Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 174

Are the sources attached to this text reliable?

In 2012, 88 percent of Republicans and 11 percent of Democrats in Congress had received an NRA PAC contribution at some point in their career. Of the members of the Congress that convened in 2013, 51 percent received funding from the NRA PAC within their political careers, and 47 percent received NRA money in their most recent race.^[1][2][3]

--Lightbreather (talk) 16:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

On what basis is the "sunlight foundation" presumed "reliable"? It appears to be an organization with strong political views, and a more usual secondary reliable source would be highly preferred. "The Hill" blog claim simply reflects the Sunlight Foundation claim, and the WaPo blog also ascribes the material to that single source. The most one could use is

"According to the Sunlight Foundation, the NRA gave money to roughly half of current Congressional Representatives at some point."

Much more would place UNDUE stress on what is a single actual source. To add the "88%" bit would ideally have a secondary source independently make the claim - we do not generally use single sources for multiple claims AFAICT. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

RE: the reliabilty of the Sunlight Foundation and Lee Drutman:

• The Sunlight Foundation is a nonprofit, nonpartisan congressional watchdog group with 4 out of 4 stars on Charity Navigator.[10] It is cited by: ABC News,[11], CBS News,[12] NBCNews,[13] FOX News,[14] The New York Times,[15] the Wall Street Journal,[16] and the Washington Post[17] - to name just a few. Its data and analysis is used by the left and the right.
• "Lee Drutman is a Senior Fellow at the Sunlight Foundation. He holds a Ph.D. in political science from the University of California, Berkeley and a B.A. from Brown University. He has been quoted by NPR, ABC News, The Colbert Report, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Politico, The Hill, Roll Call, among many other news outlets. Drutman has also worked as a research fellow in Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution, a senior fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute, an American Political Science Association fellow in the office of Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ), and a staff writer at the Philadelphia Inquirer. His writing has been published in the Los Angeles Times, Slate, Politico, the American Prospect, and Pacific Standard."[18]

So, unless you have some reliable sources that say the Sunlight Foundation is unreliable, I don't know how Wikipedia can claim it is. Lightbreather (talk) 20:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The Sunlight Foundation is a suitably reliable source for this material on the basis of the above. Even if one were to choose to disregard it, however, other reliable secondary sources make the same point (for example, see "How the NRA exerts influence over Congress", Washington Post). There are no policy-based grounds for excluding this material, and it's particularly disingenuous to imply, as Collect does, that NRA cash is equally distributed by party when reliable sources take pains to make clear that the opposite is true. MastCell ^Talk 21:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

In case you missed it -- it is reliable for its opinions stated as opinions - just like all non-partisan political organizations. Collect (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll assume that "it" refers to the Sunlight Foundation. In which case, I think we agree. Of course, since a separate reliable secondary non-opinion source (the Washington Post special report) makes the same point, we can present the facts about NRA campaign contributions as, well... facts. MastCell ^Talk 23:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

That would be true if and only if the WaPo had a separate source -- but quoting a source does not make it into two separate sources as far as I can tell. Collect (talk) 23:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The Sunlight Foundation has a certain political bias much like the Washington Times (see below), and without the gravitas of an award winning journalist backing it up, such a statement cannot be reliable, even when quoted by other sources which are reliable. They have carefully cited their source rather than simply stating it as a fact. Therefore they are relying on the Sunlight Foundation, which is something they may be able to get away with, but we cannot. The entire proposed edit is unreliably sourced. Reliable 1too (talk) 23:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC) Struck post from block-evading sockpuppet

I'm not a big NRA fan, but am having difficulty figuring out how this particular statistic would fit into an NPOV article even if it were from a reliable source and not a political advocacy group. The only reason I can imagine one would include this information in an article would be to imply massive and inappropriate NRA influence on Congress. That may or may not be true, but this statistic doesn't establish that, as it counts anyone who has every been handed a $5 check as part of funding a million dollar campaign. It has an air of innuendo about it.

talk

) 02:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree, but on the other hand it is trivially easy to find sources describing the NRA's pattern of political contributions. If this particular source is problematic in the view of other editors, it may be easiest to substitute other sources describing what is, after all, a fairly uncontroversial fact. For instance, Politifact noted that "In terms of campaign contributions, the NRA sends its money almost entirely to Republicans." Again, until now I wouldn't have even found this statement controversial, but it's easy enough to source. MastCell ^Talk 10:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Up at the top of this page it says:

• The guideline that most directly relates to whether a given source is reliable is
  Identifying reliable sources
  .
• The policy that most directly relates is:
  Verifiability
  .
• If your question is about whether material constitutes original research, please use the No original research notice board.
• If your question is about undue weight, or other neutral point of view issues please use the NPOV noticeboard.

The last two don't apply, so I'm going to focus on the other two. The WP:V policy says there are three types of sources: publisher, creator (writer), and type of work. Mainstream newspapers are included among reliable sources. Many respected mainstream news organizations use the Sunlight Foundation as a source. Under WP:RS, it says about news organizations: "One signal that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy is the publication of corrections." The Sunlight Foundation, The Hill, and the Washington Post publish corrections. Although the sources I gave include some (very little) opinion, they mostly present factual information - numbers - researched by someone (as I shared above) who holds a PhD in poli-sci and has worked as a research fellow at several institutions. In other words, the Sunlight Foundation and Lee Drutman are absolutely

It is not our duty to find contradictory sources. It is your obligation to prove reliability under either

WP:NEWSORG

with ediitorial fact-checking. I notice that below, MastCell excoriated me based on Emily Miller's prior service on the staff of Sen. Tom DeLay (R-TX). When I said her "credentials are impeccable," I was referring to her prior service at ABC News and NBC News, and her Mollenhoff Award for investigative journalism. Here, LightBreather refers to Drutman's prior service on the staff of Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ). No prior service at a respected news organization. No award for investigative journalism. MastCell allows that to stand, however.

Please make up your mind whether prior servive on a senator's staff makes a writer more likely, or less likely to be reliable. Right now it appears that is determined by whether the senator is a Republican or a Democrat. Reliable 1too (talk) 15:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC) Struck post by block-evading sockpuppet

Here is exactly what I said about Drutman: "[he] holds a PhD in poli-sci and has worked as a research fellow at several institutions." And about the Sunlight Foundation? That it publishes corrections and is used as a source by many respected mainstream newspapers. So, again, we're back to whether or not the particular work cited has factual errors, as the Wikipedia article gives only facts from that source - not opinions. Lightbreather (talk) 20:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

So long as we attribute it, I see no problem with using the Sunlight Foundation as a source. We're starting to go off on tangents.

talk

) 15:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Since it's factual information from a reliable source, I disagree. However, if it will help to resolve the problem, I would be open to giving Dutman's opinion on what that information means: "It is important to note that these contributions are probably a better measure of allegiance than of influence." I could give that quote, or tightly paraphrase it, and attribute it to Dutman. Lightbreather (talk) 20:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to comment that the second and third sources are based on the first and their use of the material does not make it any more accurate, it simply reinforces the editorial point they are trying to make. The statistics quoted by the Sunlight Foundation are the work of OpenSecrets.org, so its that website and organization's reliability and credibility we should be discussing. --

(Talk)

20:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

See above, about this particular citation. I will start another discussion about OpenSecrets. Lightbreather (talk) 20:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not necessary, its part of this discussion hence why I mentioned it. --

(Talk)

21:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I believe it is necessary, because I have two problems using OpenSecrets as a source. The first is that this particular statement/source combo (above) has been challenged. The second is that, some months ago, OpenSecrets was challenged in the Gun control in the U.S. article. So the question in the new discussion below is about OpenSecrets in general. Many respectable, mainstream news sources - left, right, and neutral - use it, but there are some WP editors who seem to think its unreliable. I'd like to settle the matter, if possible, so I don't have to defend every use of what others see as a reliable source. Lightbreather (talk) 00:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

 DoneDeleted two of the three sources [19] and added/attributed source's opinion about what the factual information cited means.[20] Lightbreather (talk) 17:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

If the primary source material that the cited articles are based upon is questionable, then is lessens the credibility of the entire chain of research. Regardless of what consensus is regarding Sunlight, its still questionable material because its based on OpenSecrets.org data, plain and simple. --

Remind me again why you believe that data from OpenSecrets is "questionable"? It looks to me like a number of highly reputable sources, such as the Washington Post, view OpenSecrets as credible and rely upon their data. MastCell ^Talk 23:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Is Rsvlts.com a reliable source?--

1) Source. [21] 2) Article. Russo-Georgian War. 3) Content.

Ossetian separatists began shelling Georgian villages on 1 August, drawing sporadic response from Georgian peacekeepers in the region

.

