years). The $16 million is the total cost of the program divided by the total bombs produced (so far). The $170,000 might be the check cut to the contractor for delivery of each bomb, ignoring millions of dollars of R&D subsidies paid to that contractor and others, and all other costs. Which one is "right"? Search me -- the $16 million I guess. (Note that the cost-per-unit is a variable figure and will drop quite a bit if a lot more are produced, which is normal with manufactured goods.) Herostratus (talk) 17:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Actually this is one of those rare projects with no independent contractor. The bomb was produced in-house entirely by the Pentagon. The Atlanta-Journal says 15 were produced. which isn't too off. Still The Guardian is citing a figure that is identical to the program cost of a different bomb, as I said before. To me it sounds like just another circular reference, particularly because The Guardian doesn't cite its sources. The Daisy Cutter, a very similar bomb, costs $27,000 according to The Guardian. Business Insider's figure sounds just about right to me.
To be clear, this is a admonition of using sources that have a reputation for fact-checking in specific cases where the article isn't up to snuff, not necessarily an endorsement of Business Insider. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 17:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Since it was apparently built in-house, the cost is whatever the AF accountants decide to include in that cost; which is probably not a meaningful number. Probably cost more than $170,000 just to store it for the 14 years since it was built. No reason to include this in any article here. Objective3000 (talk) 17:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
...not necessarily an endorsement of Business Insider.. Yes it is. You started with the assumption that BI was right -- you explicitly chided the New York Times for NOT "issu[ing] a correction", then completely replaced the Los Angeles Times reference with a text not actually supported by the BI citation: it's not "the Air Force" that says this, it's a claim by someone at BI that an unnamed USAF person told the BI reporter this. You decided -- alone -- that certain well-known and time-tested reliable sources weren't "up to snuff" and that Business Insider -- without evidence -- was.
It's time to start thinking of reliable sources on a case-by-case basis. Congrats, you just reinvented the wheel. --Calton | Talk 16:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Reading the headline, I thought this referred to the blind repetition of US Army PR claims by press agencies and their customers - e.g. US-Megabombe tötet Dutzende IS-Kämpfer (US mega-bomb kills dozens of IS fighters), obviously without any fact-checking with respect to numbers or kind if victims - per the old adage "every dead Vietnamese was a Viet-Cong"). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Marxist Internet Archive

We have over 5,000 links to marxists.org, many of them as sources in articles, most of them on the face of it being hosted copies of PD books. I believe there is consensus that linking PD books on websites promoting an ideology is poor practice, and we should cite the book not the website, and if people want an online copy they should copy to Wikisource.

There is some content such as works by Lutsky, e.g. from 1969, which are probably still in copyright. I can't find evidence of release. That's a bit of a problem. Guy (Help!) 12:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

There is an archived discussion, from only a week or so ago here. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
The Marxists Internet Archive is not a political organization promoting a particular ideology, but rather an independent, non-profit archive that collects and preserves historical primary sources on Marxism (largely texts by deceased writers). Some parts of the archive do include some contemporary synthesis and analysis, though the Archive's charter requires this to be "clearly differentiated from primary sources". The Archive is independent of any political party, and its volunteers come from a variety of ideological backgrounds, including many that are unrelated to or even opposed to Marxism. It has been operating for nearly 30 years and has a volunteer staff larger than many traditional publishing houses.
The MIA's goals, operational structure, and editorial/quality controls are not unlike those of Wikisource, and for this reason I see no problem linking to the archived, free-content, primary sources it contains, particularly when those sources are not already available on Wikisource. (In fact, it may be even better to link to MIA than to Wikisource, since it may give readers easier access to related primary sources that Wikisource lacks.) With respect to the original material it contains (such as its Encyclopedia of Marxism), I think that it's sufficiently reliable to use as a source for basic factual and statistical claims. I'm not sure that I'd use it as a source for contemporary analysis, except when such analysis is contributed by a named subject-matter expert. (This is the same exception given in WP:SPS, though I hasten to add that I don't consider MIA to be a self-published source.)
I should note that this RSN entry arose as a result of my objection to the OP removing references and external links to the MIA from several articles. Even if the outcome of this discussion is that the MIA is not a reliable source, it is not appropriate to simply remove existing references to it wholesale—these need to be replaced on a case-by-case basis. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I'd rather have the link to the PD text, and choose whether to look at the source, than have someone decide for me. To call a link to a source "promotion" is somewhat cynical. Every source and every article could be considered "promotion", but public access to information is far more than that. --Iantresman (talk) 21:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
It's not a link to a source, it's a link to a copy of a document on a website promoting an agenda. There are three reasons why this is in appropriate: First, it misrepresents the source (some of the links identify MIA as the publisher, for example). Second, there is an editorial bias in what is presented around the content. Third, FUTON bias means that the documents the site selects to promote because they find them ideologically pleasing, so this produces an imbalance between easily available ideologically consonant sources and less accessible sources that may well be more representative of the preponderance of opinion. Guy (Help!) 21:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Two of your reasons have nothing to do with whether or not MIA is a reliable source as we define it. Only the editorial bias issue is relevant. It's one you keep repeating, though it's one which runs counter to the archive's charter, and one for which you haven't yet offered any evidence. Are you sure you are not confusing editorial bias with objective selection criteria? Did you ever submit to the archive a historical article by a Marxist writer, and have it rejected on the grounds that the editors found it ideologically displeasing? If the site promotes a particular ideology through the selection of its articles, how do you reconcile this with the fact that archive contains articles that are ideologically incompatible with each other? —Psychonaut (talk) 07:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Psychonaut That's nonsense. Wikisource is politically neutral, it has no ideological bias. MIA only includes sources it likes. Some are by authors whose opinions should not be on Wikipedia at all because we have no evidence they are considered reputable scholars. Guy (Help!) 21:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
@Guy, if the document/book is mentioned, we should link to it so we can check the facts (statements) being presented. --Iantresman (talk) 23:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Marxist.org is probably not a reliable source in the sense that it would lend reliability to something simply by publishing there; however, AFAIK we don't apply WP:RS to sites like these that host things that were originally published elsewhere - Google Books is absolutely not a reliable source in the sense WP:RS cares about, for instance (it makes absolutely no effort towards fact-checking whatsoever), but it's fine to link to something hosted there provided it was originally published elsewhere and can satisfy WP:RS via that publication. The only reasons I can see to bar something from being used as a host in that sense are if we're so skeptical of them that we feel they might misrepresent or modify stuff they're rehosting (which I don't think is the case here); if there's a better host available (which often isn't the case for these); or if people are concerned that a host's bias or reputation could lead to WP:NPOV issues simply by linking to something hosted there, which isn't really a WP:RS issue. Either way, if the document passes WP:RS by being published elsewhere, it is absolutely not appropriate to remove a reference itself simply because the cite linked to marxist.org as the host - at the absolute most, we would remove the link and leave the reference intact. The only time you could remove a reference entirely over this was if someone tried to reference something published directly by marxist.org (which I tend to agree wouldn't pass WP:SPS, but which I don't think is what we're discussing here), or otherwise cited something that obviously wouldn't pass WP:RS irrespective of whether it was hosted on marxist.org or not. Regarding it being used for external links, which other people have mentioned, I don't think it hits any of the obvious points on WP:ELNO, so I don't think removing it wholesale is appropriate, provided it's not being over-linked or over-represented or anything. --Aquillion (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
The site is non-partisan and a great resource for students of Marxism. Whether or not a source should be used depends on the original publisher. Linking to MIA allows readers to see cited text in full, which is a benefit. TFD (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Rulers.org and Worldstatesmen.org

Are rulers.org and worldstatesmen.org reliable sources? I know this may have been discussed before but I cannot find a consensus or anything. They are currently used for a number of articles (Derog Gioura, Kennan Adeang, Government of the Ryukyu Islands, List of rulers of Kwêna among others), and I've been trying to use the latter as evidence William Worth is deceased. Although they may be self-published at least WorldStatesmen give the authors' names and the sources they got the info from in the Contributors page (and none of the sources are Wikipedia itself), so I'm not sure why it would be unreliable. In fact, if I remember correctly, WorldStatesmen requires more confirmation to add in info than rulers. EternalNomad (talk) 22:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Worldstatesmen does not give "the sources." It has a random list of related books that does not help you one bit find the source for any particular information, and indeed represents in no way the actual sources. And (in contrast to Rulers) it does most definitely copy from Wikipedia (which of course it won't admit) so for that reason alone it cannot itself be considered a valid source. (For one example, check how it lists a 1987 death year for Jack William Pithey - an error that clearly originated on Wikipedia.) There is really no reason why you would begin to consider it reliable; there are plenty of indications to make this out as an incompetent vanity project. It began by just ripping off the bulk of Rulers, then pilfering Flags of the World, and keeps just copying stuff from anywhere without distinction, just for "quantity," not being able to evaluate sources nor to interpret them correctly nor to even copy information without often adding errors. How can you take an informational site seriously that calls itself an "encyclopedia" while abounding in typos and randomly including a "9/11 memorial"? Mewulwe (talk) 00:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Colin Heaton's biography of Hans-Joachim Marseille

BLUF: Heaton & Lewis is an acceptable, reliable source for the article. Rationale: H&L have not produced a "scholarly" book on Marseille, but their quality is clear. Simply finding errors in their work(s) does not eliminate them as an acceptable source. (Indeed, scholars seek to "find errors" in the work of others as part of scholarly debate.) The caveat to this closing should be clear – while acceptable, the info H&L provide must be given proper weight per consensus. So, I recommend reducing the length of the Nazism section. In particular: Sheck is over-used; too much emphasis is given to the 1942 Germany visit and his piano playing; we do not have collaboration about his Holocaust concerns; and "several biographies" are not cited for "distain" of Nazism and Nazi leadership. – S. Rich (talk) 19:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

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

The source in question is Heaton, Colin; Lewis, Anne-Marie (2012). The Star of Africa: The Story of Hans Marseille, the Rogue Luftwaffe Ace. London, UK: Zenith Press. ISBN 978-0-7603-4393-7.

