Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

See below: Where did that idea come from? Who says there's no editorial oversight?Djflem (talk) 21:10, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Their FAQ is quite clear about that... Pavlor (talk) 08:12, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Striking original comment per discussion bellow. There seems to be some editorial oversight, but its thoroughness is unclear. I share now view posted by Newslinger above (marginally reliable). Pavlor (talk) 06:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm also here to say it's unreliable. As well, I find myself very unimpressed with the sources cited on the Emporis article itself to back that it " is frequently cited by various media sources as an authority on building data". The one live, independent source that says that honestly reads like a press release. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, Wikipedia is unreliable, but this discussion is not about the Wikipedia article.Djflem (talk) 21:10, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, this goes to the heart of WP:RS, "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." I find no evidence that Emporis has a reputation of any kind. Nearly all of the press coverage that mentions Emporis is just fawning coverage of their awards ceremony, or context-free citations to the database. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:20, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Reliable based on the following email correspondence 4 July, 2019 from Samantha Körber ,[email protected]> See also:https://www.emporis.com/corporate/contact.

My name is Samantha from Emporis Data Research Department. Thanks for your e-mail. Let me quickly give you an overview about our data quality and the work processes involved with ensuring our standards:

Emporis collects it’s data from a variety of sources and our job can basically be seen as a big puzzle game where we are trying to piece together the most complete picture of a building we can achieve while making sure we only enter confirmed data points and no rumors, conflicting data etc.

In general we have four main sources that we gather information from:

1. Industry partners: We work together with multiple companies from the construction industry, e.g. architects, engineers and developers, who provide us with information about their projects as they would like to see them represented on the platform. This is one of our main source for new construction projects but also for existing buildings.

2. Governmental institutions & public bodies: We also collaborate with governmental institutions and public bodies, with which we exchange lots of data regarding buildings and current construction projects happening in their respective countries, counties or cities. In exchange we supply them with statistics and other data.

3. Local editors: Emporis has a large international community of local editors all over the globe. These editors are working for us “on the ground” by e.g. visiting the construction sites to take photos or to verify the construction progress. Naturally, they do not only add and edit information regarding new construction projects but also provide a lot of information about existing buildings and involved companies, as well.

4. Our internal data research team: Our data research team here in the Emporis office in Hamburg, Germany is basically the back bone of our operation. We are constantly monitoring the web, getting in touch with developers or city councils etc. in order to get more information about companies, buildings and construction projects worldwide. And while we add and complete data whenever they find (new/updated) information, our team also has to double-check, approve and potentially merge all information that has been provided or entered to the database by exterior sources (e.g. the local editors) to ensure quality. Only after the evaluation the entry is released by us and published on Emporis.

As you can see, all the work is done manually and we put great effort into collecting our data to make sure all the information is as correct and comprehensive as possible. The same goes for the monitoring process to ensure ongoing data quality once data sets have become part of the database.For this process buildings get flagged regularly for a check-up with our data researchers. How often this is the case depends on how complete the data sets are and what status the building is in (e.g. as buildings that are under construction or are being planned undergo more changes than an existing building, they get flagged in shorter intervals than existing ones etc.).

I hope this helps to get an idea of how the Emporis data is collected and how the verification process works.

Samantha-Christina Körber

It is clear that despite claims made here there are a variety of sources and that the information is verified and validated by a data research team and editorial board. I advise further in-depth research or addressing specific questions to https://www.emporis.com/corporate/contact Djflem (talk) 21:10, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An alleged e-mail message quoted here is not a

WP:RS. You have no evidence that this is a bona fide communication from a representative of the company, nor that any of the assertions therein are true. Elizium23 (talk) 21:14, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I suggest that use the address provided above and ask yourselfDjflem (talk) 21:17, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry,

WP:BURDEN is not on the person who challenges these things, but on the editor making the claim. Elizium23 (talk) 21:22, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Samantha Körber can be reached @ sckoerber@emporis...(I'm sure every editor would like to the right thing and trust they will do what it takes get to get to the truth, no?)

Djflem (talk) 21:36, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is just PR spin by the company. The fact that the website uses "local editors" means it is not reliable. Th truth is the website tries to promote itself, but it is not reliable.--

Rusf10 (talk) 01:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Everyone is allowed to an opinion, but Wikipedia should work with facts and information, not interpretation. Please point to Wikimedia policy about "local editor", and cite ackknowledge that many organizations (CNN, New York Times, Al Jazeera among them) use "local editor". Djflem (talk) 20:10, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

user-generated content as one of their data sources. These sites also had some limited form of editorial checking, but most editors determined that it was not enough. It's unlikely that a small team could properly validate information from "a large international community of local editors all over the globe". — Newslinger talk 01:53, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Reliable Look at their press page https://www.emporis.com/press and click year by year to see what reliable sources trust them as reliable for information. Dream Focus 23:03, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Almost all of the press coverage concerns mentions of the "Emporis Skyscraper Award" and events related to Emporis itself, which don't satisfy

  user-generated content. — Newslinger talk 23:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Is Rusf10 trying shut the discussion started 2 days ago by claiming consensus has reached?Djflem (talk) 08:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My first question would be, who is adding the links? Because the answer to your question will be different if these links are being added by editors who think they are useful, or spammers promoting a website.

WP:BLAME might be useful here. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:21, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Rusf10 (talk) 02:32, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Large numbers of editors have used the source because it is comprehensive and useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djflem (talk • contribs) 08:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rusf10, it doesn't need to be necessarily blacklisted. Many of these links are in "external links" section, like IMDb links and blacklisting it will be more harm than good. However, based on the discussion above, it would be great if {{emporis}} was no longer used as a citation template. epicgenius (talk) 03:21, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree that Emporis should probably be treated like

external links might be acceptable. Since {{Emporis}} is an external link template, not a citation template, it shouldn't be used for citations regardless of the result of this discussion. — Newslinger talk 05:02, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Wikipedia:BURDEN of proof. Who has backed up claims that "Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is also generally unacceptable? (bold mine) No one so far.are located worldwide: data is collected by our editorial Community, data researchers and public.

Who can on Wikpedia knows the ratio of the contributions and how the information is gathered and processed from

Determining that and basing decisions on facts rather than claims is how to deal with it.Djflem (talk) 08:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the ratio is undisclosed does Emporis no favors. If Emporis distinguished its user-generated content from its other content, we would probably be able to cite its other content (provided that the data is of high quality) while avoiding the community contributions. However, they don't distinguish the two, and we can't trust this data when its origins are opaque and probably

questionable. — Newslinger talk 09:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

In other words nobody at Wikipedia knows exactly if the content is largely user-generated (bold mine). If there are 4 different sources and they were attributed equally that would be about 25%, which is certainly less than largely.Djflem (talk) 20:03, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you wouldn't know if it were 99% or 1%. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:19, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody at Wikipedia would, would they? So, any claims that data is largely user-generated (as policy states) are not valid and not reliable unless backed-up? Djflem (talk) 21:43, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, nobody knows. And if we don't know, we can't use it as a source. And until somebody knows a way to determine specifically which information is reliable, we can't use this as a source. If you want to use this source, then the

Rusf10 (talk) 22:32, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Quoting Elizium23, above: "Sorry, WP:BURDEN is not on the person who challenges these things, but on the editor making the claim.", as Rusf10 has. Djflem (talk) 19:09, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument

WP:BURDEN, "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." The material here is the content in Emporis, which is being challenged for the articles it is being used on (e.g. List of tallest buildings in Peoria). The burden of proof is on the editor who wants to add Emporis-sourced content to show that it is reliable, and not on the editor who is challenging the content. — Newslinger talk 21:06, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Newslinger is correct. Blueboar (talk) 21:17, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Piling on to agree, the burden of proof falls on those who wish to use the source. We use sources that we know to meet our reliability standards. If we don't know, we don't use them. –dlthewave ☎ 22:09, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who has demonstrated that Emporis is "largely user-generated"(as stated in Wikipedia policy), which is a claim being made?Djflem (talk) 19:48, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From email correspndence July 8, 2019 from Samantha Körber <[email protected]>, which further clarifies Emporis' verifibliity process:

Thanks for our reply. I answer you here by mail, because I am not familiar with the Wikipedia forum. Could you please forward this information?