Well afaik I know the content is false, but i may not recall the details correctly. In any case that content with this source is highly questionable for a number of reasons. Radio Liberty is partisan source (in fact strictly speaking a US propaganda outlet) and the article was in close proximity to the war (and related "hot" propaganda battles). There should be plenty of sources being less partisan with a better reputation regarding reliability and with a greater distance to the war as well. In fact by now (6 years later) there is probably even some amount of scholarly literature about the conflict. Since the start of the war and its exact circumstances are a in doubt a highly controversial, a radio liberty publication from that date is imho not acceptable as the only source for such a content and even if contrary to my recollection the content were true there should be a number of better suited sources that could/should be used.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

P.S.: The quoted content without context is a bit misleading. In it is actually a part of a section on pre-war clashes/skirmishes initiated from both sites (often less than optimally sourced by contemporary news outlets without a particular reputation). In this context if the articles balances out those less than optimal sources, the use of Radio Liberty might not be that problematic as it appeared to for the quoted sentence without context alone. However the whole section should resort to intext attribution (according to <partisan source >) rather than portraying all these incidents as (undisputed) "facts". To describe them as "facts", they need to be corroborated by several sources at least or scholarly literature instead of being sourced simply by one (often partisan) news outlet. To sum it up, the use radio liberty for that content is still iffy (in particular without intext attribution), but it isn't the only content and source which is iffy in that section. Rather than starting an argument over radio liberty alone, the involved editors should collaborate to overhaul the whole section with better sources if available and at least using intext attribution otherwise.--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Is user-generated http://www.strava.com/segments/green-power-50km-6512953 reliable enough to back up a claim that

I have strong concerns about using Perverted-Justice.com as a source on BLP articles or in reference to living persons. For example, on To Catch a Predator:

John Kennelly was also significant given that he was caught by Dateline and Hansen twice during the same operation: first at the undercover house, where he appeared naked to meet an underage child, and then again less than 24 hours later at a

fast food restaurant

in the Rosslyn neighborhood.<ref>http://www.perverted-justice.com/?con=SpecialGuy29</ref>

From what I can tell from their about page, the website is a group of dedicating to catching people who target minors for sexual encounters online. They gather evidence of illegal behaviors and submit them to police. However, their evidence is just accusations that may lead to an arrest which may lead to a conviction. This goes against

Under no circumstances should this website ever be used as a source. They are neither a news organisation, nor an academic source. The material on the site appears to be generated by 'volunteers'. As such they wouldn't meet WP:RS requirements for general content - and given the subject matter of the website, WP:BLP requirements would absolutely rule out any use. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

It is a primary source and we should not mention stories that only appear on this site, per

WP:WEIGHT. TFD (talk

) 18:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with AndyTheGrump and The Four Deuces (TFD) on this matter; however, like I stated here, per

talk

) 19:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

The passage quoted at the top of this thread isn't even remotely 'about itself'. It is making specific assertions regarding alleged criminal acts by a named living person. Nothing said by Perverted-Justice.com regarding alleged criminality by living people can be used. Ever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

• Not a reliable source Per Andy. CorporateM (Talk) 20:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

As I have pointed out

1. The image is used for propaganda and not serves explanation of the article
2. Date, time and place of the image, and the persons who collected the materials are not verifiable
3. The IDF as a party that takes part in the hostilities in general is not a reliable source
   

--Wickey-nl (talk) 10:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I just started a RfC on the Gaza War talkpage. --Wickey-nl (talk) 08:39, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

If a journalist who collaborates with the author of a work publishes an article about the author in a different media, can that newspaper article be used as a reliable source about the author without disclosing the connection between the two?

Aja Romano from the Daily Dot has been writing articles about her Anita Sarkeesian, author of the

It's a simple statement of fact. It doesn't need a disclaimer. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. No need to qualify it in every mention on Wikipedia; especially as readers can see the note listed in the article itself. So long as the source is reliable and accurately represented, the information, not the author, is what's relevant.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Usage in

WP:BLPPRIMARY advices us to "exercise extreme caution in using primary sources"; and failing to warn readers that a reference is connected to the topic (and thus primary) is the opposite of that. Diego (talk

) 23:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

The decision should be based on the reliability of the publication. If the publication is a reliable source, then presumably the editors are persuaded that the connection between the author and the subject did not affect the accuracy of the author's writing. TFD (talk) 18:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

But can we say that the editors were persuaded that the connection didn't affect the article's accuracy? The publication contains a disclaimer about the connection between the journalist and Feminist Frequency, so the author herself seems concerned that it may be relevant enough to the point to feel necessary to make readers of the Daily Dot aware of it. I think Wikipedia readers deserve no less, and using a reference that is connected to the topic without disclosing it is particularly problematic for a

WP:BLP. Diego (talk

) 23:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

It's being used to cite a statement of fact. Either it's a reliable source for that fact or it's not, that's the real question we should be asking. To that end, previous discussions at Talk:Anita Sarkeesian (the main article) have judged that Daily Dot is generally okay to use. For what it's worth, Daily Dot exercises an editorial policy and Aja Romano is one of their staff writers (ie, not a blogger or freelancer).[24] Of course that doesn't mean we must use the source, that's a matter of editorial judgment, but we don't have to bend over backward to qualify it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

You consider "even "strong female characters" are portrayed under this trope, and not treated as equals of male characters" to be a statement of fact? Well, maybe about the fact that she made an analysis of the series, but those follow a different set of rules. The Reception section is supposed to gather reactions from independent parties; if you write it with content from regular contributors without disclosing that they are connected to the subject, the result is not neutral, and that should be avoided - everywhere, but specially in a biography of a living person.

Aja Romano is a regular donor of Sarkeesians's blog Feminist Frequency. This connection between the journalist and the author has not been discussed before, and it certainly may affect the judgement of the journalist. While articles from the Daily Dot by other writers may be reliable, the relation between Sarkeesian and Romano forces us to use the source with great care if at all, and certainly to disclose that connection in case we decide to use the material. Diego (talk) 07:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Diego, reading through Sarkeesian's page, it doesn't look like Romano's statement is extraordinary or surprising, or that her claim is wholly out of bounds. Attribution, which is now present in the text, is appropriate. All I'd say is that the text should probably read "Romano… writes that..." instead of "Romano… notes that…" because the word "write" doesn't imply veracity, while "note" does. -Darouet (talk) 19:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, this is getting confusing as there are several different questions being in multiple places. In light of the intention of this noticeboard, judging by editorial oversight, the author's professional position, and previous discussion of the sources, Daily Dot and the Aja Romano piece(s) are reliable sources for simple statements of fact, particularly something so uncontroversial as "Sarkeesian disabled comments and ratings on her videos". They should also be reliable sources for Romano's own attributed opinions and interpretations. Whether and how to use these sources is a matter of editorial judgment that's better dealt with at the talk page. Either way, I don't see any requirement that we qualify each and every use by noting the possible involvement, especially when it's not even done in all the pieces, but we can discuss that at the talk pages.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out whether a book is self-published or not. The company is called Betterway Home Books and this is the book in question. At the end of the cited passage, it notes: "for more information, head to SimpleMom.net [the author's blog] and search oil cleansing method" This leads me to believe it is not

It looks like the book is published by FWMEDIA, which does not appear to be operated by the author, so it appears to not be self-published. CorporateM (Talk) 20:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Is a staff blog hosted by staff of the Office of Information Technologies at UMass Amherst. Context is whether this blog could be considered reliable for the purposes of referring to a software package as malware on the MacKeeper article. The subject posting is: [25].--Labattblueboy (talk) 06:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

It's apparently hosted by UMass Amherst and published as a student resource by the Office of Information Technologies. It's very unlikely that a department of a major university would have no editorial control over content being posted in its name. I would say that makes it an independent source that's reliable for the opinions of that particular department. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Not reliable in my view, unless you can prove that the author is a noteworthy expert. But why not use this source, which appears to cover the issue in-depth. At a glance it appears to be much more complicated than the blog lets on. CorporateM (Talk) 19:57, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Good source. However it's a little creepy that there's a banner ad for MacKeeper on that site. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:08, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

On my mac, I actually get a banner ad for CleanMyMac, not MacKeeper (I use the free version of CleanMyMac), so it seems to be some kind of "smart" banner. CorporateM (Talk) 20:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

WOT Services is a crowdsourced Internet website reputation rating tool. Can we consider it reliable. Intent is to employ it on MacKeeper under the reviews section to demonstrate that certain areas of the public have less than positive sentiments regarding the software.--Labattblueboy (talk) 06:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Anything that is crowd-sourced is not reliable, unless there is a reliable source that says "on crowd-source website ____, there are this many complaints about ____," in which case the reliable source is providing some analysis and indicating that the crowd-sourced information is significant. CorporateM (Talk) 20:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Similar issues at STOPzilla a couple of years ago. Generally speaking, Web of Trust is not a reliable source for product or company reviews. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

It is very easy to game WOT, especially when nobody else cares. E.g. the Dutch anti-piracy organization Brein has been smeared with all sorts of nonsense (untrustworthy web commerce, although the site does not sell anything; dangerous for children, when it does not have anything to endanger children; claims that it would be a Nazi organization, etc.). Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The subject site is a website administered by Thomas Reed who writes about Mac (OSX) malware. The site is entirely of his own (Thomas Reed) production. Far as I can tell, no other Wikipedia articles cite the website. The intent is to employ it in the reviews section of MacKeeper as the minority viewpoint but I have no indication that this site is generally accepted as an authority on the subject. The subject article is:[26].--Labattblueboy (talk) 06:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Extremely not reliable. A personal blog written by a stay-at-home dad. However, I am guessing these are all related to the same issue, for which there is a better source available that I provided below. CorporateM (Talk) 20:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

From the about page:

I’m currently a stay-at-home dad, but have a history of working in Mac tech support at a couple universities, running a small software development business, writing for a developer magazine (REALbasic Developer, now renamed xDev) and even a brief stint at teaching. I am mostly self-taught on the topics discussed on this site, but have spent years developing my expertise in these areas.

This is a

re

}} 23:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I reject the stay-at-home-dad prejudice above. --OKNoah (talk) 07:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

In an article I intend on writing, but haven't written yet (Asher Eder, in case anyone is interested), I have very few reliable sources for the subject's death. The only marginally reliable source is an article on the website of an organization Eder was associated with (Lotem.net - Hebrew). However, only the year of death is given. The only online source I could find that has Eder's exact date of death is the personal website of a known associate of Eder, Lowell Gallin[27]. Would this count as a reliable source for a small detail? הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 01:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

That's a rough one. We certainly need a date of death included and if that is the only available source... Is there any way to get a primary source such as from government records? If not, I would maybe do it with attribution. "According to his associate..." CorporateM (Talk) 20:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

You should not use unreliable sources. Also, if there no newspaper wrote an obituary about someone then it is unlikely that they meet notability, that is, there are insufficient secondary sources to write an article that fairly reflects the subject. TFD (talk) 20:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

CorporateM: Thanks, but I don't think that's possible, as I know nothing about government records in Israel. I could always manage without the exact date of death, but then I would have to omit the date of birth for symmetry.