It is used several times for lengthy paragraphs in Hans-Joachim Marseille#Marseille and Nazism to make the case that Marseille was "openly anti-Nazi". I have argued at Talk:Hans-Joachim Marseille#Evidence for Marseille's "anti-Nazi" stand that these passages in Heaton's bio are almost exclusively based upon personal reminiscences by former comrades and Nazi persona like Karl Wolff, Artur Axmann, Hans Baur and Leni Riefenstahl, which are renowned for being talkative about the Nazi era and being apologetic at that. Their stories are not supported by other sources, but in fact appear to be very unlikely, if not impossible. Heaton's gives dates which contradict themselves and commits obvious errors. The stories he relates about Corporal Mathew Letulu [sic!], i.e. Mathew P. Letuku, contradict much better documented secondary literature. Apart from interviews, possibly conducted by himself, which is difficult to tell given the rudimentary nature of the footnotes, Heaton relies almost exclusively on two biographies, one by military pulp writer Franz Kurowski, the other a "tribute" by some Robert Tate. Based upon this evidence Heaton draws far reaching conclusions, namely that "Marseille was perhaps the most openly anti-Nazi warrior in the Third Reich." (p. 4) Given its focus upon oral evidence, collected somewhat 40 (?) years after the events, its poor editing and obvious errors, I consider that biography to be an unreliable source that should not be used excessively (and it is used for many more dubious claims) in a GA in the English Wikipedia, because it is misleading.--Assayer (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you that this source is very weak for an article on a Nazi era figure. I wouldn't have a problem with it being mentioned as "some biographies say", i.e. carefully attributed. It seems to be overused at the moment. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
It seems to be usable only as evidence for what unreliable sources say, and I'd use it only when it is explicitly described as unreliable. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Nothing but opinions from an agenda-driven Wikipedia editor. Assayer wants Heaton off Wikipedia. He has failed to show Heaton unreliable. Those are the facts that matter.
I am also concerned with the comments from Itsmejudith. What do you know about the literature of aerial warfare in World War II? And how could you say that about a book you've never read?
I'd encourage people to have a look at the talk page of Hans-Joachim Marseille - where the complainant makes accusation and assertion with no evidence. Dapi89 (talk) 11:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
See WP:HISTRS. Popular books by non-historians are not reliable for the history of WW2. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  • You are miss quoting what is a guideline; see section: What is historical scholarship. The question as to the book for evaluation is whether it is considered WP:RS or not; I do not know this work and therefore cannot offer an opinion. Kierzek (talk) 18:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately, biographical works by academic historians on members of the Wehrmacht or SS below the rank of general can be numbered on the fingers of one hand, so WP:HISTRS is useless and we must fall back upon the traditional methods of evaluating a book and its author like use of primary sources, use of puffery or biased language, etc. All that requires actually reading the book more thoroughly than a Google snippet can allow. I've never read Heaton so I really don't know if I'd consider him RS or not. Personally, I'd be most interested to see what Wübbe has to say.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
@Sturmvogel 66: On Wubbe, here's input from an editor familiar with this work: The book is 20% text and 80% pictures and copies of the original documents plus newspaper clippings. Source: User_talk:Dapi89/Archive_1#Hans Joachim Marseille. I.e. it's about 80% primary material, including unreliable war-time propaganda, and 20% commentary, also potentially unreliable given the slant of the publisher. The book was published by Verlag Siegfried Bublies -- de:Verlag Bublies, "a small, extreme-right publisher from Beltheim". K.e.coffman (talk) 17:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
He doesnt have a biography here, but from what I can google online he probably passes muster as a reliable source. Ex-military, ex-history professor, current historian and consultant for TV/Film on WW2. He is qualified in the area, has been published on the subject as well as earning a living from it for a significant time. If the only thing being held against him requires second-guessing him, thats not how WP:V works and is bordering on original research. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
As to the argument that Heaton is "qualified in the area": According to Heaton's own CV on his own commercial website he holds a BA and two MA degrees in history, was consultant and adjunct professor to the online American Military University and guest historian for a single episode of a History channel programme. That's not very impressive. What is more, I looked for reviews of his works and could not find much. It seems, however, that Heaton regularly uses "oral testimony" from people involved. That is stressed by Stephen M. Miller in a recent review of Heaton's Four-War Boer for the Journal of African History (2016), commenting that the information of the interviews are not substantiated in the text or in the notes ("unfortunately") and Horst Boog, reviewing Heaton's Night Fighters (which is his MA thesis at Temple Univ.) for the Militärgeschichtliche Zeitschrift (2010). Boog also points to numerous errors, for example Heaton's estimate of 1.2 million civillian German bomb victims. (The highest estimate is actually 635,000 victims, recent research (Richard Overy) estimates 353,000 victims.) I might add that by now I am challenging the reliability of the book for a certain, controversial characterization of Jochen Marseille. Thus one does not need to read the whole book (which I did), because I refer to a couple of pages which are cited at length in the article, I point to the sources and how they are used and I point to the language.--Assayer (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
The above is a combination of original research which we dont do and actual genuine concerns. If multiple reliable sources have cast doubt on his credibility (critical reviews, peers countering his claims etc) then that does shed doubt on his useability in an article. Could you make a list of the sources critical of him/his book? Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


I've looked. Nothing. I did say earlier in this thread, this claim of unreliability is just an opinion of one editor. This type of personal attack on sources has been made across multiple threads and articles with the same old result. Heaton qualifies as reliable. Dapi89 (talk) 13:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to add that you could find critical reviews about facets of any one of these academics work, even Overy and Miller. Using the differentials in casualty figures, which vary among all academics is a weak argument (never mind what the latest, supposedly new, research has to say, which doesn't automatically make it accurate anyway). And can you define victims? Anyone who suffered a gash from an air attack can be considered a victim. Such vague descriptions are unhelpful. Opinions are also unhelpful. Assayer is well aware of what is required here. Does this editor have reviews that are directly critical or not? Dapi89 (talk) 13:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
@Only in death: Could you please elaborate where you draw the line between OR and "genuine concerns"? Neither do I use unpublished sources nor do I come to a conclusion on my own. I simply hold what Heaton says against what other published sources say. Isn't that what User:Sturmvogel 66 asks for, if we don't have biographical works by academic historians at hand? How else could we evaluate the reliability of a publication, that is ignored by historiographical works? Please do also take into account how the material sourced to Heaton's biography is presented in the article, namely as factual accounts. Of course this is what Heaton does in his work: He weaves lengthy quotations of various anecdotes related to him through interviews into a coherent narrative. These anecdotes are not supported by third party sources and Heaton does not discuss their reliability. Thus many of the information can only be traced to oral testimony. Do we have to accept that as reliable, simply because Heaton does?
@Dapi89: Although I chose to ignore your continuous personal attacks I have to say that remarks like "Anyone who suffered a gash from an air attack can be considered a victim" are highly inappropriate. And the literature on aerial warfare in World War II is not that "vague".--Assayer (talk) 17:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
It's not an attack it is an observation on your behaviour. Those comments are entirely appropriate unless you feel the wounded don't count. I didn't say it was vague. I said you're vague. All this is hot air. You're trying to use discrepancies and differentials in accounts and figures, and unbelievably spelling differences (!!), to try and have an author discredited. OR is being kind. You're views are personal and tendentious. You're a polemist. End of story. Dapi89 (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

If Horst Boog, one of the most respected German authorities on aerial warfare during WW II, devotes a whole paragraph of his review to a list of errors, concluding that there were even more errors, then this does not add to an author's reliability as a source. I take notice that this biography is predominantly cosidered to be a "very weak" source, to say the least. One editor questioned the applicability of WP:HISTRS in cases such as this, while yet another considered the evaluation of certain claims against the background of other published sources as OR. The contradictions between these different approaches were not resolved. One editor rather commented on me than on the content, so that my evidence remains unchallenged. Maybe, as a piece of WP:FANCRUFT, the article in question is fittingly based upon anecdotes told by veterans and former Nazis. I find it troubling, however, that this is a GA by Wikipedia standards and short of FA status only because of the prose, not because of dubious content or unreliable sources.--Assayer (talk) 21:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I've previously raised concerns about Heaton on the Talk page (Talk:Hans-Joachim Marseille#Unreliable sources tag) as a WP:QS source, due to problematic POV he exhibited in one of his articles. He has called an action of a German commander an "act of humanity". A "daring raid" or "skillful military ruse" would be okay, but "an act of humanity"? That is just bizarre. (See: Talk:2nd SS Panzer Division Das Reich#Heaton. Comment from another editor was: "Heaton removed as biased pov and non WP:RS").
A related question, does Heaton indeed cite Franz Kurowski in his work? If yes, how extensively? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

"the applicability of WP:HISTRS" Assayer, what applicability? The link leads to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history), which is an essay, neither policy, nor guideline. Per Wikipedia:Essays: "Essays have no official status, and do not speak for the Wikipedia community as they may be created without approval. Following the instructions or advice given in an essay is optional. There are currently about 2,000 essays on a wide range of Wikipedia related topics."