I have been reading through the thread at Wikipedia and it seems, that there are some points I may be able to shed a bit more light on.

Yes, we do receive data from external users as I already outlined. By now this makes up approx. 15% of our data.

However this data is not added to our database unchecked. When for example a new building is added by a user, it will not appear on the website or in the database immediately. The building is first put into what we internally call the "building workflow" where we process all the new information that is coming in and evaluate the data.

The user always has to provide sources for the data he added/edited which are then evaluated and double-checked by our professional internal data research team. They then determine what data and sources are indeed reliable and therefore make it onto the database. If we cannot 100% verify it, it will not make the cut.

We work with many large companies not only in the construction sector but also in finance, insurance, consulting, etc. (for a few references see: https://www.emporis.com/corporate/reference-customers) that base many of their business decisions on our data. Hence ensuring that our data is indeed reliable and correct is of utmost importance to us, as it is the very foundation our business case is built upon.

If people are in doubt about the process, they can sign up and try adding a building for themselves.

I hope this helps to further clarify things.

Best regards,

Samantha

Once again, all Wikipedians who would like to sincerely develop informed opinion to contribute to this discussion are encouraged to do so. Samantha Körber <[email protected]> Djflem (talk) 18:14, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Djflem: I fixed the closing blockquote tag. -Mys_721tx (talk) 18:54, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

evaluated and double-checked by our professional internal data research team "professional internal data research team" means who? Corporate informations/about mentions only managing directors. Invisible editorial staff is hardly a sign of reliability. However, examples of use of their database by other reliable sources may support reliability of this source. Pavlor (talk) 18:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have you taken up the offer made by Emporis to check the facts? The New Yorker is reknowned for fact-checkers. How visible are they they? How can that be proven?Djflem (talk) 19:09, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For example?

Batty, Michael (2013), The New Science of Cities, MIT Press,

ISBN 9780262019521

Al-Kodmany, Kheir (2016), New Suburbanism: Sustainable Tall Building Development, Routledge,

ISBN 9781317087977

• Choice: Publication of the Association of College and Research Libraries, a Division of the American Library Association, Volume 46,Nummers 10-12, American Library Association
• "Emporis Buildings Database Now Available". Galvin Library (Illinois Institute of Technology). April 6, 2007. Dedicated to documenting tall buildings, Emporis is the world's largest publicly available database on architectural and building data. News, photographs, renderings, and firm data are collected by over 700 editors for more than 50,000 cities worldwide. These experienced authors and correspondents report 24 hours a day on new projects and developments in architecture, engineering, construction, and real estate with a high regard for accurate and reliable information.
• UCLA Pacific Basin Law Journal, UCLA School of Law, 2006
• Kheir, Al-Kodmany & Mir M. Ali (2013), The Future of the City: Tall Buildings and Urban Design, WIT Press,
  ISBN 9781845644109
• Glaeser, Edward (2011), Triumph of the City: How Our Greatest Invention Makes Us Richer, Smarter, Greener, Healthier, and Happier, Penguin,
  ISBN 9781101475676
• Mehmet Halis Günel, Hüseyin Emre Ilgin (2014), Tall Buildings: Structural Systems and Aerodynamic Form, Routledge,
  ISBN 9781317690733
• Peter James Rimmer, Howard W. Dick (2009), The City in Southeast Asia: Patterns, Processes and Policy, University of Hawaii Press,
  ISBN 9780824833138
• Joao Teixeira Lopes, Ray Hutchison (2016), Public Spaces: Times of Crisis and Change, Emerald Group Publishing,
  ISBN 9781786354631

Djflem (talk) 20:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram#Should we use Breitbart News as a source regarding the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram? regarding using Breitbart as a source. Your input would be a big help in reaching a consensus on this. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:29, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like the appropriate venue, rather than that page. No, it is not a reliable source. A good part of their income comes from hate views, so I don't even click through. cygnis insignis 06:02, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about putting the RfC here -- or perhaps BLPNB -- but as I correctly predicted, certain misguided editors think that it is a good idea to post lists of shit sources that deliberately tell lies as long as it is done in Wikipedia space and not article space. :( --Guy Macon (talk) 06:47, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not only do they have a bad reputation for fact checking and reporting (which caused them to be considered generally unreliable), but since they have a conflict of interest (like the DailyMail), in that they are not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia, their reporting is likely to be flawed and exaggerated. I'm sure that as usual, if there's something important and notable, papers with a better reputation have reported on it. —PaleoNeonate – 07:22, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it might be for their view of it (but I am not sure why that would be of interest), but no not for any factual reporting.Slatersteven (talk) 09:27, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No, I'll be really blunt here, Stormfront, Daily Stormer, info-wars, Brietbart etc are neo-Nazi/alt-right propaganda outlets. They are total and utter rubbish, barely an accurate word has ever been published by these disreputable and disgusting fraudsters. The debate has been had and the result was clear - these trash outlets must never be used to cite anything.
  talk) 00:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

There's a little discussion going on at Talk:Tidal force#Free fall, and I wonder whether https://openstax.org/details/books/university-physics-volume-1 would be a reliable source for including a formula from example 13.14 on page 664 of the downloaded pdf. Comments welcome. TIA. - DVdm (talk) 11:43, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, definitely not. The source is fine, but

original research. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:02, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Over at Etika, a person who recently committed suicide, we know he was last seen on June 19, and his body found on June 24, but from all existing good RSes, we have no exact date of death, so we are using "circa June 19" as the death date. However, Etika's girlfriend (a fact well known) has stated she has seen the police coroner report that places the death on the 22nd. A lot of good intentioned IPs (likely fans of Etika, but I don't think this is like meatpuppetry) are adding this date but we simply don't have a standard RS for this. Is it fair to point the gf's tweet as confirmation of the date as an RS? --Masem (t) 00:23, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This flies in the face of absolutely everything written at

WP:SPS. This is an unverified Twitter account, making claims about a third party. There is no way I could envision this being admissible. Why is it even a question? Elizium23 (talk) 00:33, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Iffy situation. Probably should see if other sources are available instead of using a twitter account. Many times even close family don't really know. Detectives could discern and then give a press release. If he is as well known as you say he is, a news organization is bound to release more reliable data.Ramos1990 (talk) 00:37, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Its a question because this gets changes about twice a day by different people, and if this was a way to justify that date, then we'd not have to worry about these constant changes. --Masem (t) 00:42, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it is confirmed by reliable sources that the said Twitter account belongs to the girlfriend, then it can be used to add to the article "His girlfriend declared on Twitter that she had seen the police coroner report that places the death on June 22". In any case, what the Twitter account says should not be treated as an indisputable fact.

Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:47, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

User:Masem, I know how you feel. I think you can request page protection here Wikipedia:Requests for page protection at the noticeboard. I would recommend either "Semi-protection" or "Extended confirmed protection" for that page for about a month or more - reasonable amount of time. That should fend off many anonymous IPs and new users that might emerge and will prevent them from editing.Ramos1990 (talk) 00:53, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No its not RS, it would fall foul of both

wp:sps.Slatersteven (talk) 09:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• No, social media posts are not a reliable source for anything. If a reliable source quotes a tweet, that is the only time it can be used and the citation should refer to the reliable source, not Twitter.
  talk) 00:46, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Seperately, there was a discussion at the article Talk some time ago about the use of Shepheard-Walyn (publishers) LTD, [39] with user opinions that it is a self-publishing firm personally close to the School of Economic Science. It would be good to have the final word on that here; as far as I'm aware self-publishing and proximity to the subject would not disqualify its publications as sources for the article, but it might have a bearing on how they are used and the prominence they are given. Comments please. Cheers, --Roberthall7 (talk) 16:46, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For fear this will be ignored if you only give links, here's a quick copy-and-paste compilation from them.

1 Insight is better than ice cream, Frank Crocitto, Candlepower Communications, ©2000.

2 Moving against the stream : the birth of a new Buddhist movement, Sangharakshita, Bhikshu, Windhorse, ©2003.

3 Confusion no more : for the spiritual seeker, Ramesh S Balsekar, Watkins, 2007.

4 Nothing left over : a plain and simple life, Toinette Lippe, J.P. Tarcher/Putnam, ©2002.

5 People almanac. 2003, Cader Books, ©2002.

6 There's no more dying then : words of comfort and illumination. Stephanie Wilson, Shepheard-Walwyn (Publishers) Ltd, 2007.

7 The book of one : the ancient wisdom of Advaita, Dennis Waite, O Books, 2010.

8 Back to the truth : 5000 years of Advaita, Dennis Waite, O Books, 2007.

A quick look around yields

1 It seems Candlepower Communications have only published two books, both by Frank Crocitto.

2 Windhorse is a specialist publisher, a registered charity whose annual accounts show sales exceeding other income.

5 An annual publication from People, so might fail

WP:BLPRS

.

7 & 8 O Books was the original name and is now an imprint of John Hunt Publishing, described as "has been reinventing itself as a trade and co-operative publisher". "Regardless of whether a book is submitted and accepted with an author subsidy or not, according to John Hunt Publishing, ‘every title gets treated the same. No bookshop or reviewer is going to know if one title or another has had a subsidy.’" suggesting a significant number of authors pay for publication.[40] No indication of editorial oversight. 92.19.31.86 (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. Do we concur (3) is

WP:V referencing the opinion / POV of each author? -Roberthall7 (talk) 15:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

(3) and (4) may well be those publishers; I haven't checked. Any mention of the genre by the publisher should be treated only as an aid to bookshops when buying and shelving stock. It does not indicate whether a source is reliable. You last question opens a can of worms and it's not possible to write you a blank cheque. It varies how we treat authors' statements about themselves. It does seem you don't have access to those sources, so it would be dangerous to take a brief quotation or a Google snippet and assume it couldn't possibly provide a misleading and unbalanced view of the author's own statements about themselves, let alone to infer their POV from it and editorialise on that basis. 79.73.240.227 (talk) 17:04, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would you consider

Given today it might be called a blog "edited by its members", no.Slatersteven (talk) 18:05, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any issue with it. The editors were noted writers in their time, and authorship was by invitation. Though as per Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Do we have a reliable source for the cause of death of Louise d'Artois?, if there is an objection to this, you do have a book by a historian that says the same thing, and does not cite The Month for it. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:36, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with Someguy1221. No issue based on the RS guideline has been brought up about it. It was not self-published like a blog, but a literary, general interest Catholic review that published 19th & 20th century writers who are quite well known and respected to this day. Conceivably it might be considered biased if the purpose it was being cited for was a matter of religion; but that is not relevant here.John Z (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "The editors were noted writers in their time, and authorship was by invitation."

Fine, who was the author? Who were the editors? Frances Margaret Taylor(a nurse)? Henry James Coleridge(professor of theology)?

Per, Wikipedia:Reliable sources;The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:

• The piece of work itself (the article, book)
• The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)
• The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)
• Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people.

So far, aside from personal opinions that The Month is a "reliable source", nothing has been presented that indicates this is a reliable source, except maybe for religious topics. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why even use this source for facts about history? I expect entire books were written about history of Parma, the Bourbon dynasty or Italy in general. Use these, don´t waste your time with sources of dubious reliability for this subject. Pavlor (talk) 05:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to this 2019 article from Refinery29, the age of actress Natalia Dyer is listed as age 24: "But, there are just four selfies of the 24-year-old to be found (yes, she is 24, no matter what lies Wikipedia says)." Is Refinery29 a reliable source? Please note that I've mentioned this information at Talk:Natalia Dyer#Date of birth. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 19:27, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Marginally reliable. It's another online publication targeting young women, in the same category as Bustle and PopSugar, which compete with more established print magazines like Cosmo and Allure. Probably more focused on commentary and publishing relatable content than ensuring that the facts are right, but OK as a source in a pinch. Be careful with the sponsored content they publish, such as this (linked from their front page). feminist (talk) 11:28, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per a discussion

I don´t think burden of proof is upon you. Editor proposing this book (?) as a source should provide at least a catalogue entry to prove this source exists. There is not much to discuss without knowing other details (eg. publisher). Pavlor (talk) 06:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The person who mentioned that is being weirdly evasive. I don't know why you didn't find it on Google Scholar, either, though: here. I can only imagine no link was provided because it says basically nothing about the subject of the AfD. I can't find any evidence it was actually published anywhere other than the web, which isn't a good start. More research could be done in that regard, otherwise it would come down to the extent to which the author makes it usable as a self-published source. Regardless, though, it doesn't support anything in the AfD anyway, so it's kind of moot. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:46, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why anyone is having trouble finding the source; it is actually the one you found, a self-published article by Torben Mogensen within his field of expertise. The "silhouette system" discussed in the article is an intellectual property developed and used by the subject of the article and has no individual authorship.

As far as my being "evasive", please AGF, and perhaps this and the related diffs will give some context relevant to the current AfD. Newimpartial (talk) 14:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I just saw someone ask for more information or a link regarding a source you mentioned, and it seemed like you edited many times while pointedly refusing to give that link. That read evasive to me, but there may indeed be additional context/backstory I'm unaware of (I don't have time to go through that ANI to look for clues at this time). Regardless, this doesn't really need to be a thread on RSN since even if it is a well-regarded author's SPS, it doesn't add anything to the AfD. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:15, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for locating it, Rhododendrites! It appears it is named "Dice-Rolling Mechanisms in RPGs." The commenter in the AfD modified the name and called it "Dice-Rolling Systems in RPGs" which is probably why I was unable to locate it. Coupled with them declining to provide a link or DOI number, it seemed suspect. (It still does, but now it can be critically evaluated at least so thank you, again.) Chetsford (talk) 16:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a reliable source under