TFD: It is an odd case, I admit, but though Eder clearly meets notability guidelines, he achieved his fame in his early forties (1963–1969), was written up again, several times, in his seventies and eighties, and then became relatively obscure before dying at age 86. Thus, there are sufficient secondary sources to cover most of his life, but not his death. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 21:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

For that matter, is Lotem.net a reliable source for the death of what would otherwise be a BLP? Lotem is a non-profit organization that organizes tours for people with disabilities. The article I linked to describes Emek HaShalom, a farm (ranch?) established by Eder, now managed by Lotem as part of their tours. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 21:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

As an alternative, I can use the poorly formatted site Itgamemorial.co.il, a memorial website for Itga.org.il, the Israel Tour Guides Association. Is that more or less reliable than Lotem.net? הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 21:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Presuming that they are notable as you say (that thought came to my mind as well) the Israel Tour Guides Association would be better than Lotem.com, since you said he was affiliated with Lotem.com, which makes the source less independent. CorporateM (Talk) 22:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

In this case, it's not as simple as that (Eder was apparently a member of the ITGA, but not of Lotem, though Lotem is a smaller organization) but my question is really more general: what determines whether a site is not considered "self-published", especially with regard to BLP policy—recognition by other sources? Size? הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 01:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

It's self published if the author and the publisher are the same. From that perspective I think they are both self-published, which technically means you cannot use them per BLP. However, if they are really the only sources available for date-of-death, I have a hard time imagining we would want an article with no date of death, due to BLP concerns that we can't be sure it's accurate. That's why we have rules about common sense and IAR, but someone who is aggressive about BLP policies may staunchly disagree. Also, if they have been deceased long enough, BLP only applies to the recently deceased. CorporateM (Talk) 03:08, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, but I am not sure how you reached your conclusion: by that definition, I would think that the ITGA is not a self-published source; the ITGA seems to be a rather large organization (effectively the tour guides' union in Israel) while the memorial article was written by a member. How is that different from a newspaper article written by a journalist? הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 15:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The artists mother's name was Laura ( not Laura Beth ). Kenneth Hockney was not a conscientious objector in the first world war as he would only have been 10 years old. Source: John Hockney the artists brother. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

It appears that his father was a conscientious objector in the Second World War, so I have made that correction. Not sure this is the most important single fact we need to know about him, but there we go. I've removed "Beth", since I can't find that confirmed anywhere. Hope that satisfies you. Thanks for bringing these two issues to our attention. Formerip (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I came across a Wiki entry in English that has over 80% of the references coming from Spanish publications in Spanish. What is the rule on this? I couldn't find it on any searches. --OnceaMetro (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

OnceaMetro:

"Citations to non-English sources are allowed. However, because this is the English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, whenever English sources of equal quality and relevance are available."

—

WP:NONENG

If the subject is closely related to Spanish-speaking countries, I would not be surprised if there are no "English sources of equal quality", so that should not be a problem. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 19:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both, I appreciate it. --OnceaMetro (talk) 19:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

In Marco Rubio the following references have been repeatedly removed as not being "reliable sources" as they are "blogs"

<ref>[http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/26/rubio-to-reimburse-g-o-p-for-flights/?_php=true&_type=blogs&module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Aw&_r=0 Rubio to Reimburse G.O.P. for Flights] By KATE PHILLIPS, [[The New York Times]] February 26, 2010 3:15 pm</ref>

and

<ref>[http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/17/g-o-p-in-florida-unauthorized-expenses-cited/?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Aw G.O.P. in Florida: Unauthorized Expenses Cited] By GARY FINEOUT; [[The New York Times]] September 17, 2010</ref>

edit summary: rm unsourced WP:OR statement + blog source

I suggest that The New York Times' "the caucus blog" is reliable per many prior discussions on newspaper "blogs" and that the sources show that the $110,000 figure for the credit card expenses is inapt where it lists the questioned expenses as only reaching $16,000 of that total -- the claim of another editor is that we should state that Rubio improperly took $110,000 of Republican Party funds and then repaid only $16,000 as the edit is worded now.

In 2010 Rubio was questioned after charges made to his GOP American Express card during his two years as House speaker for nearly $110,000 were leaked.[29][30] The records listed several personal items including grocery bills, wine and plane tickets for his wife. Rubio justified the charges as legitimate Republican Party expenses and said he personally paid American Express $16,052.50 for nonparty expenses.[31

As far as I can tell this language implies he still owes $94,000 to the GOP, while the NYT blogs make clear that the amount in dispute was, indeed, much lower than $110,000, and that Rubio did not owe $110,000 to the GOP. And the NYT also makes clear that the amount Rubio paid was apparently correct. The question here is -- are the NYT blogs "reliable sources" for Wikipedia purposes? Is it OR to state that $16,000 is "much lower" than $110,000? Collect (talk) 19:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

It looks to me like this is an issue to do with OR rather than reliability of sourcing, so it's something you should raise at ORN, rather than here. Formerip (talk) 20:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The edit summary said they were not usable as blogs - that was the reason given, that is the noticeboard used. The problem is no reliable source says Rubio owed $110,000 -- that was the apparent total charges on the credit card, and Rubio owed (debatably) $16,000 which he paid. It is not OR to say A < B where the figures are both presented. Collect (talk) 20:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you have better glasses than me, but I don't see the phrase "not usable" or anything similar in any of the relevant edit summaries. I also don't see anything in the talkpage discussion to indicate that there is an RS issue involved. Formerip (talk) 21:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The 2nd to last edit summary(currently) mentions NYT blog as non RS, yes, check glasses(Is that the one Collect?) :) --Malerooster (talk) 22:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

OK. Maybe some jam on one of the lenses. It's still looks basically like an OR issue, and it's not going to be resolved by a discussion here. Formerip (talk) 22:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Just wanted to confirm if iReportersTv is akin to a non-RS blog - per [28] this seems to be user-generated. There also doesn't seem to be an article for iReportersTv (notability?).

See an example at Ramsey Nouah, where info based on ref from The Punch was replaced by an iReportersTv.co cite. Dl2000 (talk) 03:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Per their website "...we are a video blogging platform. Content creators worldwide, can use our technology to create a simple video blogging channel anytime any day." Sounds like an

Thoms

04:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I have the following 2 sources on the internet:

• "Ali Khamenei". Canada Business Online. MSN Money. 21 October 2011. Retrieved 4 May 2014.
• Gohsh, Palash (3 May 2013). "Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei… A Multi-Billionaire And BMW Car Dealer?". International Business Times. Retrieved 4 May 2014.

I would like to know if those 2 sources meet

It's okay; we can hear you—there's no need to

SHOUT

YOUR QUESTIONS.

Which context? For which article? Looking at your contributions, I gather that you're trying to add Ali Khamenei as the top entry to List of Iranian people by net worth? It appears that this is a rather hotly-debated issue on the article's talk page, but it doesn't look like you've participated in the discussion there. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I did NOT take part in the discussion. One editor fudged the numbers and later changed the 2 sources, thus his conflict with another editor and I want to avoid that. I am wondering if any of the 2 sources mentioned above took this 3rd study of Reuters as primary source (but here Reuters does not mention "Net Worth".)

• Stecklow, Steve; Dehghanpisheh, Babak; Torbati, Yeganeh (November 11, 2013). "Assets of the Ayatollah". Reuters. Retrieved December 7, 2013.

....& sorry, if I pushed

• Empire of Dreams by Giannina Braschi, as a reference on itself
• National Academy Museum and School
  for two sculptures by Tess O'Dwyer:
  • Paradox of Sculpture
  • Creative Mischief

An editor,

Anything that is "...in popular culture" should always require a secondary source to make the note for inclusion in that list - that is, if work X includes topic Y, then for X to be in "Y in popular culture", there needs to be a secondary source that makes mention of the specific fact that X includes Y. Otherwise, that begs for random inclusion, and particularly for a topic like incest which can start to border on issues like BLP, I would definitely make sure this inclusion metric is met. --MASEM (t) 17:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

What a godawful article. Mansfield Park is about incest - because a character marries her cousin? Still, on the Tess O'Dwyer issue - it's not difficult to find source that specifically refer to incest as one of her themes [29]. The Paradox of Sculpture source does mention incest - it's just not immediately visible. It's "hidden" in the title of the image. You have to hold the cursor over it (the first image on the second line of pictures. I have to say though, if that's a representation of incest, it's a rather...oblique one!)
Incidentally, the article should be renamed to Cultural Representations of Incest. Many of the entries, including the section on O'Dwyer are not in any meaningful sense "popular culture". Paul B (talk) 17:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The PR Newswire article is a press release, which is neither independent nor a secondary source. I didn't notice that the hover text mentioned incest, but I'm still unconvinced that this is a secondary source. Without

example farm. I would prefer to rewrite the article entirely in prose format, but that's too much work. I have decided instead to simply add citations when available and prune out examples that can't be reliably sourced as above. If my hardline stance is against consensus, I would like that established early before I waste my time any further. NinjaRobotPirate (talk

) 22:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• Hackerspace (operated by Lifehacker) · ls
• Observation Deck (operated by io9) · ls
• Powder Room (operated by Jezebel) · ls
• Talk Amongst Yourselves (operated by Kotaku) · ls
• White Noise (operated by Gizmodo) · ls

are

Just got done through removing or tagging information citing these sources.

23W

07:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Kind of a long story short, an IP address tried to add some information to the article

Unfortunately the IP says it right there. "Nobody else will report on this controversy." If that's so, we shouldn't either. He may be an established expert, but this is affects

WP:BLPSPS. We need a non-self-published reliable publication to report on this controversy, or we can't either. --GRuban (talk

) 19:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Blueboar (talk) 13:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

If this were a horror film, then I'd say that we could let it slide. On a biography, it doesn't really matter if you've previously been published in Fangoria.