And this particular essay does not discount works of popular history: "Where scholarly works are unavailable, the highest quality commercial or popular works should be used." Dimadick (talk) 07:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Dimadick: I did not bring WP:HISTRS up, but User:Itsmejudith. I did find that comment more helpful than others, though, because it provided at least some kind of guidance. I did not argue, however, that "highest quality commercial or popular works" should never be used. In general the comments during this discussion were contradictory. But how would you determine the quality of sources?
@K.e.coffman: Heaton considers Kurowski's bio of Marseille to be "very good" (p. xiv). Given the number of Heaton's footnotes I would say about a third of them refer to Kurowski. I did not check every footnote, what and how much material he borrowed. Heaton's main source are his interviews. In chapter 4 "Learning the Ropes", for example, there are 21 references, six refer to Kurowski, the rest refer to interviews.--Assayer (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
@Dimadick: Does the editor consider Heaton to be high quality commercial / popular work? K.e.coffman (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
If you mean me, I am not particularly convinced of Heaton's quality. I just noted that the discussion was using an essay to ban popular history works. Dimadick (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Assayer and K.e.coffman have used Wikipedia to attack sources about any German serviceman who served in World War II if it dares to complement their personal bravery or service record. Coffman has opposed the advancement of these articles, namely the Knight's Cross lists and has deleted hundreds of articles about these recipients. It should come as no surprise that their singular agenda here is to degrade and delete portions of the article that doesn't fit with their opinions. Assayer in particular has scoured the internet for anything he can find that is critical of Heaton. The tiny and weak tidbits of those academic(s) (just the one?) that are critical of small aspects of his work is nowhere near enough to decry Heaton. Virtually nothing else.
This attack on Heaton should be treated for what it is: OR and opinion by a pair of anonymous internet users. And they don't get to decide who is admitted to Wikipedia and who isn't. I'm glad at least one other editor can see that. Dapi89 (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
@Dapi89: "at least one other editor can see that" -- Which other editor is that? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I found a review of Heaton's book on Marseille from Aviation History. Mar 2013, Vol. 23 Issue 4, p62-62. 1/2p.. It reads in part:

  • "Writing the biography of a 22-year-old, most of whose life remains undocumented, isn't easy. The only way to turn it into a book is lots of photographs (Kurowski's method) or this husband-and-wife team's choice, spending way too many pages reciting the exact details of 158 aerial combats…which in turn requires suspension of disbelief on the part of readers. How, exactly, did the authors know which rudder Marseille kicked and what the airspeed read, whether he pulled full flaps or skidded to avoid a pursuer's rounds, just what Marseille saw through his windscreen and exactly when he saw it?"

K.e.coffman (talk) 06:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Which editor do you think? Or do you ignore posts you don't like?
So? If K.e.Coffman knew anything about Marseille, he'd know that through interviews with his commanding officers, and pilots in his units, Heaton is able to understand how he approached air combat. Marseille shared his knowledge with all those around him. I've seen interviews with Korner and Neumann that explicitly discuss Marseille's unorthodox tactics, some of which are sourced in the article. Simple really. Dapi89 (talk) 10:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps K.e.Coffman needs to remember (if he knew, which I doubt), that 109 of the 158 claims filed by Marseille are recorded which included many combat reports with short but vivid descriptions of how he engaged the enemy in successful combats. Dapi89 (talk) 11:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Editor Dapi89 state that criticism of Heaton was "nothing but opinions from an agenda-driven Wikipedia editor". I have provided a 3rd party review of Heaton's work on Marseille, which points out that the work is close to being historical fiction in its depictions of the areal battles ("requires suspension of disbelief on the part of readers"). Is this review also wrong? K.e.coffman (talk) 20:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
That says what exactly!? I repeat; the reviewer and it's number one wikipedia fan don't seem to understand that actions, tactics and the subject's point of view are quite easy to record.
And even if this reviewer had something insightful and factually accurate to say, using it to attack and remove another source from Wikipedia shows the agenda driven nature of the attacking editor. It shows K.e.Coffman, you're not interested in researching the subject for its own sake, but scratching around for dirt you can throw at Heaton. It is absurd to contemplate labelling Heaton unreliable because he receives some form of criticism from someone who likely is not an authority on Marseille. Heaton is.
It should be obvious the reviewer, whoever they maybe, is too ignorant to be entertained. Dapi89 (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
@Dapi89: please see: WP:no personal attacks.
The review is of the work under discussion, it's by "Wilkinson, Stephan" from the Aviation History magazine. Unless the magazine is not reputable, I don't see how a 3rd party review can be dismissed on the grounds that (in the opinion of one editor) it's been shared by "agenda-driven" contributor to "scratch around for dirt [to] throw at Heaton". K.e.coffman (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
It isn't an attack. It's an observation. Understand the difference. I've lost count of the number of editors that have said the same thing.
Once more, you are using a non-expert source to attack the credibility of biographer. That is OR and Tendentious. You can see why a score or more of editors regard you as agenda driven. You've spent the last few months doing this type of thing. Your efforts to destroy the article on German personnel won't be tolerated without exceptionally good reason. Dapi89 (talk) 07:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Summary on Heaton

Summarising, as the discussion has been long and involved:

  • this source is very weak for an article on a Nazi era figure via Itsmejudith
  • It seems to be usable only as evidence for what unreliable sources say, and I'd use it only when it is explicitly described as unreliable via Richard Keatinge
  • He doesnt have a biography here, but from what I can google online he probably passes muster as a reliable source. Ex-military, ex-history professor, current historian and consultant for TV/Film on WW2 via Only in death
  • I've never read Heaton so I really don't know if I'd consider him RS or not via Sturmvogel 66
  • I am not particularly convinced of Heaton's quality via Dimadick

K.e.coffman (talk) 02:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

How many times do you have to be told, that you don't get to decide whether a source is reliable. Neither does anybody else, unless they can provide good cause.
The personal opinions of Wikipedia editors are useless. Dapi89 (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
@Only in death: I was able to clarify that evaluation of sources is not original research; please see this discussion: Wikipedia talk:No original research#Evaluation of sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
You were not evaluating a source. You don't like it. You made a decision it had to go, then scoured the internet for anything that would support your pre-existing prejudices against sources that write about German military personnel and that don't label them Nazis or falsifiers of their own records. Using anonymous reviews, from non-experts to ban sources about which they offer only the very slightest of criticism is tendentious AND OR. Dapi89 (talk) 13:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Please visit Wikipedia talk:No original research#Evaluation of sources and engage with the editors there. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't need to. You're behaviour encompasses more than OR, also Tendentious and selective editing. Dapi89 (talk) 12:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
The above comment incorrectly identifies historian Horst Boog as a "non-expert". He was the pre-eminent expert on the Luftwaffe operations during World War II, having contributed to three volumes of the seminal series Germany and the Second World War.
General note: this is a noticeboard to discuss reliability of sources, not user behaviour. For the latter, please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Second summary on Heaton