Since Masters dissertations and theses are only considered reliable when they have scholarly significance, undergraduate theses should be treated as the same. -Mys_721tx (talk) 12:23, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Less that a Masters thesis - so generally not. However the citations in the thesis may be useful, and the information in the senior's thesis could help in building the article - but it shouldn't be cited directly by us. The information in the footnotes - if it is quotations of other sources - could also be useful (though both to cite the quoted source directly, possibly (iffy) via "quotation in senior's thesis"). Icewhiz (talk) 13:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria, Mys 721tx, and Icewhiz: — It would appear DeBusk's Thesis falls under the category of the second item under Wikipedia:Reliable sources-Scholarship : i.e. "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." If it makes any difference, DeBusk's Bibliography, beginning at p. 37, is quite impressive. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gwillhickers: It does not appear that this particular senior thesis has been published in a reputable peer-reviewed source or by an academic press. Am I missing something? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While there is no actual mention of a specific press, the Thesis was submitted to the University of Texas, reviewed, approved and signed by two university professors of history, one of them a Dean, and professionally printed. University presses are normally used in this capacity. Is there anyway we can AGF on that detail? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly every thesis (at least in US/Canadian universities) is submitted to a university for publication after having been reviewed and approved by multiple professors of the relevant subject. If we AGF on that detail in this case, we would need to do so in pretty much every case; what then would be the point of having that guideline at all? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some degree of oversight and peer review from faculty at a university for these kinds of publications. Better than you would get from a newspaper so i would think it is a pretty decent source to cite. But if you find better sources, then those should be used instead. This could be a supporting source. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:51, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a publication (no publisher other than the university/author themselves - this isn't an academic press) - it's a thesis that is available online. Yes - it was read and signed off by two professors (though their examination may have been cursory - a senior's thesis would generally be reviewed less than a phd or master's thesis). It seems well written, cited, and is probably better than a random blog on the internet. However, it is not a published reliable source for Wikipedia purposes. Nor are term papers (that are also vetted by the course instructor - who may be a professor - such vetting or grading does not constitute being "vetted by the scholarly community"). The B.A. thesis was cited once by others (per google scholar) - in this book. That's not a wide impact. You could use this thesis to help build the article (e.g. by reading it, using the sources cited in it) - but it is not a RS for Wikipedia purposes. Icewhiz (talk) 07:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, fair enough. Yes, I will try to refer to the cites that are used within DeBusk's work. DeBusk is sometimes used as a cite in conjunction with other cites/sources, so hopefully I will not have my nose stuck in a bunch of other books and online sources for too long trying to find substitutes.

• @Nikkimaria: I noticed my nomination is no longer in the DYK Queue, or anywhere, so I'm wondering if I still can resubmit the nomination once this sourcing issue is resolved in a day or two. In any case, thanks to everyone for their time and effort spent on the nomination/article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:17, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Once the sourcing and the other issue mentioned on the nom page have been resolved, the article can be re-reviewed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This is actually a situation where referring to the cites within probably won't provide access to everything in the thesis. A considerable portion is cited to primary sources. I looked into this further to see if the author ever published this content somewhere else, perhaps under a different title, but came up with bupkis. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:15, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly does not meet scholarship. That does not mean everything sourced to it should be deleted, but that it should be treated as unsourced material. TFD (talk) 04:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it OK to use the iran-hrm for the following the material in Women's rights in Iran article? Thanks, Saff V. (talk) 13:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC) In mid-November 2018 United Nations General Assembly’s Human Rights Committee approved a resolution against Iranian government's continuous discrimination against women and limitation of freedom of thought.[reply]

Yes, you and various other users have already been told so several times by admins and whatnot. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can I see some of "several times" that admins say the Iran-HRM is RS?Saff V. (talk) 08:03, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, not gonna fall for that. You very well know it yourself. Stop pov-pushing IRI edits. It's no secret that women in Iran are oppressed. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop PA, while I just ask a question about the reliability of a source!Saff V. (talk) 11:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop pov-pushing by trying to censor the lack of women rights in Iran, as you have been strongly warned about stuff like this before [41]. Now you're taking it here [42] --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are probably many reliable sources documenting women rights in Iran. As Iran-HRM is an ctivist group, I would not use their reporting without attribution. However, this doesn´t mean we should change article balance to the POV of the Iranian regime (which is - I fear judging form the talkpage posts - intention of the OP). Simply find better sources (peer reviewed papers, mainstream media reporting) and replace lower quality sources. Pavlor (talk) 13:10, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Situational. Looks like an advocacy group to me, so they would probably be at the same tier as Hope not Hate or maybe Southern Poverty Law Center. This particular article appears to be straightforward reporting and so should be OK as a source. feminist (talk) 11:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fpr revernce purposes I mean like <https://ilga.org/downloads/ILGA_State_Sponsored_Homophobia_2019.pdf/> Under WP:SPS it would count as self punlished therefore "generally not reliable" plus it does not fall into the WP:RSR and their writing is one way opinionated opting to only express pro-LGBT opinions instead of being wp:neutral. So I vote to disallow this "source" from being quoted or referenced. Moneyspender (talk) 19:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources do not have to be neutral to be reliable. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published too. Moneyspender (talk) 19:50, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:58, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure why we would treat it any differently than the International Dialogue for Environmental Action, the Endometriosis Society of India, or the National Rifle Association. We cite partisan think-tanks, NGOs and other miscellaneous organizations all the time, just generally not for unattributed statements of fact. GMG^talk 20:06, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May I also point you to WP:REDFLAG the only sources claiming that the death penalty is "unenforced" is this article and any articles referencing this article. Seems fishy or at least very unreliable to me. Moneyspender (talk) 20:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The most important piece of the reliable source guideline is "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". And judging by the references to the ILGA State Sponsored Homophobia reports in the academic literature, that reputation is excellent. If the ILGA says that something is a confirmed fact, I would support simply stating it as a fact. If it states that "no cases could be found of..." or "appears to be unenforced..." or similar, then I would attribute. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The wikipedia links to urbanrail.net over a thousand times. So, is it a reliable source?

Critics might say it is just an overgrown railfan site. However, sometimes amateurs do work of sufficient competence that professionals, who we would recognize as RS, treat them as peers, or even defer to their judgement.

Robert Schwandl, the site's founder, has published a series of books on rapid transit systems.

So, I think this site has graduated to RS status.

I started a stub on the site in userspace - User:Geo Swan/urbanrail.net

I'd appreciate others weighing in.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 01:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It does not meet rs because it is based on user contributions, just like Wikipedia. Presumably the editors get their information from published reliable sources. But note, "The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations." So don't just remove the material unless it is questionable. TFD (talk) 01:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the website is very useful, but I am not sure if it is enough to be able cite on wikipedia (maybe it reliable for practical reasons, but maybe it would ok if no one challenges it...?). The issue is that though the site is run by someone who seems to be competent on the topic, it seems to be just his website. On the other hand, his books [43] might be a better sources than the website since those probably went though some editorial oversight. They look pretty detailed for example, [44]. I think the books are better sources and certainly can be cited on wikipedia.Ramos1990 (talk) 07:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The Four Deuces wrote: "...based on user contributions, just like Wikipedia".

  This site isn't like the wikipedia. The site's founder, Robert Schwandl, wrote, or co-wrote, a series of books on the same transit systems he documented on the site.

  With a great deal of effort, possibly subpoenas, most wikipedia contributors could be indentified. But, for any reasonable level of effort, we are anonymous. For practical purposes we are anonymous. Some wikipedia contributors claim they are lawyers, and expect the rest of us to defer to their opinions on legal matters.

  An expert, like a lawyer, puts their real life reputation on the line, every time they offer their professional opinion. But even if the wikipedia contributors who claim to be lawyers, are actually lawyers, opinions they offer semi-anonymously are worthless. Even if they were not exploiting our semi-anonymous nature to spread dis-information, for insider-trading, they opinions they offer to a site like wikipedia could be quirky fringe opinions they have to keep to themselves at their day jobs. They aren't putting their professional reputations on the line.

  Robert Schwandl is the site's founder. He seems to be its primary editor, or maybe even its sole contributor. As a published author his reputation is on the line if the site's info is unreliable -- that's different than the wikipedia.

  I linked to the google search to his publication. This google scholar search shows scholarly articles cite urbanrail.net.

  We mustn't let a fear of non-notable blogs cause us to disclude things that bears a resemblance to a self-published blog, or calls itself a blog. When someone is a reliable authoritative author, things they publish that we might normally discount as a non-notable self-published blog should be treated as reliable as their books or scholarly articles.

  If Henry Kissinger maintained a self-published blog we would treat their self-published work as reliable as anything else he said or wrote.