WP:BLPSPS is pretty explicit about that. Not sure what the problem is, anyway. The Bloody Disgusting article covers this controversy. It's not like the article is being whitewashed, except for the last edit which did whitewash it. I reverted that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk

) 21:29, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Some editor tell me if IBOS is a reliable source. Because I found they have all the details of Bollywood box office collections with inflation adjusted--Enterths300000 (talk) 12:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

This source [30] that supported this information: "A 2013 peer reviewed literature review concluded that neonicotinoids in the amounts that they are typically used harm bees and that safer alternatives are urgently needed.[7]" has been removed from the article Neonicotinoid. The July 19 edit summary stated "(Removing due to previous undue weight concerns. Not the scientific consensus as previously discussed on talk page.)" Is this review a primary or a secondary source? Gandydancer (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not aware of there ever being any confusion on the source being a secondary source. The issue was giving a single review undue weight when other secondary sources are not pushing for the claims made in this specific review. This isn't really a question of the reliability of a source, but giving a single source undue weight like we've been discussing on the article talk page.

talk

) 17:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

A new user,

No, an off-brand Scribd is not a reliable source. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

It isn't a 'reliable source' because it isn't a source at all, any more than a legitimate archiving service would be. And it isn't that either, given that it clearly contains material subject to copyright (the supposed licensing terms of the site are complete bullshit: [32] - they assert that material without an explicit copyright notice is "implicitly licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License". Yeah right... ). Given that Wikipedia doesn't permit linking to copyright-violating material, any reference or link to it anywhere on Wikipedia should be removed immediately. And the website should probably be blacklisted. 17:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

"And the website should probably be blacklisted." How is that accomplished? 32.218.39.106 (talk) 17:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, looking at the site again, it appears that the majority of content is genuinely under Creative Commons or similar license - though that doesn't alter the fact that they are making an untenable claim regarding 'implicit license'. It might be best to raise this at Wikipedia:Copyright problems, where someone familiar with the issues might be able to help. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Please reread the original query. Copyright was not the issue. It's a personal, user-generated website. Are articles posted there, copyrighted or not, reliable? The website is apparently owned by the editor in question. That's a conflict of interest, isn't it? The editor is substituting links to his own website for links to active webpages or archive.org. Why is that OK? 32.218.39.106 (talk) 17:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

If it's just a repository of sorts, regardless of copyright issues, then it's not a question about the site's reliability at all, but rather whether each individual uploaded piece of information there is reliable. If it's just stuff equivalent to blog posts, random pictures, etc. you're probably seeing mostly primary sources. Other things like COI (which I'm not sure where exactly you're getting that from) is not an issue we address here but over at the COI noticeboard.

talk

) 18:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

It's a personal website. When did personal websites become reliable sources? 32.218.39.106 (talk) 18:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The website isn't the source. It's the content hosted within that's the source in question. It doesn't matter who hosts the content, but who made the content in the first place. For example, when Google books hosts a book, Google is not the source, but the book itself. Google is just hosting the online source. I could go create a website and upload some high quality secondary source from elsewhere (legality issues aside) and someone could come along and cite that source and link to my website as one location where the source is found. My hosting the source has nothing to do with its reliability. Now whether we should be linking to any random repository site when citing a source is an entirely different question outside the scope of this noticeboard.

talk

) 19:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

It does matter who hosts the content. Google, archive.org, universities, and other such sites can be relied upon to host original content that has been unaltered. Do we know that the contributors to the random content repository have faithfully reproduced the originals they're posting? No way. In this case, the site is the source. 32.218.39.106 (talk) 19:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

It still comes down to a case by case decision of the source, not the host. Sources are (from

WP:RS

):

the piece of work itself (the article, book);

the creator of the work (the writer, journalist),

and the publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press).

For the source, regardless of where it's hosted, it's about the content itself, who wrote it, and who published it. In this case, libflow.com is not the publisher, but simply distributing the already produced material. In order for libflow.com to be a source for something, it must be producing original content in some form. Otherwise, you should be able to trace the source back to where the file was first created so that it could be uploaded. The way you're trying to define a source doesn't fit

talk

) 19:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

"libflow.com is not the publisher, but simply distributing the already produced material" - But we don't know that. The entire website is user-contributed. We have no way to know that the contributions are reliable versions of already produced content. WP shouldn't take the content of such dodgy websites as reliable. 32.218.39.106 (talk) 20:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

See this edit. I could agree with the

Whether or not it is rs, I think that neutrality is an important issue. When news sources conduct investigative reporting, it is only signficant for inclusion if it is picked up by mainstream media. A google search for ""jane elliott" $6,000" shows lots of attention in right-wing blogs[33] but no coverage in mainstream media.[34]

A good approach if one doubts facts, even in reliable sources, is to check the footnotes. In this case, the NPLC uses a 2000 article, "Thought Reform 101 The Orwellian implications of today's college orientation" in Reason (which itself is probably not rs), to claim that Elliott "admitted that her standard fee was $6,000 per day." But I cannot find anything in the source to support that claim.

TFD (talk) 22:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't get it. Reason was named one of the 50 best magazines in 2003 and 2004 by the Chicago Tribune. I know that the Chicago Tribune got it wrong from time to time, but I think that they would not name it as such when it was unreliable. Thus, you need some arguments to back up your argument if a news source is not reliable. That said, I still got no answer to my original question. Anyway, best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 07:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Cook's Illustrated was rated the best magazine in the U.S. The difference between the Chicago Tribune and Reason is that the first has its own staff, sets standards for their work, has fact-checkers and corrects errors. Reason has freelance contributors with no supervision of their work. Had the 2000 Reason article appeared in the Chicago Tribune, it would have appeared as an opinion piece and hence would not have been considered a reliable source. TFD (talk) 16:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The "Dewey Wins" headline is iconic. It is worth noting that it occurred in the early edition of one newspaper and was subsequently corrected. That is what makes a newspaper a reliable source for current events - they are usually correct as possible and correct their errors. If an editor wanted to claim that Dewey won the election because the Chicago Tribune said so, we could reply that they corrected their story to say Truman won. We cannot do that with opinion pieces in magazines and newspapers. TFD (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on this Request for Blacklisting at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#OurCampaigns.com. The site is down, but there is a Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/pages/OurCampaigns/107581642617479?sk=timeline. Please also note previous comments at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=OurCampaigns&prefix=Wikipedia%3AReliable+sources%2FNoticeboard&fulltext=Search&fulltext=Search. Thank you.

This section uses Twitter 14 times, eg[35]. It also uses a forum[36] and 3 YouTube videos, eg [37]. Then there is Vox Media#Vox.com[38] which looks like a blog and apparently "received criticism during the 2014 Israel-Gaza crisis for allegedly biased and inaccurate reporting" although the source of that may not meet RS. We also have this blog[39] and RT[40] (and Fox) and Zero Hedge[41] - maybe that's ok, but I'm not sure. This is actually a pretty important article and from what I can see needs a lot more eyes.

As does the article of its 'caliph',

We should definitely remove the stuff from twitter and YouTube. Clearly unreliable. Blueboar (talk) 13:34, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Vox.com has a declared bias and is not RS. But usually they cite their sources so we should use those instead. Shii (tock) 06:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Recently I chanced upon the GA I Am... Sasha Fierce where a number of music certifications were sourced to an image, uploaded on Tinypic.com. How reliable is this website for sourcing like this and is it even allowable on featured content of wikipedia? My hunch is that it should really be removed from the article else its GA status becomes shaky. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 13:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Here is the image: http://oi45.tinypic.com/2e20chg.jpg It could conceivably be useful... if we could read the text. I don't think this is acceptable. Shii (tock) 15:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

@Shii:, do you think such usage should be removed from the above mentioned GA article? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 08:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I was hoping for other comments, but if it's just me, then yes, remove it. Shii (tock) 14:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

On its about page it calls itself "Iran's leading independent news agency, covering a wide variety of subjects in different, political, economic, cultural, social, legal, sports, military and other areas with the most up-to-date, independent, unbiased and reliable news and reports in Persian and English." I wouldn't put it up there with the AP or Reuters, and of course there's going to be a political/editorial slant, however I don't see any reason to declare it unreliable off the bat. - Technophant (talk) 15:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

With alignments to the Revolutionary Guard and a history of really bad reporting, I don't see how we can consider this reliable for anything. Thargor Orlando (talk

) 15:09, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I, for one, thoroughly intend to use it to blow the lid off the US-Alien-Hitler conspiracy that other sources have been concealing from Wikipedia for far too long. --GRuban (talk) 15:27, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll stop you with my time travel device. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:34, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Reliable for most purposes, especially for non-contentious Iran-related fact. For international politics treat as biased. Not reliable for science and treat with caution even for science-related news. You will get more useful comments from this board if you ask about a particular case. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:34, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree with

That particular piece is no use at all. Matuzov may have said in the radio interview what's attributed but Voice of Russia should be the source. This is at best commentary rather than news, at worst, just propaganda. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Hans Sachs (poster collector) exists today, but I'd like to lengthen it considerably.

I have a source that might present issues. It is an unpublished note written by Sachs that is reprinted in an recent auction catalogue.

The Hans Sachs Poster Collection, Part I, New York: Guernsey's, 2012, pp. 7-26 (German with English translation)

By and large, the details of Sachs's life are in newspaper articles, probably lifted from this source without attribution. I could cite the newspaper articles, and it would take some effort to discover that not everything came from them.