  • I do not see it this way.
  • Three editors expressed concerns about the source (see above).
  • The nom expressed concerns.
  • I've not considered Heaton to be reliable since encountering content cited to him at SS Division Das Reich.
  • One editor stated that Heaton is probably RS and expressed concerns over OR in evaluating the source, but have not come back to the discussion.
  • One editor has expressed an opinion that Heaton is RS.
Thus, the rough consensus seems clear to me that Heaton is not a suitable source for the claims in the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Expressing a concern isn't the same as declaring it unreliable. You have misrepresented what the various editors have said in your summary. For example you quote Itsmejudith: this source is very weak for an article on a Nazi era figure but omit her next sentence: I wouldn't have a problem with it being ... carefully attributed. Only you have openly stated this source is unreliable, but two stated it is RS, well make that three since Itsmejudith thinks it okay if properly attributed, actually make that four as I think Heaton is a reliable source for his own opinion that "Marseille was perhaps the most openly anti-Nazi warrior in the Third Reich." --Nug (talk) 21:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
He's a reliable source for the decades-later reports of people with a strong point of view. This does not suggest that his interpretations are reliable for the sort of judgements that are being made about "anti-Nazi" attitudes in the early 1940s. He is on the margins of usability, and then only when appropriately framed and very carefully used. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:29, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
I started this debate to get some additional input whether this particular source is reliable for the content it supports and I would like to thank you for the input. As a reminder: In the article in question Heaton's biography of Marseille is not simply used to present Heaton's opinion. Instead numerous anecdotes and stories related to Heaton through interviews and quoted by him at length are presented as facts.(Perma) It seems fair to summarize that Heaton is a reliable source for his own opinion and for the decades-later reports of people with a strong point of view. Thus the consensus of this debate is that these opinions and reports are to be carefully attributed.--Assayer (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
No I don't think that is a fair conclusion. While Heaton's opinion with respect to Marseille's anti-Nazi sentiment should be attributed, there is nothing to suggest that the numerous anecdotes and stories related to Heaton through interviews and quoted by him are unreliable. In fact a review of his book by the journal Military Review in the March-April 2015 edition states "A well-written, insightful, quality book, it entertains while it educates; it is highly recommended."[4] --Nug (talk) 02:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
@Nug: Since you seem to offer dissent to my conclusion that opinions and "decades-later reports" were to be attributed, please clarify: Do you argue that the anecdotes and stories that can be found in Heaton's bio are to be accepted as fact and presented as such in a Wikipedia article? Because my argument is that anecdotes and "decades-later reports of people with a strong point of view" are in general biased and opinionated and thus should be dealt with according to WP:BIASED, i.e., with WP:INTEXT at the least, although in regard to the details I would point to WP:ONUS and WP:EXCEPTIONAL. That anecdotes by former Nazis and comrades are quoted at length by Colin Heaton may add color to the picture, but does not transform their anecdotes into truthful, objective, reliable, and accurate representations of historical truth. I have specified my concerns on the talk page of the article, so you might look for examples there.--Assayer (talk) 15:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Do you have a source that backs your conclusion? I've provided a review published in the journal Military Review that highly recommends the book. I see you have ignored that. This discussion has been going on for weeks here, perhaps time to accept there is no consensus for your opinion and WP:DROPTHESTICK now? --Nug (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for clarification. So I'll take notice, that because of a review by Major Chris Buckham, a Logistics Officer in the Royal Canadian Air Force and graduate of the Royal Military College of Canada with a BA in Political Science and an MA in International Relations, you think that "first-person anecdotes and interviews with many of [Marseille's] former commanders and colleagues" (Buckham) conducted by Heaton are to be considered factual accounts and can be presented accordingly. Since you are asking for sources, please take note of the extensive material I have presented here and on the talk page of the article. I may remind you, moreover, that Dapi89, who is also very much in favor of those anecdotes, has already thrown out a slightly less favorable review of the book in question by stating, and I am quoting only his more civilized words, It is absurd to contemplate labelling Heaton unreliable because he receives some form of criticism from someone who likely is not an authority on Marseille. He considers this as OR and Tendentious. By that logic Heaton cannot be labelled reliable because of some praise he may have received by a non-expert, or can he? Unless, of course, this is not about sorting reviews by pre-existing prejudices in favor of Heaton. Consensus does not necessarily mean that every editor agrees on every issue. It is the quality of the argument that matters.--Assayer (talk) 03:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
So to clarify, are you saying that the opinion of an anonymous Wikipedia editor of unknown academic qualifications, self-published on this notice board, carries more weight than the opinion of an identified academically qualified military officer published in the leading professional journal of the US Army? Seriously? --Nug (talk) 08:49, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
No, I don't say that Dapi89's opinions carry a particular weight, in fact, I find most of them unsubstantiated and focused on personal attacks rather than content. I would not summarily label any reviewer as unqualified, but wanted to point out, that you cannot choose reviews to your liking. I have done what is essential for any historian as for any Wikipedian, namely checked the source against other research sources. In view of the expertise by the MGFA and other evidence I consider Heaton's narrative to be WP:EXCEPTIONAL. It is almost exclusively based upon anecdotal evidence, which, as any textbook on the methods of oral history will tell you, is factually unreliable. As Marc Bloch has famously put it: "The most naĩve policeman knows that a witness should not always be taken at by his word, even if he does not always take full advantage of this theoretical knowledge". (The Historian's Craft, 1954ff.)--Assayer (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I was referring to your opinion, you seem to be saying that we should place more weight on your opinion than the opinions published in reliable sources like Military Review. Indeed, you cannot choose reviews to your liking, but you have not provided any other review of Heaton's book. MGFA does not mention Heaton's book, so where are you sourcing these reviews you claim call Heaton's work into question? --Nug (talk) 01:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
First of all, in his short and broad review Major Buckham does not address the specific issues I have raised. (I might add that he finds nearly every book that he reviews to be "insightful". See his blog, The military reviewer.) Second, above you'll find another reviewer being quoted, who asks how exactly the authors found out about all the details. That review has been discarded by Dapi89 as non-authorative with an argument which basically discards any review as non-authorative. Third, it remains undisputed that Heaton's evidence are anecdotes and interviews. He has somewhat routinely used this "oral history"-method in other books, too, and reviewers have been critical of the reliability of those interviews. And rightly so because, fourth, as of January 2013 the MGFA has denied that any serious historiographical study of Marseille existed, and did not bother to even mention Kurowski's, Tate's and Wübbe's earlier works either. It noted, however, that attempts by popular literature to suggest an ideological distance between Marseille and Nazism are misleading. Thus Heaton's claims are exceptional and should be backed up by multiple high-quality sources, before they are being accepted as plain facts. But I keep repeating myself and would suggest to take further discussion to the talk page.--Assayer (talk) 04:06, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I concur with the above; the strongest case against the Heaton source when used for the subject's anti-Nazi credentials is that the author's opinions are not supported (and in fact directly contradicted) by the military historians at the Center for Military History and Social Sciences of the Bundeswehr (formerly MGFA). K.e.coffman (talk) 05:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

You would. More opinion, no proof. Again, lots of "I think" in all this. I am going to repeat Nug's question: where are you sourcing these reviews you claim call Heaton's work into question? I don't want more elaborate complaints and opinions as to why Heaton should be banned from wikipedia. I want you to tell me where there are concerns from other parties - preferably by published authorities on the Luftwaffe and Marseille. Dapi89 (talk) 11:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
One more thing: that Heaton is "directly contradicted by the military historians at the [[Center for Military History and Social Sciences of the Bundeswehr" is false. They do not say that he was or he wasn't a Nazi. They say they are not aware of any 'outstanding' deed to show he wasn't. One doesn't have to show any act or "deed" to show they are/were not a Nazi. Heaton's book is based on those who knew him. And they say his politics were in sharp contradiction to everything National Socialism stood for. Dapi89 (talk) 13:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Heaton's book is based on decades-later anecdotes related in a deeply-changed political climate. It is at best on the very margins of usability, if carefully attributed. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Source for your claim? Or is this another opinion? Dapi89 (talk) 16:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I was asked to comment on this issue, but can better make only a general comment about sources in this area:
Essentially all biographies emphasise the importance of their subject
All biographies contain quotation about what the subject has themselves said at various occasions. It can be assumed that all such statements are self-serving. There will be various statements at various times , and it is easy to cherry-pick the one that is desired..
All references to an author's work are intended to appear balanced, unless intended as an attack piece. They will therefore contain both positive and negative statements, and it is easy to cherry-pick the one that is desired.
All members of an organization involved in immoral or illegal behavior will try to minimize their personal responsibility. In particular, all members of the German army in world war Two writing for an external audience will claim to be anti-Nazi, at least as compared to other people. (though there are a few who will instead glorify their past actions)
It is almost impossible for an historian or biographer to avoid developing a bias about the period or events or people they are describing. Some do this more successfully than others, but bias always exists. DGG ( talk ) 01:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Requested a close

I've requested a close at Request for closure noticeboard. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it has been open for long enough and I would say that no consensus has occurred. But with that said, leave the finial word to the closer. Kierzek (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

BBC One – Antiques Roadshow

Is BBC One – Antiques Roadshow a reliable source? It's cited on the Spandau Prison article as proof that there's a surviving brick from the prison that was demolished in 1987.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

In the specific context it is used, yes. It is used as a primary source for the statement that the brick appeared on the show. In fact, the most reliable source possible for the statement "X appeared on an episode of Antiques Roadshow" is the episode of Antiques Roadshow where X appeared.
That said... I am not at all sure that this bit of TV trivia is worth mentioning in our article on the prison. Blueboar (talk) 20:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks; it's about to become history.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 20:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

A "Development" section in a Street Fighter ’87 entry

A link on 1UP.com feature about an original Street Fighter dev team is no more available with a "Service Unavailable - DNS failure" response. Gleb95 (talk) 06:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion concerning al-Masdar

Hello RSN,

We have an RFC discussion concerning al-Masdar at Talk:Battle of Aleppo (2012–16), feel free to chime in. EtienneDolet (talk) 02:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Just to further qualify Étienne Dolet's notification, the RfC is essentially a blanket proposal to use Al-Masdar News as a reliable source for that article (and, implicitly, that it should be used as a reliable source without any form of attribution for that topic area broadly construed). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Use of palestineremembered.org

Today I noticed while editing a page that a user @Huldra: was citing an odd website for many Palestinian villages. In fact, all Palestinian village articles Huldra writes cite this website. Now granted, this website does present legitimate info on little-known towns or villages that would probably be almost impossible to find elsewhere but, do you notice something off about this website?. Here's a picture of the front page of the website, I highlighted everything showing clear bias. And for the sake of being thorough, I went and checked some of these links.

  • Obviously unfounded claims of ethnic cleansing, which speaks for itself in these pictures.

So yeah, I don't think this is a very neutral source. Yet, it's largely the sole ref for most of Huldra's pages. BedrockPerson (talk) 21:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The one information I use from the palestineremembered.com site is citing for the Village Statistics, 1945 data from this book:
....which happens to be hosted on the palestineremembered site. There has never been any suggestion that the palestineremembered has falsified the Hadawi book. In any case, I also link to
....that is hosted by the Israeli National Library, so anyone can recheck that the info is correct. Huldra (talk) 21:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
@Huldra: Yeah, on that note actually, I really do want to stress the part in my initial post where I stressed "this website does present legitimate info on little-known towns or villages that would probably be almost impossible to find elsewhere", and it's clear Huldra cited this aforementioned legit info. So, IDK if this is really no issue or if the otherwise unfit info that can be found on the website somehow detracts from the legitimacy without exception. Again, IDK. Just wanted it brought to attention. BedrockPerson (talk) 21:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
@BedrockPerson: If you search for palestineremembered up there where it says Search this noticeboard & archives you will find that this has been discussed many, many times. Generally, it is not a WP:RS site, except for the Hadawi material. We keep it as a WP:EL link, though (there are many great pictures there, which we cannot see anywhere else) Huldra (talk) 21:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
@Huldra: Actually, I just checked. In 244 archives of this page, this website is not mentioned once. This is the first time it's been reported. BedrockPerson (talk) 16:38, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
@BedrockPerson: How did you miss, say Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_91#palestineremembered.com? Huldra (talk) 19:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
@Huldra: The same way you thought one mention somehow means it was "discussed many, many times" BedrockPerson (talk) 21:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
@BedrockPerson: Sigh. It is discussed many times, search for palestineremembered. (I get 8 hits when searching for that, while you get 0?) I just linked one example, to show the most relevant. (And we don't really need more than one example, do we?) Huldra (talk) 21:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
@Huldra: I swear, I've looked it up on the search bar on this page, the search bar on top, only result is this one. Every time. BedrockPerson (talk) 23:38, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
@BedrockPerson: 1 is still not 0. And it is also mentioned, say at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 34. But again, we really only need one discussion of it, don't we? Unless new opinions form. Also, it has been discussed many other places... say here. Again, the established consensus is that we don't use it as source, except for the Hadawi figures.Huldra (talk) 23:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
@Huldra: No, you don't understand, I should've clarified: this page was the one result that showed up. There were no others. Just this one. BedrockPerson (talk) 13:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
There are in fact more results in the archive, but under "palestineremembered.com" rather than ".org". Try using "palestineremembered prefix:Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard", although that brings up a few results related to a user of the same name. Alcherin (talk) 19:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

h2g2

The reference

"Pie And Mash Shops". h2g2.com. Retrieved 30 December 2012.