  So, because scholars, who we would regard as RS, rely on urbanrail.net, why shouldn't we treat it as an RS? Geo Swan (talk) 01:56, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My personal take on UrbanRail is that it should be treated like something like IMDb – I think it's OK as an 'External link', but I am uncomfortable using it as an inline "

WP:RS inline source. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Authors of secondary sources use sources that often don't meet reliability in Wikipedia, including Wikipedia articles. I note by the way that all of Shwandl's books are self-published, so he does not qualify aa an expert and does not claim to be one. TFD (talk) 03:06, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of that changes my opinion – OK as an 'EL', but not OK as an inline source. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BoardGameGeek is perhaps the most prominent board game website. In general, it is a wiki edited by fans. Submissions to its lists of awards won by a game, however, are implemented by an administrators.[45] More to the point, most organizations are terrible at providing consistent online histories of winners and nominees, so it can be very difficult to find award information that is neither from the game's publisher or from BoardGameGeek. The listings themselves are rarely controversial. Can BGG be cited as a reliable source for awards? Kim Post (talk) 02:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it's that hard to find sources for an award, it's probably not prominent enough to include in Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:24, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notability or due weight are not really the issues here—you're right that a significant award will be documented somewhere, such as in old issues of print periodicals not available online. It is a significant burden to editors if that is the only option, though. Kim Post (talk) 06:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to make sure, you must have some basis for thinking the rewards are significant to begin with, right? Thanks. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:45, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a forum, crowd sourced and unreliable. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 07:59, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I mean presupposing that the claim appears to be true and is significant to include in the article. Notable awards for a game are part of discussing its reception in an encyclopedic way. The question is inspired by e.g. the Origins Awards, reasonably well-known in its niche—the official website records past winners but not nominees. Think also of industry awards in Europe, which may not be covered by traditional English-language sources. (The idea that something must not be significant if it's not easy to find online is frankly quite silly.) The overall significance of an award can be recognized, and yet a particular winner or nominee may not have easily accessible sources even when there is little doubt about the fact. Sources that are not contemporary are likely to be drawing from BGG or the publisher, if not Wikipedia. Would it be better to follow "verifiable, not verified" and leave an entry uncited? Kim Post (talk) 09:53, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, as uncited information should not really even be there. And it is not sill to say that if the people who give out the award do not consider it significant neither should we. At the end of the day anyone (including the publishes of a game) can upload thee claims, and if it cannot be verified to an RS then it may not in fact be true.Slatersteven (talk) 11:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Its a user generated site with moderation. I am not sure it should be an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone be so kind and turn this into an RFC?

I ran across https://en.brinkwire.com/ and was hoping to use for sourcing three million people attended the WorldPride parade in NYC.

But their website feels click-baity so I want to see what others think. Any ideas? Gleeanon409 (talk) 14:14, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We don't RfC everything.... As for your question - after digging a bit and going through the site - probably not reliable. I can't find much about it, the content seems to be geared for ad revenue, and it is running on top of what seems to be a wordpress theme (mission news) - [46]. Icewhiz (talk) 14:46, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was suspect, thank you for checking. Gleeanon409 (talk) 15:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[mammothgamers.com]? The reason why I feel that it is a bit off is because, on the about page, [47], the one that is in main concern, has the writter as a student who is taking a minor in Journalism. However that is not the major issue. The major issue is that the sources for what is being discussed about the subject(a YouTube channel), is actually from the subject being talked about or social media posts.

From what I know about reference reliability on Wikipedia, any social media post is considered "User Generated" and thus unreliable. Although people can argue about whether or not YouTube videos are considered "User Generated" , there is a rule of thumb on Wikipedia, if I am not mistakened, that a YouTube video or link can not be used as a reference when the Wikipedia article is talking about the the person or YouTube channel that created that YouTube link or video. Thus, I can presume that any article on the web that solely relies on a YouTube video and Social Media posts, can not be used as a reference on a Wikipedia article that is, on or talking about it the subject that created the YouTube video that the article is using to backup it's facts, as it would in the end be a "User Generated" in terms of Wikipedia.

I am presuming that the source is unreliable, but I just want to confirm if I am correct or not about my guess as it being unreliable on a Wikipedia page talking about the YouTube subject. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 03:12, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Unreliable - New website where none of the writers appear to have any sort of credentials. Sergecross73 msg me 11:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Unreliable per Serge. Another one of those sites that is simply "comprised of gamers who specialize in all the surrounding aspects of geek culture!" and nothing more. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. At

• WP:SBL § businesstelegraph.co.uk. ​— Newslinger talk 01:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

CEOWORLD Magazine

I noticed this at C. P. Gurnani, "In 2018, Gurnani was named one of the "Best CEOs In The World" by the CEOWORLD magazine.[7][citation needed]".

CEOWORLD Magazine is, according to them, "the world's leading business magazine written strictly for CEOs, CFOs, CIOs, senior management executives, business leaders, and high net worth individuals worldwide.".

I noted per [48] that generally this is not an uncommon use of this source, "In the 2015 CEOWORLD magazine ranking of the top 50 hospitality and hotel management schools in the world, SAIT School of Hospitality and Tourism, ranked 47 just behind Swiss School of Tourism and Hospitality.[10][11]", "Also in 2011, Diaz was listed among CEOWorld Magazine's Top Accomplished Women Entertainers.[92]" etc.

Should this source be used like this? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At this time I am dubious, its "about us" page reads far to much like a promotional handout for investors. They have a lot of directors and PR types, but no editorial staff listed. Moreover [[49]] does not inspire much confidence.Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CEOWorld is a reliable source for their own rankings, yes. As long as the wiki text gives the number of CEOs included or the rank-number in that year's ranking, it's fine. Softlavender (talk) 12:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but is it

WP:DUE to include considering Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CEOWORLD magazine (thanks Slatersteven, didn't think of looking there)? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:57, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I think (as the AFD seems to imply) this could be a case of link spam.Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DUE has no bearing on whether a person was ranked in the magazine's annual rankings. Every single mention of presence in the ranking (over 100 mentions on Wikipedia) has been added by different editors, none with COI, so it's not linkspam. We list plenty of awards and honors and rankings from publications that do not currently have Wikipedia articles, and that is not a criterion for inclusion in a list of Awards/Honors. Softlavender (talk) 10:26, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

What..? No, WP:DUE has bearing on if a WP-article should bother to mention that CEOWORLD magazine bothered to mention the topic. Is it a significant viewpoint that has been published by reliable source? Awards and honors and rankings do not need separate WP-articles, but the giving of them should have a decent source in an independent RS (or like in this case, at least be a decent RS). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:25, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Softlavender and Slatersteven, I give you [50][51][52][53][54]. Possibly related[55]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:50, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I'm not seeing a problem with this magazine as long as it used for its ratings. It has a rather fleshed out staff including a couple named editorial review points. Non-notability has nothing on reliability so the AFD doesn't matter here. I'm not seeing a COI or spamming problem as suggested - just because one editor often turns to it doesn't make it a COI, and the pattern of how that editor adds is not consistent with what I'd expect to see if, on publication of a new top 100 list in CEOWORLD, that one would normally plug that at each and every article for those 100. I'd be dubious of any other use of this world for WP, but I don't see a problem with how its currently being used. --Masem (t) 13:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with Masem... the only potential issue is WP:UNDUE - is the opinion of this magazine worth mentioning? I would say that is somewhat borderline, but probably on the “sure, why not” side. Blueboar (talk) 14:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I guess. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• If you read the "write for us" page, they seem to run unsolicited work from random authors with little editorial control. In fact they request blog-style listicles, and specifically reject responsibility for published opinions of the authors. And headline stories running on their site now don't inspire confidence: "4 Reasons Your Business Needs Custom Lapel Pins" for instance. So, in a nutshell, no this should not be a source for quality articles. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:06, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Getty Images

I originally posted this message here but was told this place is where it belongs. 14:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I was looking for some help in solving an edit dispute over at LGBT symbols. Regarding the "lesbian pride flag" subsection, three of the four flags are cited by typical reliable sources (BBC, Refinery29, and the such). However, another editor has cited the existence of the remaining lesbian flag with photo files from Getty Images (links here and here). I note that neither of these images directly explain anything about the flag's use/adoption in their captions.