Henry Townsend 22:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The largest manufacturers of flong paper making were L S Dixon Group in Hurcott Paper Mills near Kidderminster. They supplied all the British Newspapers during the two world wars. There had been a paper mill on the site since 1635. It was owned by the Earl of Dudley and paper was made there by monks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.67.192 (talk • contribs) 04:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

As this does not involve reliable source issues, I will manually archive. – S. Rich (talk) 17:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

User:TrueChinaHistory. who clearly has strong feelings about the issue of Chinese Muslims, insists that it is ok to use blogs because "These web links have to be added because they represent the public's view towards some scholar's opinion. I gave a clear indication that these sources are from non-academic citizens." The article is Chang Yuchun and there is a dispute over whether Chang Yuchun was Muslim or not. I've got no opinion but have been trying to keep this and related articles NPOV and present both sides. The actual edit that I reverted and has been reinstated is: "This issue is also discussed on Chinese cyberspace. Some network users complain Muslim scholars' conclusion is unreliable<ref>{{cite web|title=常遇春的民族怎么不是汉族|url=http://tieba.baidu.com/p/697646615|website=百度贴吧}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=有些扯吧，常遇春是回族人？|url=http://bbs.tianya.cn/post-funinfo-1560970-1.shtml|website=天涯论坛}}</ref>, while others insist Chang was a Muslim."

This comes up in fringe topics pretty often where a single person is being quoted. It's definitely slippery ground, so giving

talk

) 14:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

What someone says on a blog is a reliable source for what they say. However it is original research to conclude from blog postings that there individuals disagreeing with academics. You need a secondary source that draws that conclusion. TFD (talk) 18:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

A Wikipedia editor isn't considered qualified to survey the content of the Internet and conclude that a significant number of people hold a particular position. We shouldn't try to say that a significant number of people hold a particular position unless we can find a reliable source that says that. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

talk

) 12:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller,I deleted this sentence. Hope more scholars notice this issue.TrueChinaHistory (talk

)

I see blogs used as sources elsewhere -- but to me it seems more that having the dispute or even his religion mentioned is what is out of place. Unless the dispute or religion is a major portion of materials about the man or has the significance to his history put forward to make it relevant, why have that section at all ? Markbassett (talk) 04:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• Personal blogs cannot be used as a reliable source for facts unless it is the subjects personal blog and the content is about them only and non contentious content like date of birth, place of birth etc. and yes...their religion. Newsblogs may be used to source facts as a reliable source as long as the blog is in fact from a reputable news agency and is not opinion or an editorial. In that case the blog is used to source the opinion of the writer with attribution in the text of the article such as: "John Smith of the Washington Post states......."--Mark Miller (talk) 04:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

When dealing with scientific literature, we have a strong preference for secondary literature. However, there's some gray area as to what is called a good secondary source or review here. When government scientific agencies put out review (e.g. USDA, EPA, etc.) we typically consider them reliable sources. How should advocacy groups doing the same be handled though? I've seen multiple articles using such sources that aren't obviously problematic at first glance, but I haven't been sure of if they've just slipped through the cracks, or there has been some general consensus that they hold weight of a typical reliable secondary source. One example I've been looking at is this source [42] that is currently used over at Neonicotinoid, with the content: "In March 2013, the American Bird Conservancy published a review of 200 studies on neonicotinoids including industry research obtained through the US Freedom of Information Act, calling for a ban on neonicotinoid use as seed treatments because of their toxicity to birds, aquatic invertebrates, and other wildlife."

I don't have any edits in mind for that particular content right now, but the source is what made me pose the question above. It seems to fail

One does have to realize that scientists can disagree as much as anyone else. If there is a question about such sources, I would suggest treating them as opinion pieces. Ie they can be considered reliable for attributed statements as to what the author's opinion on a topic... but not necessarily reliable for an unattributed statement of fact.

Also - Note that phrasing something as an opinion does not guarantee inclusion of that opinion... that depends on DUE WEIGHT. Blueboar (talk) 00:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

If we treat the source as an "opinion" piece, than we would not accept it as a source whatsoever, per

WP:NEWSORG. Reading the introduction to the report, the advocacy element comes off quite strong. I agree with the OP that the source is not reliable, unless supplemented by secondary sources. CorporateM (Talk

) 01:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

You would have to look at the credentials of the scientist(s) carrying out the review as well as the advocacy organisation that published it. The American Bird Conservancy is hardly an extremist organisation and the idea that neonicotinoids can be toxic in the environment isn't new. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:34, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Hmm -- advocacy group input should not be taken as unbiased since they will be in good faith to their mission using wording and selectively framing things to help their mission. But there's two buts I think make it acceptable if not ideal. First, the advocacy group input may be significant to the topic -- e.g. what AARP says about social security is due some weight in the topic and is part of the factors, and ABC may be the only such report out there. Second is that it's all shades of grey with nobody perfectly reliable so just try to get the best you can and to get more than one source. Your USDA and EPA, or college and scientific orgs have their own agendas and put their spin on things and may be using what lobbyists gave them as either a shortcut or in some cases because they are their future employers. All sources have motives for doing such study in the first place. Seems to me that motives for ABC are apparent, and that likely it stayed within reputable word-choice+spin versus flat-out lying. Maybe acceptable but not ideal so use with care. Markbassett (talk) 04:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

A week or so ago, a new user, User:Taylmw added information to several Royal Australian Navy ship articles. Some of the content was cited to reliable sources, but other bits were attributed to a "Report of Proceedings" or a "CO Report". Is someone able to tell me if such documents count as reliable, published sources for verifiability purposes (I think not, because I think these documents, as high-end internal reports by ship captains for their superiors, are not published) but I'm A Bloody Civilian, and would request more opinions.

The affected articles (and relevant edits) are HMAS Gladstone (FCPB 216) [43], HMAS Wollongong (ACPB 92) [44], and HMAS Bendigo (FCPB 211) [45]. -- saberwyn 12:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

If the reports are in an archive that members of the public can access, then they are considered "Published". However, such documents are primary sources... Primary sources can be reliable, but their reliability is limited. I have not looked at how these specific primary sources are actually used in the articles in question, so I won't comment on whether they are used appropriately or not. Blueboar (talk) 12:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I am wondering if this book is reliable to use in Muhammad al-Mahdi article. I ran into this review published in the Canadian Journal of History that has some serious criticism about the book despite respecting the work overall:

It is unfortunate that such legends continue to be repeated, especially after the recent increase of scholarship on the topic. It is certainly unfortunate that such misrepresentations are allowed to mar what is otherwise a perfectly fme and in some respects quite excellent work.

.--Kazemita1 (talk) 20:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Based on the reviews in the amazon link you give, this looks like a potentially very good source for articles related to Shia Islam. No source is necessarily always reliable for any statement, though, so it depends on what content it is used to support. Formerip (talk) 20:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Can the document On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons be taken as a reliable source for the statement that the document "said that any culpability that pertains to homosexual sexual activity is not mitigated by natural orientation"? The claim is made

The relevant part of the document (section 11) is: "It has been argued that the homosexual orientation in certain cases is not the result of deliberate choice; and so the homosexual person would then have no choice but to behave in a homosexual fashion. Lacking freedom, such a person, even if engaged in homosexual activity, would not be culpable. Here, the Church's wise moral tradition is necessary since it warns against generalizations in judging individual cases. In fact, circumstances may exist, or may have existed in the past, which would reduce or remove the culpability of the individual in a given instance; or other circumstances may increase it. What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behaviour of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable. What is essential is that the fundamental liberty which characterizes the human person and gives him his dignity be recognized as belonging to the homosexual person as well."

To my mind, the document explicitly excludes any such generalization as is expressed in the claim. Esoglou (talk) 14:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Are this book (p. 223) and this document (section 17) reliable sources for the statement that the document "warned bishops to be on guard against, and not to support, Catholic organizations not upholding the Church's doctrine on homosexuality, groups which the letter said were not really Catholic" (emphasis added)? The claim is made

The text of the document related to the claim is:

"With this in mind, this Congregation wishes to ask the Bishops to be especially cautious of any programmes which may seek to pressure the Church to change her teaching, even while claiming not to do so. A careful examination of their public statements and the activities they promote reveals a studied ambiguity by which they attempt to mislead the pastors and the faithful. For example, they may present the teaching of the Magisterium, but only as if it were an optional source for the formation of one's conscience. Its specific authority is not recognized. Some of these groups will use the word "Catholic" to describe either the organization or its intended members, yet they do not defend and promote the teaching of the Magisterium; indeed, they even openly attack it. While their members may claim a desire to conform their lives to the teaching of Jesus, in fact they abandon the teaching of his Church. This contradictory action should not have the support of the Bishops in any way" (section 14 of the document).

There seems to be no basis for the claim that the organizations spoken of are exclusively Catholic. The document says that some, not all, present themselves as Catholic, and only implicitly suggests, not states, that their self-presentation is false. Esoglou (talk) 14:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Is this document (section 17) a reliable source for the statement that the document "blamed these organizations ["Catholic organizations not upholding the Church's doctrine on homosexuality, groups which the letter said were not really Catholic"] for continuing to advocate for gay rights even when, it claimed, homosexuality threatened the lives of many people" (emphasis added)? The claim is made

The advocating that, at the time of the

The context is: "There is an effort in some countries to manipulate the Church by gaining the often well-intentioned support of her pastors with a view to changing civil-statutes and laws. This is done in order to conform to these pressure groups' concept that homosexuality is at least a completely harmless, if not an entirely good, thing. Even when the practice of homosexuality may seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number of people, its advocates remain undeterred and refuse to consider the magnitude of the risks involved. The Church can never be so callous. It is true that her clear position cannot be revised by pressure from civil legislation or the trend of the moment. But she is really concerned about the many who are not represented by the pro-homosexual movement and about those who may have been tempted to believe its deceitful propaganda. She is also aware that the view that homosexual activity is equivalent to, or as acceptable as, the sexual expression of conjugal love has a direct impact on society's understanding of the nature and rights of the family and puts them in jeopardy" (section 9 of the document). Esoglou (talk) 14:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Is John Cornwell, Breaking Faith, p. 131 a reliable source for the statement that the trustees of Notre Dame University "believed that framing non-discrimination as a civil right conflicted with the church's teachings on homosexuality"? The claim is made

This and your succeeding posts all appear to show the "eternal problem" on Wikipedia of how to deal with religious tenets and current social issues - in the case at hand, it appears that the positions of editors are possibly interfering with the primary non-negotiable policy of "neutral point of view" in favour of "the Catholic Church is wrong and must be asserted to be wrong about homosexuality." "Reliable source" is not the actual issue - rather the issue is "should sources with possible discernable points of view about a topic be used where the goal of NPOV is then compromised?" An issue worthy of far more discussion than is likely to occur here. Collect (talk) 14:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree about the problem you mention. These are claims about what was actually said, not evaluations of the rightness or wrongness of what was said. Rightness or wrongness is much more difficult to write about neutrally. But what exactly someone said should be verifiable. So, are these claims about observable facts supported by the sources adduced? Nobody is asking here for a value judgement on the facts. Esoglou (talk) 16:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The False Memory Syndrome Foundation [46] is being used as a reliable source on The Courage to Heal Wikipedia page, even though it is not.