is cited three times within the article Pie and mash. Both the cited article itself and the WP article h2g2 suggest to me that h2g2.com -- "h2g2: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition" -- would fail (by WP:USERGENERATED) to qualify as a citeable source. Do I misunderstand the nature of h2g2? -- Hoary (talk) 03:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

You nailed it per their "contribute" page. Should not be cited in WP. Nice catch. Jytdog (talk) 04:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Jytdog. It looked cut and dried to me, but I wondered if I might be missing something. -- Hoary (talk) 07:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Roadside Thoughts

Is Roadside Thoughts a reliable source? It was used as a source at Claytonia, Idaho, a new article. Roadside Thoughts appears to be bot-generated information, with "no editorial oversight", per WP:QUESTIONABLE. The opinion of others would be appreciated. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:04, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The site appears to use data from reliable sources, but Wikipedia has never, as far as I know, decided whether "automated sources" are, in fact, "reliable." "Personal opinions" are not found on this site, though it does have ads, so I would rule it out as "commercial" at best. Collect (talk) 13:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

vladtv.com

The website vladtv.com is used as a reference on over 100 Wikipedia articles. It seems to be used to support claims that are mainly celebrity gossip. This website is described at DJ Vlad as "the TMZ of hip-hop". The website appears to have been added to many articles by users who include it as a reference for every one of their contributions, suggesting WP:REFSPAM. What do others think of this website? Deli nk (talk) 19:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll start working on removing it, and any associated inappropriate content, but it may take awhile. Deli nk (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I did some reviewing/replacing and that is a walk on the ugly side of Wikipedia. So much gossipy trash content about celebrities. ugh. Jytdog (talk) 02:27, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Sources for a Syrian actress' date and place of birth

In a new article about Kinda Hanna, there is an editor who would like to source content about her place of birth and date of birth (the latter a sensitive BLP issue, at times), to the following 3 sources:

Are those sources reliable for that content? (we have looked and don't have any English; these are what are being proposed) Thanks Jytdog (talk) 06:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Would be super helpful to get feedback. thx. Jytdog (talk) 03:55, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
crickets. There is a dispute here and input would be helpful. Jytdog (talk) 02:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't see evidence that there are more than casual opinion pieces perhaps sourced from the subject. Doug Weller talk 06:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, the first one looks like a regular news site. It says she was born in Kafrahem-Hama in 1984 (no exact date given).
The second one looks more like a clickbait-news site. It says she was born in Kafrahem-Hama on December 16, 1984.
The third one looks more like a culture-news site, or but it might be a gossip site. It also says she was born in Kafrahem-Hama on December 16, 1984.
I dunno. Do you have any reason to believe that she was not born in Kafrahem-Hama on December 16, 1984? If you do, what it is it? Are there other sources giving a different date or location? Then let's look at those. If there aren't... what's your objection to these sources? Herostratus (talk) 07:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
All 3 are very short, very gossipy in focus (how sad she is about her dad's death), and out of the blue, throw in this dry biographical background. None have a byline. The last two are almost identical to each other. The three, are almost like someone is trying to get content on the web so someone can cite it in Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, you're right. The first one looks like it at least covers international news generally. However, that proves nothing, it may merely aggregate.
The sad fact is, especially for facts noted in passing, all sites are mediocre (I might make an an exception for Der Spiegel and a very few other AAA-level operations). If the New York Times gives someone's birthday in their obit, you may pretty much rely on it. But for some passing fact (including a birthday) on some thing or person that is not the main focus of the article... my sad experience is that they don't necessarily double-check each statement as rigorously as we think or would like. And that's the New York Times, let alone Breaking News Syria. And wrong info (such as wrong birthdays) does get passed on a lot, so you're right that three sources means little, they may be copying each other or single flawed source.
So if the general question is "are any sources truly reliable?" and "can we really know anything with true confidence?" the answer IMO is "not really" and "not nearly as much as we think, at any rate".
There's certainly an argument on that basis for "let's just not include people's birthdates as a general rule. Even birth certificates have been shown to be wrong at times, as have subject's avowals, let alone downstream sources. It's just not something we can ever really know." It'd be defensible, but very strict, to take that approach.
However, if we're not going to take the approach (which we're not)... here you have:
  1. Three sources, which while probably not very good, are not just an internet forum or something either.
  2. And no indication whatsoever that there is another date out there which might be correct instead.
  3. And no reason advanced for anybody to lie on purpose about it (which does happen, a lot -- people wanting to be seen as younger or older than their true age).
So I would use it. I assume that "December 16, 1984" came from somewhere, and wasn't just made up by somebody who needed a random date to put in. Since it came from somewhere, it probably is accurate, absent any indication to the contrary. "Probably" maybe means "499 times out of five hundred it will be accurate" or something on that order. Is that good enough? I don't know... It's a philosophical question, and my personal opinion is yes, that's good enough, for my part. But your call (unless there are other editors involved). Herostratus (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Sources that cite sources Orr more about British Israel.

An interesting question has (I think) been raised over at BI.

Let us say that an RS cites a source we have decided is not RS, is that cite not unreliable?Slatersteven (talk) 08:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The answer depends on a)the information and how it is presented, b)the article/area, c)the sources themselves. Unreliable sources may be reliable for some information. If a source we would describe as unreliable has a story picked up by say the BBC, depending on how the BBC presents it, we might use it because it is expected the BBC (as a usually reliable organisation) will have done some diligence on their end. If however the BBC reports 'The Daily Mail has claimed a woman gave birth to a dog', the best we could use it to support is the Daily Mail has claimed a woman gave birth to a dog, not that a woman has given birth to a dog. And given that particular claim would be almost unusuable anywhere anyway, the point shouldnt come up that often. In short - please provide A, B and C as requested at the top of this noticeboard in order to get an accurate answer. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
It would be hard, as the sources that raised this question does not in fact (apparently) even mention the non RS source. Thus this was more of a general question really. This was the edit [5] by the way. Slatersteven (talk) 08:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
As a general answer: sometimes. For that particular reference, I would want to read the section/page in context to see how they use Orr. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Why famousbirthdays.com is a reliable source for birth dates

For whatever reason there are some editors that don't think this is a reliable source. However the reasons given don't make any sense. First it's not a website that anyone can edit. They have a physical address and contact information if you want to contact them. They have a whole list of their staff of editors, writers, managers and many more. It's not a fan website, which is what some editors have claimed. Here are some links to check it out. http://www.famousbirthdays.com/team/. As you can see all employees mentioned have bios and they all appear to have college degrees, which is more than can be said about wikipedia editors. I don't see any reason as to why they are not a reliable source.AllSportsfan16 (talk) 02:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Having college degrees is not really an indication that the employees are a reliable source. Because this site is being used as a source for WP:Biographies of living persons, they should be held to the highest standards of fact-checking and reliability. Their request for facts from readers of the site is a bit concerning: "Help complete pending profiles by submitting missing info" ; "Suggest an update to an existing celebrity profile" (http://www.famousbirthdays.com/about/). I'm a bit dubious. Can you show any mainstream reliable sources that use this site to cite information on birthdays and the like? First Light (talk) 03:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Yep. Basically, this is no different than IMDb, which has been consistently ruled to be WP:NOTRS (as per WP:RS/IMDb), for exactly the same reason – it's WP:USERGENERATED. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
No you're wrong it is not user generated information. It's not like wikipedia you can't edit the page and they do say people can make suggestions, but it doesn't says that they are just going to post everything that they get.AllSportsfan16 (talk) 04:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
My point is that they hire editors and researchers. It says suggest and update or help complete, they are not requesting anything. I'm sure they check to see if the information is accurate before they post it, why else would hire experts. There is a contact us link if you have questions or concerns has anyone thought of using that. In an earlier discussion an editor suggested that they don't fact check, but there's no indication of that. No I don't have a way of confirming any mainstream sources that use it. From the bio of the Director of Operations it sounds like they reach out to celebrities personally for the information. It sounds like they have huge team gathering information and there is nothing wrong with asking the public, but it's not like wikipedia where anyone can edit the pages.AllSportsfan16 (talk) 03:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)AllSportsfan16 (talk) 04:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
This is no different than IMDb – IMDb also has people that "check" submissions and either approve or decline them. But the editorial control and fact-checking is insufficient to be considered a "reliable source" for the purposes of Wikipedia, especially for BLPs. Famousbirthdays.com is in exactly the same boat... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, this is not a reliable source of birthdate information. VQuakr (talk) 04:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
In the bio of the head of operations it says As director of data and operations, Nate helps the marketing team connect with celebrities and he also helps data scientists and writers profile celebrities. So no they aren't just checking people's submissions. They are doing there own research look at how many editors, writers, researches, data scientists and others that they have hired. You don't hire that many people unless you are doing research why pay that many people if there just excepting fan submissions. Unlike IMDB you cannot create an account on famousbirthdays, while you can submit suggestions it doesn't just add them. So basically everyone that's saying it's an unreliable source is saying that they hire researches, writers, editors, data scientists and others just to spend money, meanwhile they just accept all fan submissions as true and post them. You're thinking is ridiculous. Employees cost money, companies don't hire them to do nothing.AllSportsfan16 (talk) 04:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • ugh, no. Celebrity gossip site with user-submitted data. I recognize that it can be difficult to find RS for birthdates but this is not the way to go. Jytdog (talk) 04:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Okay, how many times do I need to say that they DO NOT rely on user-submitted data. Look at their team page they have hired lots of researchers, editors, data scientists. A company does not hire people to have them do nothing, employees cost MONEY if they were just relying on user submitted data they would not hire that many people. Sure you can suggest submissions, but they are not automatically excepted like wiki sites are.AllSportsfan16 (talk) 04:47, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I do hear you saying that - the many, many times you have said it. Not buying it necessarily. There is no sign where they do get their information or how they check it. Claiming to have lots of bodies means nothing. Jytdog (talk) 02:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Since you addressed me, let me ask you. Why are you arguing so fiercely for this? Why does this source matter so much to you? Jytdog (talk) 02:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I used it for one article, but was told it wasn't reliable so I wanted to prove that it was. It also makes it easier to cite birth dates for younger actors that their might be less information on. I did find another source for the article, but it did have the same date as famousbirthdays.AllSportsfan16 (talk) 04:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
You have not proven that this website is a reliable source. There is strong consensus here that is does not meet Wikipedia standards for sourcing, especially for Biographies of Living Persons. First Light (talk) 11:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Correct, there's no indication that they use user-submitted data. Inviting readers to help by "submitting missing info" or "suggest an update" simply leads to an email form. That could be marketing (and the email goes in the bit bucket), but more likely it is a rational and functional avenue to receive suggestions (which they can then vet) in case they have something wrong or missing. Would you prefer if they say "We don't publish our email address, since we don't care if you think anything on this site is wrong."