Compare those sources to this article I used to cite some other flags and their histories on the article. I'm wondering, do the images cited by the other editor suffice as a reliable source? After calling for a

supports the material as presented in the article

.

Any way to solve this issue? I know the simple solution would be to find an alternative source, by the other editor involved in the dispute doesn't appreciate having "^[

better source needed]" by their images and insists that the sources they already added is enough. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 02:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

So, I think this probably belongs on

original research issue. That is, the fact that someone took a photograph and uploaded it to the internet does not make it relevant for any Wikipedia article. And using the fact that someone uploaded a photograph to the internet to support the statement that the flag is frequently seen at pride events... no, just no. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

@Someguy1221: Thank you, I'm going to post it at the noticeboard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nice4What (talk • contribs)

No it is OR to use this to claim it is a lesbian pride flag, the sources do not say that. It may be, or it may be a Trans flag, or perhaps...but this is speculation. The fact is neither source identifies the flag as specifically lesbian.Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That. Existing is not enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:WHATPLACE and until the edit dispute is resolved. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 16:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Maybe, but this was my solution.Slatersteven (talk) 16:05, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: Yes, but the point is that all involved editors all have their own different solutions... please, wait until the issue is resolved before deciding to include the flag or not. The sources do not even say the flag is "sometimes" used or even represents lesbianism. Please act in good faith and self-revert. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 16:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, there are at least two sources that show its use, that is enough to say "it is sometimes used". Secondly, there is the idea of compromise (as I imply ion the talk page, where this is not (as far as I can see) even been discussed), we lose nothing by keeping these sources for now (and we can remove when no effort is made to improve them). Moreover your tone looks a lot like "dammit this is what I want and I WANT IT NOW!". I am trying to find a way to achieve a compromise, not give either side the victory they think they so richly deserve.Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:RS, that's why I brought this to this noticeboard. That's also why I'm asking that you self-revert because I'm not going to engage in an edit war over this with you. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 16:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I have stated my reasoning, and this is my last word on the matter.Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm allowed to, can I insist that somebody look into reverting the edits done by

WP:WHATPLACE. Specifically calling attention to the wording A lesbian pride flag design sometimes seen at pride festivals... Thanks. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 16:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC) 00:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

In terms of RSness of

WP:PRIMARY, with reliability varying according to the photo journalist - e.g. this one is by Omer Messinger/NurPhoto and this one is a stock photo. In both cases I'd probably view the photographs as being reliably taken at the place and time indicated in the caption. As for interpretation of the image - photographers and Getty can make mistakes (obviously they get the visual description right, but finer details can go awry in the captions - the captions are there for journalists to search through - who then (often) make their own decision on captioning). Neither image has details on the flag in question (beyond it being used) - though I'd suspect sources are available.Icewhiz (talk) 16:31, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

In terms of some sources - this is combination of the Gender symbol#Sociology (Double female symbol)[56][57][58] with the rainbow flag. Now I will admit I did not manage to find a reliable source connecting the two (double-female on top of the rainbow flag) - though many sources mention them one next to each other on a list. You can however - find it on Amazon. Icewhiz (talk) 16:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@

connect the dots on our own. In revamping the article, so many of the flags were backed-up and readded through reliable sources, so if this flag was widely used, wouldn't it be easy to find it on other lists of LGBTQ+ symbols? That's where I see the inclusion of this flag as being worthy of discussion. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 16:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

To be clear - I did not suggest Amazon as an actual source (it is an indication this exsits and there might be sources, but it is not a source for our purposes). It's possible there is a source (other than the PRIMARY Getty images - which are reliable in the sense that they document two localized uses of this flag - but nothing wider) for rainbow flag + double-female. Icewhiz (talk) 07:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My edit [[59]] is in reference to two other sources [[60]], [[61]] and has nothing to do with the two Getty images being discussed here.Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: I know this subsection is titled "Getty Images", but caption-less images included in two other articles also don't merit the use of the word sometimes in my opinion. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 16:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The issue I have is that, though variations on that flag can be seen in those articles, the articles aren't about the flags. The articles don't mention the flags. They're just... there. In the images. I don't think we need to mention something in a Wikipedia article that the sources don't bother to mention either. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:57, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the lesbian pride double-Venus flag, the text states: "A lesbian pride flag design sometimes seen at pride festivals and dyke marches is the rainbow flag with two interlocked astronomical Venus symbols". The keyword being seen. The text does not include the who/what created the flag and when. So unless the definition of "seen " (i.e. past participle of "see"; definition of (verb) "see": Perceive with the eyes; discern visually; Be or become aware of something from observation or from a written or other visual source) is different in Wikipedia, the sources verify what is "seen ". Pyxis Solitary yak 11:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As has been pointed out (issues of Undue aside) none of the source say it is a lesbian pride flag, that is

wp:synthesis.Slatersteven (talk) 11:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I also note you are posting images of this flag all over gay subjects.Slatersteven (talk) 11:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, are you hounding me all over Wikipedia? Sniffing after me? Second, I switched the similar file with black Venus symbols with the white Venus symbols file. No need to blow a cork over it. Pyxis Solitary yak 13:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I just look at your edit history and found it odd that you keep on positing images of this flag, one that no RS seems to have notices in and of itself.Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You should review my edit history for the past 11 years. I'm sure at least one of them will inspire you to write 1000 words about me. Btw, re the Lesbian rainbow flag, there's this one and this one. Pyxis Solitary yak 13:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So? Wikipedia is not an RS. No one disputes this exists, the issue is do RS support its inclusion in the way written, they do not.Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So what does "seen at pride festivals and dyke marches" translate as? Because that is in the way written. Pyxis Solitary yak 14:39, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Its claiming that is is a lesbian pride flag that is the issue for me, the rest is an Undue, but not RS issue).Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The flag is composed of the double-Venus symbol that represents the lesbian community, and the rainbow flag concept that represents

Gay pride. Double-Venus symbol + Pride rainbow flag = Lesbian pride rainbow flag. I have not been able to find who was the first to put the two together and when it first appeared at a Pride parade, festival, and Dyke March with a Google and Duck Duck search. It's probably buried somewhere in a general book about the community then-known as L & G or an out-of-print publication. Pyxis Solitary yak 23:32, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Btw, remember the edit you made here? Take another look. Pyxis Solitary yak 23:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:UNDUE, but the point is though there is no doubt that such a flag does exist, that doesn't tell us what it stands for, how it's use, it's adoption, etc. American canton, Star of David, black chevron from India

... it goes on and on.