On The Courage to Heal page, it is used as a valid critique:

A 2009 newsletter from the American branch of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation (FMSF) criticizes the 20th anniversary edition, saying "No book did more to spread false memory syndrome". The book was described as vicious, and filled with factual errors about the FMSF and the nature of memory, though the anniversary edition is described as better, without the outrageous features of earlier publications and that in the new edition, the FMSF is not mentioned in the book's index. The book is still dedicated to recovering memories, and does not warn the reader of the doubts scientists have about its premises. The book's final case study is still a depiction of satanic ritual abuse, without noting the FBI's report that concluded there was no evidence for the phenomenon.[8] The third edition of the book, published in 1994, included a chapter entitled "Honoring the Truth," in which the authors respond to the book’s critics. The FMSF criticized the chapter about their organization as filled with factual errors and written by a man who had no known credentials and no scientific publications in the relevant fields; the discussion of the FMSF was removed from the 20th anniversary edition.[8]

This is done despite the fact that on the False Memory Syndrome Foundation wiki, it states (using reliable peer reviewed sources) that:

The claims made by the FMSF for the incidence and prevalence of false memories have been criticized for lacking any evidence, and disseminating inaccurate statistics about the alleged extent of the problem.[2] Despite claiming to offer scientific evidence for the existence of FMS, the FMSF has no criteria for one of the primary features of the proposed syndrome – how to determine whether the accusation is true or false. Most of the reports by the FMSF are anecdotal, and the studies cited to support the contention that false memories can be easily created are often based on experiments that bear little resemblance to memories of actual sexual abuse. In addition, though the FMSF claims false memories are due to dubious therapeutic practices, the organization presents no data to demonstrate these practices are widespread or form an organized treatment modality.[21][22] Within the anecdotes used by the FMSF to support their contention that faulty therapy causes false memories, some include examples of people who recovered their memories outside of therapy.[2]

femmebot 22:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Magsmacaulay (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is, ironically, not a reliable source.

My view is that the FMSF is a major player in the recovered memory/repressed memory/false memory debate, staffed by experts, and represents a viable

_complex

23:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source. I followed the instructions that asked me to include specific quotes. What I don't understand is why your view trumps the 3 scholarly sources critiquing the credibility of the FMSF on their own page. If the FMSF is so reliable, prove it. Attacking other points of view for not being credible doesn't make yours more credible. What are the credentials of its researchers? The significance and merit of their work? From the scholarly, peer-reviewed critiques, their science is pretty shoddy.femmebot 23:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Magsmacaulay (talk • contribs)

Ironical for your advocacy against gender bias inside Wikipedia, Elizabeth Loftus, member of FMSF board, is considered the most influential female psychologist of the 20th century, see e.g. David W. Martin's TTC course Psychology of Human Behavior. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. So where is the evidence that her presence on the FMSF makes it credible? Nobody has explained why 3 independent critiques of FMSF have uncovered significant methodological problems in their research. Also, this is about the reliability of a source, not my position on feminism or what you consider 'ironical'. Here is a journalistic piece that would give a fair-minded reader a reason to be suspicious: http://web.archive.org/web/20071216011151/http://backissues.cjrarchives.org/year/97/4/memory.asp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magsmacaulay (talk • contribs) 21:31, July 26, 2014

Magsmacaulay, you don't appear to understand the rules about reliable sources. Advocacy groups are not generally considered as reliable sources of fact regarding the subject of their advocacy, but this only means you can't make an unattributed statement of fact and cite it to FMSF. It doesn't mean that the opinion of FMSF can't be given in the article and cited to their publications. FMSF is certainly a reliable source for what their opinion is, which is all that

Anyone know the situation with this site? It was owned by UGO Networks before its closure, and all its sites bought by Ziff Davis, but I can't see any mention of it on the site. The site itself has a lot of good interviews for old school games which don't seem to exist elsewhere, like this one, so if anyone knows if it is reliable, it'd be really useful. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Robert Parry and his consortiumnews.com has come up before on this noticeboard, but perhaps we could consider him on a claim by claim basis. At current issue is this claim:

What I’ve been told by one source, who has provided accurate information on similar matters in the past, is that U.S. intelligence agencies do have detailed satellite images of the likely missile battery that launched the fateful missile, but the battery appears to have been under the control of Ukrainian government troops dressed in what look like Ukrainian uniforms.
--Brian Dell (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

No, not reliable. No, not usable. No, not a reliable source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Blog-based gossip at best. In the blog itself, it even says that its position is different than all mainstream sources. Definition of a fringe viewpoint.__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

What ELAQUEATE said.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

A dicusion at the talk page for

Can you be more specific as to what the particulars are. While we see 1. Source and 2. Article, we do not see 3. Content. The instructions (above) ask for "the exact statement{s) or other content in the article." (As it stands, the thread is

TheBlaze piece as a further reading or external link in the article. – S. Rich (talk

) 23:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

[47] is an example of a disputed edit. In sum, the blaze provides some meaning to a movie rating based on audience polling.Casprings (talk) 23:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

It catenates two claims - that only 52 films have received A+ ratings is presumably an empirical fact. Empirical facts are not generally a problem for editors to accept in claims - indeed it appears the statement is ascertainably true that 52 films have had that rating. What is opinion, moreover, it that such a rating is "incredibly rare", and the term "rare" should only be used if it is expressed as an ascribed opinion. The empirical total of all rated films would be an empirical fact, and thus would not be stated as opinion. What is left is:

'The Blaze' noted that the film is one of 52 films with an A+ rating from CinemaScore out of N total rated films.

Such a claim would be subject to empirical verification and would not be a statement of opinion about which editors should have disputes. Collect (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

That Blaze thing is still an editorial opinion. It's an RS for its own opinion, but is not a RS for what a rating "means". Random Blaze editorials have no reputation for cinema knowledge. Both refs could be replaced with this, which confirms the basic fact of the film receiving the rating.__ E L A Q U E A T E 23:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

In what sense are empirically observable number "opinions"? Clearly we can link to the organization which has such ratings, and even refer to what the rating "means", but the simple statement of empirical fact is not "opinion" here. The CNN source does not give any numbers, which limits its utility for much of any claim. [48] uses the term "select few movies." [49] Breitbart is also available. [50] Pajiba is likely a source for " An A+ is very rare while an F is even more rare." Still -- sticking to actual countable numbers is not in the realm of "opinion" AFAICT. Collect (talk) 00:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, here's where straying from reliable sources for hard numbers is so problematic. If it's an unreliable source it can still misreport "actual countable numbers". The Blaze does say that "In the last 29 years, only 52 films have received an A+". They say this in 2014. The Hollywood Reporter article they cite is from 2011, where it says that (as of 2011) only 52 films have received an A+, and also that roughly two films a year on average receive that score. Take a moment and do the math. (That was the moment both opinion writers didn't take.) "Sticking to actual countable numbers is not in the realm of "opinion"" is a fine sentiment, but you still need to source those numbers from RS that have a reputation for getting their numbers right. TheBlaze clearly didn't do that, they don't have a reputation for doing that, and they reported the "empirically observable number" incorrectly (as in, not the right number). I don't think TheBlaze (or Breitbart) can be considered a good, reliable, or usable source for a "solid number" they both misinterpreted and reported incorrectly. Basically, being outright wrong limits their utility for any numeric claim here.__ E L A Q U E A T E 03:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The cavil is that the number is 53 and not 52 and this then makes a source irredeemably bad? Really? Sorry -- that added snipe at a source fails -- the NYT can give a wrong number where the difference is trivial without making it unusable for statements of empirical fact. "Outright wrong" is a tad of an overstatement in this case. And the "rare" opinion can be now sourced to absolute reliable sources per the examples given above. Collect (talk) 12:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, you didn't do the math correctly again. It's clearly not 53 either. We don't know how many films have currently received an A+ rating, because we don't have a RS for that information. The Blaze reports the 2011 number as if it's current for 2014, when we know the number has changed, but we don't know how much. 52 (and 53) is clearly outdated information, as movies like 42 and the Avengers and some unknown and unreported number of other films have gotten the rating in the meantime. TheBlaze, in it's excitement over how exclusive this ratings club is, misreported an old number as if it was current. That makes their claim to know how many movies have received the rating unreliable. A small error, and not a huge problem, except that that information is exactly the information you want to use them for. I don't think it's a strange idea to not use a certain source for an "empirical number" that was reported incorrectly in their article. __ E L A Q U E A T E 18:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