Second of all, what's their business model? Based on their name, it is "providing correct birthdays", at least as a start. And indeed in this interview with the founder (which may be equivalent to a press release, I am not familiar with that site -- but no matter, it is a statement from the founder either way) he says just that. And they have a staff (unless they're lying and all those portraits are stock photos -- which is not impossible), so they seem to have sufficient bodies on hand for somebody to do fact-checking, if they want to.

So if "providing correct birthdays" is their business model, not caring if they get their birthday data correct or not would be a quick way to go out of business, n'est-ce pas? So they probably want to get the data correct, although it's possible they're too stupid to do so.

But if they're not lying or stupid (which they could be, but of course that's true of anyone), then I would think that at least for birthday data they would be somebody to consider.

Sure, they look like the kind of site that you would tease your sister for reading. But so? What does that have to do with how rigorous their fact-checking operation is or is not? Herostratus (talk) 05:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Previous discussion at WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_153#Is_famousbirthdays.com_a_reliable_source_for_personal_information. I see same issues as with IMDb, they don't say where they get their information and what process they use to validate it. Mostly just "trust us". I expect they may just go to IMDb to get whatever IMDb says as a first pass of research and publish it but, again, who knows as they won't tell us their process. They may go to Wikipedia for all we know. I expect they do a basic web search for their information and populate their database with what they find. Might be an automated web scraper. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
↑ THIS. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Yeah maybe. A lot of this is really just guesswork though, I think. What'd be good would a compare-and-contrast between the information-acquisition and fact-checking operation of this site and say People magazine. Info like that is hard to get though. Herostratus (talk) 02:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I've been closely looking at famousbirthdays.com since January. If you want to see the quality of their work, I suggest editors compare http://www.famousbirthdays.com/people/alicia-grimes.html with the press releases and other poor sources offered for Alicia Grimes by Iamterrell5 (talk · contribs) who is the contact person for some of the press releases. Whatever editing and fact-checking famousbirthdays.com is doing, it's obviously poor. I am also under the distinct impression that marketers like http://www.evancarmichael.com (which clearly Grimes and Iamterrell5 are working with, if Iamterrell5 isn't an evancarmichael.com employee) are recommending that people use Famousbirthdays.com as a marketing vehicle because of the ease of getting them to publish profiles.

Famousbirthdays.com appears to be a go-to-website for attempts to promote people. Famousbirthdays.com does not divulge their sources nor their criteria for inclusion, but they apparently have very low standards for both. We're getting at least a few additions each week, all in poorly-sourced BLPs.

http://www.famousbirthdays.com/terms/ : We don't warranty the accuracy or suitability of the information found on our platform for any particular purpose. We acknowledge that such information and materials may contain inaccuracies and we thus absolve ourselves of any liability for any such inaccuracies to the extent permitted by law. We do encourage our users to contact us regarding any potential inaccuracy found on our platform. --Ronz (talk) 17:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

If someone would like me to stop my regular cleanup of this source, please note it. --Ronz (talk) 17:06, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like regular legal terminology to cover themselves, in case of any errors. It's a statement any organization would make because it is so easy to sue in the United States. Also just to be clear I'm not supporting using this source for creating bios on Wikipedia, I'm just supporting using the birthdates, because according to the company's CEO and founder that is their main goal anyways. I haven't seen one instance where they have incorrectly published a birth date.AllSportsfan16 (talk) 04:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
No, it's great. This is valuable insight from an editor who has actually investigated the site over time. Sounds like it is no good, and fine. With the spamming added in, I wonder if it is blacklist-worthy? Herostratus (talk) 21:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
@AllSportsfan16: Sounds like regular legal terminology... Seems like you are just ignoring all evidence in preference for your personal opinion. That's not how we build consensus. You already settled on removing famousbirthdays.com from the article you were working on. You don't appear interested at all in looking at the larger issues. I haven't seen one instance where they have incorrectly published a birth date. Again, it doesn't appear you've looked. --Ronz (talk) 14:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
@Ronz: That statement is not evidence of anything, I have a background in business law and any organization would have to have a legal statement like that absolving them of liability it would be dumb not to. I was forced to remove it otherwise I wouldn't have. How do you know if I've looked. With regards to just birth dates I've examined many of the people and all of them are accurate. No one on here has been able to show that any birth date on their website is inaccurate.AllSportsfan16 (talk) 19:20, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
@AllSportsfan16: I started a previous discussion about this site as I noticed a blatant biographical mistake identifying an Australian actress as being Welch so asked for opinions about the site being usable as a reliable source of bio info. They have fixed that particular error, but something that blatant should never have slipped through with any degree of reasonable fact checking. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Vladimir Lenin

Fischer, Louis (1964). The Life of Lenin. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.

  • In 1964 many Lenin's texts were classified.
  • Louis Fischer was a journalist, not a historian. He had emotional problems with Communism, first a supporter, later a critic.Xx236 (talk) 05:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Lenin was anti-imperialist, and believed that all nations deserved "the right of self-determination".[1] - the statement misinforms. Lenin opposed foreign imperialism but he recreated the Russian empire. Georgia didn't have "the right of self-determination", so apparently Lenin rejected the idea.

References

  1. ^ Fischer 1964, p. 87.
--Xx236 (talk) 05:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Shub, David (1966). Lenin: A Biography (revised ed.). London: Pelican.
  • The book was published in 1949. Shub was a revolutionary. Such text should be studied as a historiical source, not a contemporary book, Xx236 (talk) 08:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
The subject is serious, please comment. Xx236 (talk) 10:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

As the editor responsible for getting the Lenin article to FA status several months ago (following both a GAN and a PR), I would like to explain a little further. Fischer's 1964 biography of Lenin is just one of many biographical and historical sources used in this article. It is, without doubt, a WP:Reliable Source. Louis Fischer was indeed a journalist by trade, but published a number of well received and densely researched biographies on prominent political figures like Gandhi and Lenin. Indeed, his Lenin biography was awarded the 1965 National Book Award in History and Biography. Of course, he was restricted to the sources that were available in 1964, but even by that time a great deal of material was available for him to use. Just because his work does not cite the material that became available in the 1990s following the collapse of the USSR does not make his work non-Reliable; moreover, a number of biographies (such as those of Robert Service and Dmitri Volkogonov) which were published after the collapse are also extensively cited in this article, so it is not as if older sources are being used in place of more recent ones.

If Fischer's work is so clearly an RS and has been accepted as a legitimate source through GAN, PR, and FAC, why is Xx236 so keen to be rid of it? The answer can be seen in Xx236's repeated WP:Advocacy over at the Lenin article and its talk page. Xx236 is passionately and openly anti-Lenin and anti-Soviet and has repeatedly attempted to reshape the article to reflect their own, deeply anti-Lenin stance. They have repeatedly expressed their views on the Talk Page and attempted to add additional (poorly referenced) information into the article; the latter has been removed. Their attempt to undermine Fischer as a source is because Fischer is not as passionately anti-Lenin as Xx236 is and does not reflect the image of Lenin that Xx236 wants to see projected. Their actions here are just further evidence of this WP:Advocacy. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The only legitimate argument I could see is that as an older biography it *may* (not is) be being used to source material that has been directly contradicted by later-released information. From looking at the article though, I cant see that it is. Is Fischer being used for anything that has subsequently been superseded? Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
If Fischer isn't important, why to quote him? Xx236 (talk) 06:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Xx236, I don't think anyone has said he isn't important. Precision is important in these discussions, hein. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 06:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I have quoted (above) exteremely biased phrase attributed to Fischer. The authors refuse to cooperate,Three wise monkeys.