We know nothing from what's currently provided. Also, in regards to your linking of my edit, it's worth noting that you've reverted my warning left on your talk page, indicating you're aware of the message and have read it. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 00:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you a soft warning on edit warring on 01:55, 10 July 2019. You've been playing tit-for-tat since then. Pyxis Solitary yak 00:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please reply to the more pressing issue here... that Getty Images doesn't quite say anything. Bring the more personal issues to my talk page if you feel the need to. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 01:01, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My responding to your comment "it's worth noting that you've reverted my warning left on your talk page" is replied with "Bring the more personal issues to my talk page"? LOL! Pyxis Solitary yak 01:20, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pyxis, you linked to my edit (Take another look.) and then I indicated that I warned against edit warring (Also, in regards to your linking of my edit,)... To me, it appears that you're dodging topics actually worth discussing and only reply to trivial matters. Why have you ignored my links to other Getty Image files? Why have you failed to make an adequate case for why you believe we should use this flag? Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 01:36, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That just seems like a very silly basis for having content in an article. I could put literally anything on a flag, wave it at a pride event, and if I manage to be in frame when a photographer snaps a pic for a newspaper, that means my flag being at the event makes it into Wikipedia? Someguy1221 (talk) 12:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That would be an issue of undue, not RS.Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extended discussion

@Pyxis Solitary: When you make weird accusations like are you hounding me all over Wikipedia? Sniffing after me? against other users, it's hard to take you seriously. You made similar comments against me on your talk page. Your edit history isn't a secret to anyone (unless you can point to a particular WP policy) and that's why the special contributions page for every user exists. Nice4What (talk ·contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 22:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply] There you go again. Injecting yourself into a convo between two editors, just as you did in my talk page ... which you wouldn't have been aware of unless you had lurked it. Pyxis Solitary yak 23:32, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply] Pyxis, all on-wiki discussions are public and especially so on a noticeboard. This is not a debate between you and one other party. This is an effort to find consensus. --SVTCobra 23:36, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply] My comment addressed the "You made similar comments against me on your talk page." The one-on-one convo between me and User:Slatersteven that was referenced by that statement did not regard "consensus". It's important before stepping into this to discern one subject from the other. Pyxis Solitary yak 23:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply] That makes zero difference – the point is all on-wiki discussions are public. You already know my explanation for why I used your talkpage (as seen by the fact that you reverted the message) and I believe you can't blame another user for looking at your edit history when you've been actively including this image file into articles despite being engaged in this talk page conversation, showing that you are aware this flag is currently in dispute. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 00:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply] Here's an inch of rope for you: your injecting yourself (on 6 July 2019) into a conversation on my talk page between me and another editor was before I switched (on 10 July 2019) the flag file in the Lesbian article. With each new comment (including the one you struck-out above) and article edits involving the flag, your purpose regarding this matter has acquired the stance of a personal agenda. Pyxis Solitary yak 00:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply] I have asked before but never got an answer, but what "agenda" am I pushing? I think you've made this accusation about three times. It can be perceived as hurtful, you know? But you've never explained it. Maybe here's not the right place, but there's my revert 😊). Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 01:01, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply ]

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sociology, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Reliability — Newslinger talk 23:06, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Photographs, absent any text to specifically describe what is going on, cannot be used as a reliable source to make claims like this. If that photo appears in the NYTimes in an article about LBGT Pride celebrations, with some type of caption to affirm what, when, and where it was being seen, that might be a start, but this seems to be an outstanding claim that because we have one photo that shows one varierty of a pride flag, it means it has significant weight in that community. It's just way too much OR from a questionable source. --Masem (t) 00:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There are many variations but unless there's a reliable source that says it's been adopted by a particular organization, I don't see how it should be included. There is nothing to distinguish it from any other home-made flag or insignia that follows the general theme of a Pride march. --SVTCobra 00:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Federalist Papers

Hi there, I thought I'd ask about this publication, The Federalist Papers, which I couldn't find in the archives, though given that it bears the same name as the 18th Century essays, I might have missed something. I've looked at the page and can't find much info about editorial policy, staff, etc., so I am dubious as to RS status. I ask because it's being used on the Jeffrey Epstein page, which is obviously controversial, and in my thinking, should be looking for high-quality sources. Any thoughts would be appreciated. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Umm.... I'd say no (based on first blush impression). Seems like a website (less known than the The Federalist (website) and obviously not related to the namesake - The Federalist Papers) with an unclear editorial policy. Running down the main page it seems unlikely this could be used for anything other than rather biased opinion. Doesn't look like they get all that much traffic - [62]. You'd think better sources would be available for Epstein.Icewhiz (talk) 14:21, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't really matter in this instance, because TFP is citing the Washington Post. TFP may be where the user first read the information, but it's not the source, and isn't what we should be citing if we cite anything. GMG^talk 14:25, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed re: The Washington Post, but there is definitely a subtle difference in emphasis -- note "according to court documents" in TFP, while "according to court documents filed by Edwards" in The Washington Post. A small but meaningful distinction--to me, anyway! Thank you both. Dumuzid (talk) 14:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd treat the same as any blog until proven otherwise. It has the look and feel of a news website but reading a handful of the "articles" they contain almost exclusively opinion pieces. Heavy on value-laden opinions and light on actual facts. Galestar (talk) 15:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Generally unreliable. No editorial team listed on their about page. Their testimonials page does not inspire confidence. — Newslinger talk 22:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Value Investor Insight as a Reliable source

Hello - I am trying to update the Lucerne Capital Management page, specifically the information pertaining to Assets Under Management. Currently the page is citing $478 million (March 2015) - however the firm has grown since then, and the Firm's AUM now sits at around $750 million. On June 26, 2019 Lucerne was featured under the "Investor Insight" section of the Online publication Value Investor Insight (https://valueinvestorinsight.com/). However, there was some issues with editors regarding the independence and reliability of Value Investor Insight as a source.

I liked to the article on the Value Investor Insight domain (https://valueinvestorinsight.com/Content_Premium/investor-insight-continental-divide-june-2019.aspx), but unfortunately this content was only available for subscribers of the online publication. I understand this makes the verification of this source difficult. We've therefore purchased the rights to distribute the content and have posted in on our own website (http://www.lucernecap.com/ValueInvestorInsight-June2019.pdf) in order to remove the content from the paywall.

Within the article:

"Given the secular backdrop in Europe since he founded Lucerne Capital Management in 2002 to invest there, you might expect Pieter Taselaar to regret that going-in choice. But that’s not at all the case. “We’re not investing in Europe to be in Europe, we’re investing in Europe because we know it well and we think it’s inefficient,” he says. “That’s how we generate returns.” And generate returns he has. His long/ short Lucerne Capital Fund, now with $750 million in assets and co-managed with Thijs Hovers , has returned a net annualized 11.2% since inception, vs. 1.2% for the STOXX Europe 600 Index. At a time when investor enthusiasm for European stocks is particularly low, they’re finding upside in such areas as wireless towers, mining equipment, banks and diversified industrials."

Just a bit of background Value Investor Insight:

Value Investor Insight's President and as the Editor-in-Chief is John Heins - who is a well experienced investment professional, writer, as well as an academic^[1], taking an role as the C.T. Fitzpatrick Professor of Value Investing at the University of Alabama. Furthermore, Mr. Heins graduated magna cum laude with a bachelor’s degree in Economics from the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School and received an M.B.A. from Stanford University’s Graduate School of Business.^[2]

Also, In Aug 2018 - Value Investor Insight was listed as #12 of the "Top 17 Value Investing Blogs You Should Be Reading" according to Forbes^[3]

I hope this supports that this is a in fact a very reputable 3rd party investment publication. It comes out monthly and is subscription based.Jonathan Larken (talk) 18:39, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the reliability of Value Investor Insight, a statement from a publication as to the assets held by a single fund is not a good source for its manager's assets under management. I would consider going to a primary source, Lucerne Capital Management's reported assets under management in its Form ADV filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. There you can see, in response to Part 1A Item 5.F, that it reported assets under management of $1,107,764,000 (probably as of 12/31/2018, although it's possible that the 3/29/2019 filing used a more recent date). The Form ADV may also have some other useful information, although of course it should be used with the care appropriate for a primary source. John M Baker (talk) 23:50, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid any question here, I would handle this by saying something like "The company in March 2019 reported assets under management of $1,107,764,000," citing to the Form ADV as the source. While assets reported on Form ADV are, in real life, more reliable than third-party sources, this clarifies the origin of the number and may assuage concerns over the use of a primary source. John M Baker (talk) 00:07, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As for Value Investor Insight itself as a reliable source, the characterization of it by Forbes as a blog appears to be accurate (although it's a blog that can charge for access), so I would be hesitant to rely on it in general, see