And as a second issue beyond the fact of TheBlaze and Breitbart failing at accurate quotation, it turns out the number in the Hollywood Reporter has its own problems. in 2013, CinemaScore's Harold Mintz said he "estimates that less than 50 films have rated an "A+" since CinemaScore began grading.". This is in 2013, two years after the Hollywood Reporter stated that exactly 52 A+'s had occurred, and after interviews with the very same employee. I don't think there is a reliable source for any specific claims about "total A+'s". In any case, there's no point using theBlaze or Breitbart as a citation to "verify" a reported number that is inconsistent with better and more reliable sources.__ E L A Q U E A T E 18:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The Hollywood Reporter actually counts and lists the 52 films that received an A+ grade from 1982-2011, which trumps some on the spot guestimation off the top of Mintz's head. The Blaze piece directly cites and links to the THR article. The NY Times and other media outlets frequently slightly misquote or muddily summarize items, so The Blaze saying "In the last 29 years" as opposed to something like "In its first 29 years" is a poor excuse to reject the entire source outright. It's essentially a typo, and arguably not even that since the intent could have been to convey "the last 29 years studied". It's also irrelevant to this inclusion, since the segment in question doesn't quote The Blaze, and correctly relays The Hollywood Reporter time period and count The Blaze references. The Blaze's utility as a source in this case is in noting that the film America now joins that exclusive A+ club. This edit should be considered routine and uncontroversial. VictorD7 (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

For the record, the proposed edit would simply read (following the pat statement about the movie's CinemaScore rating)... "From 1982 to 2011 only 52 movies received an A+ score from CinemaScore."...and would be accompanied by two sources, The Blaze and The Hollywood Reporter. VictorD7 (talk) 20:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

And still no reason to cite the Blaze, since you admit it doesn't directly support the statement offered. The Blaze simply does not have a reputation for fact-checking. (And it is still problematic that you want to add a cite to it when it distorts the exact fact you want to use it for. Saying the piece includes a link to the other cite is unconvincing and does not speak to the Blaze's reliability.) The main point is that numbers require reliable sourcing if it involves a claim that's even slightly extraordinary. If the question was "How many children does the subject have?" I'd expect a citation to an agreed-upon reliable source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, rather than a source we have no reason to trust, even if it concerns a simple number. Even if the Blaze hadn't loused up the actual facts, I don't see an argument that we would use it as a reliable source for interpreting cinema ratings. Since America isn't a movie from 1982 to 2011, it's arguably OR to include a factoid about that, unless you're trying to say that the Blaze specifically is somehow a reliable source for its relevance. I don't think you'll find a consensus that it is.__ E L A Q U E A T E 21:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose just using the THR piece to support the segment, which would certainly not be "OR" since the segment reflects the source almost word for word (you'd have to find another rationale for opposing it). However,I support using The Blaze piece too since it explicitly ties the grade's rarity to the article topic, and it does directly support the segment by showing a second, published news source covering the facts presented in the THR article. The Blaze did not "louse up" the facts about the grade being very rare, only 52 films receiving it in a 29 year period, or the various movies it cites whose exclusive company the America documentary has now joined. All that is worthwhile reading for those interested enough to click on the link for additional information. The direct link to the THR mitigates the fuzziness over the precise time period. I comment on the "fact checking" claim below, but The Blaze employs editors and reporters with many years of news experience. The bottom line is that one confusedly worded segment with only a trivial impact that isn't quoted in the proposed edit anyway shouldn't be seized on as an excuse for rejecting the whole thing. News stories frequently contain typos or slight inaccuracies but are still used as Wikipedia sources all the time. Certainly the grade's historical rarity merits mentioning in the article, and shouldn't fall victim to perceived technicalities or Wikilawyering to keep it out.VictorD7 (talk) 21:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

It's super simple. You want to add the Blaze because it explicitly ties the grade's rarity to the article topic. That means you find their judgement reliable. Most others don't. Most find it questionable. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves. That means not using a questionable source for facts about the movie or facts about CinemaScore. I can see that their reputation for fact-checking is good with you personally. That's fine, live and let live. I don't see that reputation represented in the larger world. "The NY Times makes mistakes too" is never going to be seen as a valid argument on this board as a substitute for a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". (And as far as Mintz goes, he seems to have give three or four answers over the years about how many films received an A+. You seem to think the one the Blaze and Brietbart latched onto must be the only possible correct one, but if the original source is giving contradictory answers, I don't see how we can elevate one over the others in Wikipedia's voice. None of the estimates were given out in a RS in connection to this particular article's subject, of course.)__ E L A Q U E A T E 22:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not about their "judgment". The movie is tied to the historical stat about the grade because it received the grade. Both the historical stat and this movie's grade are established facts. The Blaze simply reports this undisputed connection. It's unclear what you mean by "most find it questionable", given The Blaze's extreme popularity and the support from numerous editors this particular inclusion has. Regarding the historical fact, perhaps you missed my post observing that THR actually listed all the movies that had earned an A+ grade, doing their own count (which you're free to verify; I did). They didn't ask Mintz to give a number. You've presented no legitimate reason for excluding the segment. It would be disingenuous to pretend that there's some dispute or doubt that the grade is extremely rare. The truth is known here, and it belongs in the article. At most editors should be suggesting slight tweaks, not blanket exclusion. VictorD7 (talk) 22:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves The onus is on the editor suggesting the change to convince other editors a source is not questionable. I do not see you doing that, although I'm sure you believe in the source yourself. Horoscopes also have "extreme popularity", but they are not RS. "Established facts" should be cited to RS, not cited to non-RS. If a source has a dodgy reputation it generally shouldn't be used even to cite a claim that the sun is bigger than the earth,

the truth notwithstanding. I also suggested a CNN citation for the A+ grade, but looking at the article, that information is already there and sourced. If you want to add something like "rare" or "uncommon" there are better sources for that judgement and if you want to outline how empirically rare the nomination is, you have to do better than handwaving contradictory sources about the material away. CinemaScore is a private marketing business; it is in their interest (and the specific movies involved) to inflate people's ideas of how "rare" a result is and how important an indicator it is regarding a movie's achievements. That's why we require reliable sources to help ensure NPOV and avoid repeating marketing or cheerleader-style distortions.__ E L A Q U E A T E

23:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

So now you're also attacking The Hollywood Reporter's credibility as a source? There isn't a meaningful contradiction on the empirical point. THR listed every movie to earn an A+ grade. Period. A later story citing a CinemaScore exec who didn't have the numbers in front of him, who was merely vaguely estimating off the top of his head, and who still landed in the correct ballpark doesn't constitute a "contradiction". If anything, his slightly lower "estimate" of "less than 50" would mark the grade as even rarer anyway. I haven't seen anyone but partisan, left leaning editors label The Blaze as "dodgy". It's mostly a mix of verifiable, well referenced facts and opinion pieces. The segment it would be used to source here (which could include both the proposed sentence and the existing previous one citing the grade, for people who don't want to scroll down to hunt for it on the Box Office Mojo page) isn't in meaningful dispute. It's ironic that in the same post you cite CNN as a reliable source, when (among other journalistic scandals) its former Chief News Director Eason Jordan publicly confessed that for many years the network had a functioning deal with Saddam Hussein to bury atrocities in exchange for greater access. Partisan convenience isn't a legitimate criteria for embracing some sources while excluding others. Indeed such one sided censorship is an unacceptable NPOV violation. Even if one stipulates that CNN is a preferable source to The Blaze, that doesn't mean the latter should never be used for anything but its own opinion, as the site does employ editorial oversight. And if you want to dismiss CinemaScore as a self aggrandizing "private marketing business" (so?), perhaps you should argue to have Wikipedia's explicit endorsement of the outfit's use in articles removed from the MOS guidelines.

"Polls of the public carried out by a reliable source in an accredited manner, such as CinemaScore, may be used." If CinemaScore grades are noteworthy, as the guidelines say, then the historical rarity of earning the top grade is inherently noteworthy too. VictorD7 (talk) 01:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The "CinemaScore exec" is Harold Mintz, son of the founder, and the same source used for all stories related to this company from the past ten years. I didn't dismiss them, but references to them should be reliably sourced. I'm not "attacking" the Hollywood Reporter, I'm pointing out that the same person gave same contradictory info in different venues. You can embrace the Harold Mintz of 2011 and bemoan the dissolute Harold Mintz of 2013, but they're the same guy. When reliable sources contradict, you're not supposed to just pick whatever you think agrees with you, as hard as that may be to do. Again, maybe it is rarer; my skepticism about your sources is not because I want to argue for a specific number that shames or flatters. If reliably sourced positive news is there, it should be included. My point is that the source needs to be verifiable and not considered questionable by most editors. You have one source that doesn't mention the subject of the article and one source that most editors find unusable. If you can't convince editors that there's a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that's more significant than what's been found in the past, then you won't have much success citing non-opinion material to it. (Hint: you need more to prove something has a good reputation for fact-checking and accuracy than "it has editors" or personal assertions that it's full of facts.) Until then, Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves. __ E L A Q U E A T E 02:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I know who Mintz is. You keep missing the fact that THR didn't quote him as a source, but, through their research, documented and listed every film to receive an A+ ranking. Unless you're attacking that source's reliability too, the empirical historical fact is solid. Again, your description of The Blaze as being "questionable" is just a personal assertion. I don't expect to convince any editors involved in this dispute since opinions on the source's use have broken down roughly evenly in number and completely along party lines. I do intend to continue shaming blatantly POV positions seeking to ban any use of conservative sites while accepting liberal ones whenever such positions rear their head, so that such bias at least doesn't go unchallenged and in the hope of planting seeds in the minds of lurkers who may be more open and fair minded. VictorD7 (talk) 02:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @VictorD7: The Blaze ain't the New York Times. Implying that these two outlets are comparable because they both make a non-zero number of errors is just silly. The Blaze is a hyperpartisan website run by an ideologue with a notoriously spotty record when it comes to objective reality. The site lacks a generally recognized reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, which is the central criterion for assessing reliability. As such, we should not be using this website as a source in a serious encyclopedia, except in very limited, circumscribed, and unusual situations. MastCell ^Talk 21:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The Blaze has never employed disastrous, long running journalistic frauds like Jayson Blair and Walter Duranty, and the NY Times has been credibly accused of hyperpartisanship for decades. Simply repeating that the news site doesn't have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy doesn't make it so. Regardless of whether you place it on par with the NY Times or not, The Blaze does employ editors and reporters, and its facts are usually accurate. Accusations of bias are also irrelevant here, since policy clearly states that sources aren't disqualified for being biased, though I'll point out that Politifact is widely (correctly) seen as possessing a leftist bias. I'll also point out that your link is about Glenn Beck personally (covering his opinion commentary in various venues), not The Blaze per se, and that, regardless, Politifact itself states that it shouldn't be used to comparatively judge outlets ([51]): "We avoid comparisons between the networks. We do not check every statement made on every network, so true comparisons would be difficult. We use our news judgment to decide what we want to fact-check. Also, the networks don’t carry the same amount of political or news programming. CBS, for instance, does not have a 24-hour cable news partner, while Fox and NBC do". VictorD7 (talk) 21:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I think it's pretty obvious that the New York Times is widely viewed as a reputable, solid journalistic outfit while The Blaze is not. Are you seriously disputing either of those propositions? Let's be real for a minute, and suppose you stopped a dozen people on the street and told them you were trying to build a serious, respectable reference work. If you told those people you were using the New York Times as a source, they'd probably nod in agreement, or at least understanding. If you told them that you were using Glenn Beck's website The Blaze as a source, they'd probably look at you like you were insane, or else up to no good. MastCell ^Talk 22:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you need to get out more and meet a more diverse crowd. Most people I interact with are more likely to mock than praise the NY Times, and they can back up their criticism with facts, as I have here. Of course I'm not the one trying to disqualify it or other ideological sources that disagree with me from Wikipedia. VictorD7 (talk) 01:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