Xx236 (talk) 06:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

"refuse to cooperate" in this instance meaning expressing disagreement with Xx236's blatant WP:Advocacy. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Little Mix

I was reviewing the Little Mix article and I noticed a citation was needed regarding ancestry of one of the group members.

The article states that

Pinnock is of Barbadian and Jamaican ancestry.

. I found an online article [6] that was used to cite another member's [Thirlwall] ethnic background. The source was reliable for the cited quote because that particular member [Thirlwall] claimed her ethnic background but I am unsure if it will be reliable for my citation needed since Pinnock did not claim her ethnic background herself, but rather Thirlwall claimed that Pinnock had Jamaican and Bajan ancestry[1]. Alanna.davis (talk) 16:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.mtv.co.uk/little-mix/news/little-mix-have-the-longest-running-girl-group-no1-of-the-millennium
If the statement was reworded so that it is clear that Thirlwall prvided the information it would be fine. Martinlc (talk) 15:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Okay. Thank you so much.

Gellately

The reverser insists on taking the source without much argument. Is she reliable? 201.17.176.127 (talk) 00:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

The Oxford University Press has a reputation for fact checking and editorial oversight, so it is probablt=y a Reliable Soruce. However, if this is the only source to be found that supports the statement in the article, its inclusion may be UNDUE.Martinlc (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
The source does not support the statement that there was cooperation with the FBI, all it does is report one visit by an FBI official to Germany. The book, and presumably its author, is an authority on Nazi Germany, not the USA.Martinlc (talk) 15:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Sources for filmography of Erin Moran

Hi, I'm looking for clarification of the appropriacy of using IMDb as a sole source for the filmography section of an actor's article, in this case Erin Moran. I have read the advice at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_IMDb and at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Resources#Questionable_resources and I removed the filmography section as it was unsourced. Other editors have replaced it, claiming that IMBd is an acceptable source in this situation (discussion on talk page). Would appreciate some clarification. Thanks! MurielMary (talk) 08:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:RS/IMDB is quite clear on this. Use of IMDB as a sole source is discouraged due to its unreliability. It certainly shouldnt be used as a sole source for 'uncredited' appearances. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Keep in mind the reason it is used for released films & TV shows, is that as a primary source, the credits can be verified from watching said film/TV show. Which is why IMDB is more reliable for credited released films/TVs etc. Obviously if someone is uncredited, you cant do that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Exactly, "the credits can be verified from watching said film/TV show". 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:ADF3:C706:1C77:4C80 (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Not always however, and not for uncredited roles. And for some older programs/films its not possible to verify the credits as the primary source is not available, in which a reliable secondary source is required. Which IMDB is not. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
IMDb is a convenience source of information about released projects with the assumption that the people who added the info to IMDb faithfully transcribed it from the actual verifiable reliable source, the credits as embedded in the released project itself. If something is not in the credit we obviously can't check the credits to verify that the person was in the project but not credited so need something else. Basically for a list of credits it is implied that the listed project's embedded credit list itself is the reliable primary source so shouldn't be listing IMDb as the source. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Exactly, "it is implied that the listed project's embedded credit list itself is the reliable primary source". 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:ADF3:C706:1C77:4C80 (talk) 16:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
So where would someone find an "embedded credit list"? What is that? Do you mean the credits which appear onscreen? MurielMary (talk) 09:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes. This is why IMDB is used as a convenience issue for released media (and not upcoming etc) as the credits are embedded and finalised at that point. For games, films, TV I can go watch/rent/borrow/download/buy a copy and view the credits. As a primary source on who is involved in said media. Where you cant reasonably have access to anything (particular old TV series/films which have not been re-broadcast or are not available otherwise) you need a reliable secondary source. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • IMDb is a fine filmography source for credited roles in movies/TV/etc. - are there possibly even better sources for such information? Sure, but there's really nothing wrong with using IMDb as a citation for mainstream filmographies. Guy1890 (talk) 06:06, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Irish radio documentary

It surprised me there was no article for this person, so I started a translation of the German article on de:Fritz Brase and to that end searched for sources which seem quite scarce considering his life's work, especially in Ireland. However I found a radio documentary on RTÉ Radio which seems reliable and is rather extensive in its coverage of the subject. You can find it linked from this webpage. Can we consider this an WP:RS for this purpose? ww2censor (talk) 10:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

In general, a radio documentary piece by a national public radio station of a country such as Ireland should be a reliable source. Sources don't have to be print or web only. That said, I don't know about RTE's specific reputation for reliability and fact-checking such news/feature pieces. It passes the smell test, at least in my opinion. First Light (talk) 12:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
As an editor who likes good RS in articles, I think this will likely be fine. Thank First Light ww2censor (talk) 13:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Influx Magazine and film reviews

INFLUX Magazine is a website that, based on a search engine test, does not appear to have received any independent coverage. The website contains film reviews, and yesterday I noticed that their reviews existed on many mainstream film articles along with reputable publications like the film industry trade papers and widely-circulated newspapers. I found that an IP editor added only this review to multiple film articles. This led me to treat this proliferation as refspam, and I used Special:Linksearch to seek out where else it was used and removed them, such as from Moana, Ben-Hur, CHiPS, Fences, and Nocturnal Animals, to name a few. A couple of editors, NinjaRobotPirate and Walter Görlitz, messaged me about my removals. NinjaRobotPirate thought that this website was fine for indie movies. Walter opposed the removal with God's Not Dead, Hillsong: Let Hope Rise, and After. The first two are fairly mainstream films which have much more authoritative reviews from general and religious sources. The latter is an indie movie for which this website is presumably suitable. So a couple of questions to answer:

  1. Does INFLUX Magazine qualify as a reliable source in any sense?
  2. If it is reliable and its reliability depends on context, what context should it be? All films, only indie films?

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I think it may be reliable, but I agree that citing obscure websites is unnecessary when we've already got a wide range of opinions from mainstream critics. WP:ONUS tells us that not all verifiable content belongs in an article. If there's opposition to its inclusion as unnecessary, I think that's legitimate. Too many reviews can overwhelm readers with unnecessary detail. But on an independent film where there are few published reviews, I think it may be more useful. That depends, of course, on whether one considers it a reliable source. It seems alright to me, but I recognize a lot of these smaller websites can come across as glorified blogs. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

mauce.nl

Is Mauce.nl a RS for news and information about metal bands. It was used as a reference here and I have seen it used a few other places. The footer says a bit: "the posts are property of the poster. Dates of new releases, agenda and in articles are not guaranteed. © 2006-2012 mauce.nl". First, that the website is user-generated and second, that the site isn't maintained (footer last updated in 2012). This particular piece of news was supplied by thrashboy who is listed as "Co-founder / Head-editor". No indication of editorial oversight, how retractions are made, or how the site is supported or influenced. My gut feeling is that it's not a RS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing. Not good. Jytdog (talk) 02:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Veto in the United Nations

I was adding this source from the UN website itself and the publisher is systematically reversing me. Would she be reliable enough to reverse it?. 201.17.139.175 (talk) 09:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

It looks like the concern isn't the reliability of that source, but what it says. The place to discuss that is at Talk:Nazism in the United States. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Conflict between secondary and primary sources

Re: Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)

According to an article in the Christian Science Monitor, "22 Republican lawmakers, among them Speaker Boehner and Representative Bachmann, three governors, and a number of conservative organizations took out full-page ads in two Washington papers castigating the SPLC for “character assassination” by listing the conservative Family Research Council as a hate group."

However, as is apparent from the ad itself, a copy of which is on the website of the Family Research Council, the petition said, "We, the undersigned, stand in solidarity with Family Research Council...that [îs] working to protect and promote natural marriage and family. We support the vigorous but responsible exercise of the First Amendment rights of free speech and religious liberty that are the birthright of all Americans." The reference to "character assassination" is part of a commentary added by the FRC.

Unfortunately, the ad received no coverage little coverage in any media. Should we rely on the description in a secondary source even if it is clearly inaccurate?