WP:BLOG. John M Baker (talk) 01:18, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks John M Baker - that was a great idea to use the a primary source - I will just qualify that number on the ADV as "regulatory assets under management." Jonathan Larken (talk) 13:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

1. ^ https://culverhouse.ua.edu/news/2019/05/investing-expert-john-heins-recognized-with-advisor-of-the-year-award/
2. ^ https://valueinvestorinsight.com/
3. ^ https://www.forbes.com/sites/alapshah/2018/08/22/top-17-value-investing-blogs-you-should-be-reading/#59fc54960005

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Finance & Investment, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Companies, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Reliability — Newslinger talk 23:29, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maxit for WeChat

Is Maxit (maxit.my) page titled "WeChat Forges Partnership with Chatime" a reliable source for the claim "In 2013, WeChat, announces their partnership with Chatime." in the WeChat article? — Newslinger talk 22:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Talk:WeChat, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Malaysia, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Apps, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Reliability — Newslinger talk 22:48, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable source or not, it’s a pointless sentence written in PR speak that tells us nothing. What is the “partnership”? What does it seek to achieve? Six years later, what is its status? Just delete it, I reckon. —

Mkativerata (talk) 01:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

And I should add that the source cited is clearly a regurgitated press release and shouldn’t be relied upon. The “for more information please visit” the companies’ website bit at the bottom is the giveaway. —

Mkativerata (talk) 01:54, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

This does not look like a reliable source. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statista

Is Statista considered a reliable source for data or analysis? Jc86035 (talk) 07:58, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Generally reliable as their data and analysis have been cited by sources we consider reliable. My experience with Statista graphs/figures have generally been good as well. feminist (talk) 11:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Taki's Magazine

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Media, the arts, and architecture Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

I've seen Taki's Magazine listed as a source a number of times recently and I'm worried by its use, it appears to be something similar to Breitbart. Before I go removing it and related claims from articles I'd like some feedback regarding its reliability. Which of the following best describes the reliability of Taki's Magazine?

1. Generally reliable for factual reporting
2. Unclear or additional considerations apply
3. Generally unreliable for factual reporting
4. Publishes false or fabricated information

Cheers

talk) 00:56, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

pure opinion, not reporting--and not particularly good at it. It's not as reckless as Breitbart, but that isn't saying much. Opinion is never a reliable source for anything other than the view of the author, and I don't think their authors are notable enough to have views worth including. DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Absolutely unreliable - it's well-known for publishing racist garbage. Its managing editor was once noted neo-Nazi and white supremacist Richard Spencer, and it counts among its contributors a number of fringe extremist racists such as Peter Brimelow and John Derbyshire (fired from National Review once his white supremacist work at Taki's Mag became publicly known) [63] NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 4.
  undue weight
  . Taki's Magazine's reputation has been panned by a number of reliable sources:

Quotes about Taki's Magazine from reliable sources

Besides his podcast, Goad’s main platform is Taki’s Magazine, an extreme right-wing publication with an irreverent tone that promises its “only ideology is to be against the junk culture foisted upon us by Hollywood and the mainstream media.” Along with Goad and McInnes, it publishes authors like John Derbyshire, who was fired from the conservative National Review (RSP entry) after he wrote an article for Taki’s about advising his teenage children to “stay out of heavily black neighborhoods.” It described black people as “ferociously hostile to whites” and is now listed in the “greatest hits” section on Taki’s website. Taki’s contributors overlap with those at the hate site VDARE, including Steve Sailer — cited four times by TRS users — whose writing is largely dedicated to opposing immigration and drawing a false link between race and intelligence. "McInnes, Molyneux, and 4chan: Investigating pathways to the alt-right", Southern Poverty Law Center (RSP entry) The article that got him fired wasn't actually posted at National Review but at Taki's Magazine, an outlet run by millionaire paleocon Taki Theodoracopulos that was formerly edited by outspoken white supremacist Richard B. Spencer and has run articles by Theodoracopulos in support of the Greek neo-Nazi party Golden Dawn. This has been the trend for paleoconservative writing in the past decade or two. It's largely turned from mainstream conservative outfits to openly racist venues like VDARE, Taki's, American Renaissance, and the Occidental Observer. Admirably, the American Conservative has held the line and resisted crossing over into open white nationalism, but they're basically alone in that. "Paleoconservatism, the movement that explains Donald Trump, explained", Dylan Matthews, Vox (RSP entry) After being fired, Spencer moved on to a new job as the sole editor of Taki’s Magazine, the online vanity publication of Taki Theodoracopulos, the scion of a Greek shipping magnate who was notorious for his racist remarks. In Spencer’s telling, he steadily evolved Taki’s into a magazine aimed at white nationalists. By 2009 he’d published essays by Jared Taylor and was regularly using the term “alternative right” in its pages to describe his youthful brand of anti-war, anti-immigration, pro-white conservatism. "Meet the White Nationalist Trying To Ride The Trump Train to Lasting Power", Mother Jones (RSP entry) Unfortunately, Taki morphed from a harmless snob into a nasty purveyor of alt-right venom. His Taki’s Magazine is regarded as the leading alt-right outlet after Golden Dawn as mostly “good old-fashioned patriotic Greeks”. "How Alexander Chancellor’s magazine became the home of the British alt-right", Harry Eyres, New Statesman Peter “Taki” Theodoracopulos The proto–Gavin McInnes. An elderly Greek playboy who named one of his dogs “Benito,” once spent three months in jail for cocaine possession, and runs the leading publication for hepcat paleoconservatives and cosmopolitan racists: Takimag, which prides itself on telling hard truths about the superiority of whites without being “boring” about it. "Beyond Alt: Understanding the New Far Right", New York (RSP entry)

— Newslinger talk 09:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• We should not be using this. I am loathe to option-4 this without clear indication of fabrication - however it is fairly obvious we should not be using a far-right publication - mostly UNDUE for opinion, and lacking a reputation for fact checking.Icewhiz (talk) 09:17, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Bad RfC. The claim is it was "isted as a source a number of times recently" but not a shred of a hint of where or how. No evidence that there is a dispute requiring an RfC. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:49, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not claiming anything, I'm asking about the general reliability of a source.

talk) 00:40, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

You did indeed claim to have seen it used, or you wouldn't have been considering this post. But here on Wikipedia, we have no such thing known as "general reliability" of sources: sources are evaluated based on their ability to support various types of claims. A research study on the efficacy of aspirin is not "generally reliable" for the miracles of Jesus; the Gospel of Luke is not "generally reliable" for the efficacy of aspirin to treat headaches (despite Luke being a physician.) So this gives rise to the perennial objection to these generalized and context-free RFCs about "general reliability" of sources - yes, some sources like the Daily Mail are "generally unreliable" but we can't claim the converse: we need context about what type of claims are being made, in order to correlate them with the purview of the source in question. Only then can we evaluate reliability. So I hope you will understand the necessity of you producing some context, such as where this source was cited, and for what types of facts it is being invoked. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 00:46, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Terrible source that shouldn't be used for anything, except limited primary source use, e.g. the article in Takimag that got John Derbyshire fired from National Review - David Gerard (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~ free map tools ~

Is free map tools good enough as a RS to use for distance calculations ~ thanks in advance for your answer ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 16:30, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]