TFD (talk) 22:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

1. This question is under discussion at Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center#Republican Party. 2. There is no dispute that the Christian Science Monitor is RS. 3. TFD is (mistakenly) conducting OR by looking at the FRC link and supposing that it is a copy of the actual ad placed in the 2 Washington newspapers. (There is no WP:V for that supposition.) 4. I recommend that this RSN thread be closed. – S. Rich (talk) 23:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
2. We have an ad supporting FRC, and FRC decides to embroider their own commentary on the ad with the bit about "character assassination". WP:PRIMARY comes into play here with respect to statements of fact about the person or organization making the statements. I think this is distinct from someone recounting the story of their life (an allowable primary source) - it's the FRC saying the SPLC is engaging in character assassination, which they're not usable as a primary source to document. loupgarous (talk) 23:52, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
NO. There is no evidence that the FRC did anything to the CSM copy. The CSM reference stands on its own, and (presumably) it quoted the ad correctly. – S. Rich (talk) 00:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
I think we can assume that the FRC, which placed the ad, has presented us with a true copy. I think per BLP we cannot assume that the Republican politicians signed the section that the FRC does not attribute to them. It's one thing to express support for conservative family values groups; it's another to recklessly attack reputable organizations. TFD (talk) 01:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Come off it, TFD; of course the petition signatories knew it would be used for a pro-FRC/anti-SPLC ad. It was shortly after the SPLC had labeled the FRC as haters. Any record of any of any signers complaining afterward about being used to "recklessly attack a reputable organization"? I suppose CSM might have erred in naming the ad buyers, but this is much ado about little. As I said at the SPLC Talk page, some minor rewording should satisfy all but the ultra fastidious. Motsebboh (talk) 02:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: Motsebboh is a sock puppet of an indef banned user. Here is the relevant SPI.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
The question is whether the introductory text (included below) was originally part of the document that included the pledge or added later. Both the CS Monitor (which you quote) and the SPLC (which I quote below) suggest it was part of the original and implicitly endorsed by the signatories.
Introductory text:
  • The surest sign one is losing a debate is to resort to character assassination. The Southern Poverty Law Center, a liberal fundraising machine whose tactics have been condemned by observers across the political spectrum, is doing just that.
SPLC Statement::
  • This morning, 22 members of Congress and a large number of other conservatives signed on to a public statement attacking the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) for listing several anti-gay religious right organizations as hate groups. Published in two Washington, D.C., newspapers as a full-page ad, the statement was organized by the powerful Family Research Council (FRC) and other “pro-family organizations that are working to protect and promote natural marriage and the family.”
Are there sources which suggest it was not? James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 03:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
See the actual advertisement.[7] “Who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?” It's the same as if someone is wrongly quoted in a secondary source and we have an official transcript. While we might prefer the incorrect version, we should use the correct one. TFD (talk) 10:41, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
I think you misread my post. My Introductory text section quotes the actual advertisement so of course I have seen it. We are agreed the text was not part of the pledge, the question is whether it was part of the document when signed. Both CS Monitor and SPLC suggest it was (SPLC's statement is: "22 members of Congress and a large number of other conservatives signed on to a public statement attacking the Southern Poverty Law Center") James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 17:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
The CSM says "signed on to a public statement," not that they signed on to a public statement knowing that the SPLC would be mentioned in the ad. We may guess what actually happened, but that's not allowed per "No original research". Of course if the petition had any significance, it would have received media attention beyond one or two brief mentions and we would know. Which brings us to another policy, don't include stuff that has only trivial mention in relation to the topic. TFD (talk) 05:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
JFC, the CSM is a highly respected MSM outlet. Please look at what they wrote and accept it as RS. IOW, this is not an appropriate issue for the RSN. – S. Rich (talk) 05:47, 7 May 2017 (UTC)05:55, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Reliability does not guarantee inclusion. Not everything that appears in RS needs to be included in a Wikipedia article. If it does not represent the consensus among reliable sources, it should be omitted. If the secondary source misrepresents a primiary source, it should be omitted if the consensus among the involved editors agrees with that assessment. If consensus is absent, you can use an WP:RfC. (Please make your posts understandable to uninvolved editors.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Offical World Record Organization not a reliable source??

I personally find it a disgrace to discredit RecordSetter as far as not being a credible source of information. Just because a few people at Guinness basically dont like a world record, Absolutely does not mean that its not a verifiable world record. I would be interested to know who is making these false claims against RecordSetter and what information they have to back up these claims? So basically wikipedia, an online information center doesnt want to display content that is 100% verified and true? I suppose thats why they get such a bad reputation for false "facts".

What is the article, contested material & source? As the big note at the top requires. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Who says its "official", as far as I know the "official" world record judger and recorder is the Guinness book of records, they are about as "official" as it gets.Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Why is a live stream unreliable?

I'm not asking in general, so direct me elsewhere if appropriate.

Why is a live stream unreliable?

Is it really reasonable to think it would be digitally manipulated, or otherwise fake?

I was also surprised to only find one mention of live streams in the archives. Has this question not been raised before? Benjamin (talk) 22:53, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

A live stream would have the same issues that a live speech or a live performance has... a lack of permanence. Something impermanent can not be used as verification (no way to check it after the fact).
For it to be permanent, we would need to create a recorded copy or transcript. At which point we are no longer talking about the source being the original stream, speech, or performance, but the recording/transcript of it... And that could be subject to manipulation by the publisher. Which is one reason that we look at the publisher when determining reliability. Blueboar (talk) 23:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, to clarify, I mean a live stream that was uploaded permanently, such as on YouTube. Benjamin (talk) 23:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
An uploaded live stream is just a video publication. whether than can be considered reliable and used depends on the reputation of the publisher and possible the reputation of people making statements in that video. The "defense" against manipulation aside from you own common sense and reviews of the video is reputation of the publisher. Say it is from a reputable news organization or journalist, then you probably can assume the video being with manipulation.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:02, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Is it really that common for a video to be significantly digitally manipulated, or would it be more of a matter of context and notability? Benjamin (talk) 00:08, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
It is not common, no. It depends. In a few rare cases I would suspect it. More likely is just fakery. A man in a studio saying "I'm so-and-so"... how do we know he is? If it was made under the aegis of the Los Angeles Times and that can be demonstrated satisfactorily (bearing in mind that anybody can make a fake LA Times logo for the background etc.), then it'd probably be OK in my book. If it's uploaded anonymously, it's no better than a blog post I guess. That doesn't necessarily rule it out, but the presumption is not to allow it. Herostratus (talk) 01:00, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
What about, for example, a video of a protest, or a speech, on the street, where the participants are clearly recognizable? Benjamin (talk) 01:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Usually, when an editor says something is "clearly recognizable," they mean "let's ignore WP:No original research just because I think that it's clear enough." Ian.thomson (talk) 01:08, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, it depends. Videos make poor refs for many reasons -- they're hard to search, hard to translate, not available in printed versions or on dialup connections, are subject to mishearing, are hard to verify, and so forth. They are allowed though I guess.
Yeah though I guess if it's blue-sky clear that you're seeing a person speaking in public or something, it's OK.
The point about original research is well taken. If a person is quoted in a formal interview saying something, that probably reflects his considered thought, at least at that moment, at least to some degree, and so helps the reader get a handle on who he is and what he thinks. Something shouted out at a street rally or (even worse) just caught on camera... not so much, necessarily. We are not interested in "gotcha" moments usually. And if that's really the only source for the fact... seems kind of sketchy. It would depend. A specific case to look at would help. Herostratus (talk) 01:24, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
If there were multiple live streams of the same event, from different perspectives, would that increase the reliability? Also, what if the video was streamed live, and then saved on a website that hosts videos? Would that be reasonable assurance that the video is not manipulated? Benjamin (talk) 00:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
I presume there would also probably be issues with notability? Benjamin (talk) 02:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes right. The person is seen on camera making a speech, and not one single notable reliable print source saw fit to report on it. Why should we? Herostratus (talk) 02:32, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
(ec) By framing the question in terms of "reliability" and WP:RS, I would suggest that we're missing what are usually more important policy concerns. As Ian.thomson notes, WP:NOR comes into it more often—is an editor citing a recorded livestream (or some other bit of primary source material, perhaps quoting without proper context...) in order to support a claim or build a case that's not otherwise supportable? On a related note, WP:UNDUE (that is, WP:NPOV) also frequently enters into it. Is an editor attaching too much importance to a bit of information extracted from a bit of ephemera?
If a particular claim or statement did not warrant coverage by a scholar or journalist in any other forum or format, is it rarely appropriate for Wikipedia and its editors to be the first outlet for such secondary coverage. In other words, the reason why the question doesn't come up very often here at WP:RSN is because it's not really a "reliability" issue (or, at least, the use of such sources tends to run aground on WP:NOR and WP:NPOV before it touches WP:RS). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:40, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
@Benjaminikuta: Look, you said at the top of this thread that you're not just "asking in general". We've pretty much exhausted the supply of guidance we can provide for a hypothetical case. Based on the questions that you're asking, it sounds like you're hoping to use one or more videos to construct an argument or support a claim or present an interpretation that hasn't been reported in an independent reliable source—and that's likely to be problematic for the reasons already noted.
If you have a particular video recording that you want to know how or if it's appropriate to use, just ask the specific question. Remember to follow the instructions at the top of the page (and which appear above the edit window) and provide the three key pieces of information: the source you want to use, the article where you wish to use it, and the article content you want to use it to support. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, that was a typo, I am asking in general, but I know this place is for asking about specific edits. Is there another place for asking in general, or is that not something to do? Benjamin (talk) 16:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
It's fine. It's just that whevever you ask, if it is a general question, it's hard to answer. "Are blogs reliable?" "are magazines reliable?" and "are videos reliable" -- can only really be answered by asking another question -- "which blog/magazine/video, and for what material?". I guess we've answered probably as far as we can, regarding that type of video: "Probably not, but maybe, depending on various factors specific to the individual circumstances". Herostratus (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

RS for WWII -- ww2today.com ?

Is the website ww2today.com run by Martin Cherrett reliable for anything about WWII? Here is an article about him.

I was considering adding this as another reference for Ascq massacre and Walter Hauck, but since he appears to be a blogger, I am not sure he is sufficiently expert.

I see that his work is also reference in these articles:

I will put notes on those pages informing editors there of this post, and also on the Military History Wikiproject.

--David Tornheim (talk) 17:08, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

As the moment I would say no, as he appears to just be a blogger. Has he any editorial oversight, has he a reputation for fact checking, has he been published by third parties? Frankly who the hell is he?
And besides, if he is in fact doing research (rather then say making stuff up) why not just use whatever source he uses?Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Googling Mr Cherrett doesn't turn up any references on his credentials, and he is not listed as the author of any books available through Amazon.com's database so I don't think that this website can be considered a reliable source. It appears to be the work of an enthusiastic, and competent from a quick review, amateur historian. Nick-D (talk) 22:37, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Adding to Nick-D's post on which I agree; it is a website by an individual which means, no editorial oversight. Kierzek (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. That's what I suspected. I'll plan to take out the citations from those articles per this discussion. Would it be appropriate to include the site in external links? I forget the rule on external links... --David Tornheim (talk) 16:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_224&oldid=1136438580"
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