A reporter who reported in the 30s and 40s and another reporter they fired for misconduct does not represent the "facts" of the institution. Part of maintaining an institution that does value honesty and objectivity is policing your own house. Firing Blair and having a practice of issuing corrections as soon as possible shows this.Casprings (talk) 01:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

That they employed him for so long without catching him doesn't speak highly of their "editorial oversight" at all, nor does hiring him despite his checkered past speak well of their hiring practices. The Blaze has never had such a scandal, where a writer simply made up story after story. As for Duranty, the NY Times still proudly lists him among their "Pulitzer Prize winning" reporters, but I cited him to show that journalistic malfeasance at the paper is nothing new. I could list countless other examples of NY Times bias and dishonesty, but that would be getting off topic. VictorD7 (talk) 01:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

While a debate about the NY Times would be off topic, you do point to another important factor in thinking the Blaze is not a WP:RS. That would be professional respect among its peers. Have they won anything like a Pulitzer? Casprings (talk) 01:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The Pulitzer Prize is one of the garbage awards leftists use to congratulate each other. Even within that context it has less to do with journalistic quality than making a splash, like the awards The Guardian and Washington Post just got for a story Snowden dumped in their laps. Its meaninglessness is underscored by the fact that you were reminded of it by my mention of Pulitzer Prize winning journalistic fraud Walter Duranty.VictorD7 (talk) 02:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

That is a fine opinion. It does go against the general consensus here.Casprings (talk) 02:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

It's a non issue, since nowhere in policy does it state that Pulitzer Prizes are required for a source to be usable. VictorD7 (talk) 03:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

That's pretty much sums up the issue here. What multiple editors have tried to explain to Victor is that these are the criteria used by Wikipedia to evaluate reliable sources. Victor disagrees with them. Sometimes I disagree with them. Our disagreement isn't evidence that Wikipedia is some hotbed of ideological bias desperately in need of his "shaming", it just means that we disagree with Wikipedia policy. The appropriate response for Victor would be to engage in civil discussion on the relevant policy pages and campaign for change, not to use Wikipedia as a

WP:BATTLEGROUND to "shame" his ideological opponents. Gamaliel (talk

) 02:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

In case you haven't noticed, the editors are roughly evenly split on this issue, and I, not you, have been the one citing pertinent policy and guidelines in these discussions. I don't disagree with the policies, just their misinterpretation. And I spoke of shaming positions (specifically POV positions that are contrary to policy), not people. You were the one who engaged in

WP:BATTLEGROUND tactics by replying to a reasonable, crucial question with nonsense pictures (in fairness you later said you regretted doing that), and ultimately threw a temper tantrum consisting of nothing but baseless personal attacks that culminated in you claiming that you would disengage from the discussion. I guess you're back now. The appropriate response for you, Gamaliel, would be for you to civilly campaign on the relevant pages to change the meaning of Wikipedia concepts like "fringe" or "vandalism" to something more to your liking. VictorD7 (talk

) 03:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

What does this have to do with

WP:BATTLEGROUND, but I will request that some other administrator strike this nonsense from this page as inaccurate, uncivil, and irrelevant to this page. Gamaliel (talk

) 03:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Both your posts were entirely ad hominem. They didn't address the substance of this thread at all. Everything I said was accurate, so your charge of "lies" is garbage. Do you want me to link to your childish pictures or your promise to take a break from the discussion after your previous personal attack

WP:BATTLEGROUND spree? VictorD7 (talk

) 04:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

So what does this have to do with

WP:RS again? Gamaliel (talk

) 04:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Nothing. Please refrain from perpetuating this ad hominem tangent. VictorD7 (talk) 04:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

What a waste of time and digits. I asked for "the exact statement{s) or other content in the article." (as per the talk page instructions), but nothing worthwhile gets posted. Instead we have silly debates about how wonderful or unreliable the NYT is compared to other sources. If I hadn't posted earlier, thereby making myself an "involved editor", I would have shut this down as a distractive (read "disruptive") thread. We already have the talk page discussion and the NPOVN discussion. This is just more nonsensical icing on the cake. (In fact, I may do so because I only asked for a clarification. I did not contribute to the garbage pile.) – S. Rich (talk) 04:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

We have had input from serveral editors who were previously uninvolved on the article talk page. They offered their views. I find this helpful in understanding what the community thinks about the issue and it also matches up with what one is supposed to do to resolve conflicts. Get outside opinions.Casprings (talk) 03:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Are Gadling.com and Transitionsabroad.com considered reliable sources? I'd say they're more WP:SPS. AdventurousMe (talk) 04:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• Gadling is not RS. "Gadling is the world’s top travel blog, written and edited by passionate travelers and writers." [52]. There is no indication of whether particular bloggers are experts (e.g., published by reliable third parties). Transistions, on the other hand, may be. Per their about us page, they indicate editorial control and are a publisher. Even so,
  WP:CONTEXTMATTERS for their material. – S. Rich (talk
  ) 15:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

In the article

T. B. Joshua has many critics [1] with the watchblog TB Joshua Watch ^[2] being one of the most vocal critical voices. In this blog it is claimed that many prophecy videos from T.B. Joshua have been edited after a certain event happened in order to create the impression that he was actually predicting the incidents or that facts surrounding the alleged prophecies have been altered afterwards.

Any opinions on that are highly appreciated. Thank you very much. Gromobir (talk) 12:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

My personal objection to this use is I can not see how, in any form, this anonymous blog can be considered a respected journalistic source. If I were to write paragraphs quoting positive yet equally anonymous blogs (which I can do) I would expect immediate objections and removals.

Furthermore, aside from information the user Gromobir wishes to quote, this blog is the source and propagator of a number of anonymous, evidenceless and slanderous stories of various sexual and physical abuse stories. This is extremely serious, and must immediately disqualify it from consideration as a reliable and respected source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandernathan (talk • contribs)

The blog and its contents should not be mentioned unless there is some coverage of those things in reputable, mainstream media. Everyone has critics, but not every critic is important enough to be documented. Anybody can start a WordPress blog, but not everybody's WordPress blog should be cited in an encyclopedia. Gamaliel (talk) 23:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

There seem to be plenty of mainstream, reliable sources you can use to support that point, so I wouldn't cite a definitionally biased SPS. AdventurousMe (talk) 13:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

This article [53] has been proposed as support for this statement [54] in the article about the Game of Thrones episode "Oathkeeper." (Game of Thrones is an HBO television adaptation of the Song of Ice and Fire books by George Martin. A Storm of Swords is the third book in the series.)

"Content from this episode is also found in A Storm of Swords chapters 61, 68, 71, and 72 (Sansa V, Sansa VI, Daenerys VI, Jaime IX)."

Although the article is a literary analysis, it is not being cited for the writer's interpretation but rather for facts about which events occurred when in the episode and novel. In summary, it tells the reader which parts of the books appeared in the episode.

All parties concur that this site should be considered a blog and/or fansite. The dispute involves whether the exception criteria have been met or not: One user states that this article is acceptable for the statement made per

The accuracy of the facts cited is not in question. They have been corroborated in several other primary and secondary sources including but not limited the following (though other objections have been raised to each of these): The source novel A Storm of Swords by George Martin, Watch Game of Thrones Season 4 Episode 4 paNOW, Observation Deck, GEOS, FiveThirtyEight. The material is also found on the fansite Westeros.Org, among others. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The sources in question are fairly hotly contested within the discussion page for the Game of Thrones episode "Oathkeeper", hence the recommendation to widen the circle on the problem to here. However, there appear to be a few mistakes/mischaracterizations of the problem.

The problem with the sources listed are as follows:

• The initial source is a Brazilian fansite, and the writer is not a member of the staff, and has no connection with the production of the program. If memory serves, the writer in question is a musical harp student at university who happens to be a fan, as per her own Twitter page.
• The other links provided are Watch Game of Thrones Season 4 Episode 4 a fake link, now deleted at the source, a fan forum, another fan forum and a fansite for which a previous request had been submitted.

As per USERG, none of these sources are usable. None of the authors are notable. All of the sources are either fan forums, fansites or fake, dead links.

The problem here is that the blockquote above contains information not found in any usable source. While there are' some reliable secondary sources that contain a reference to a single chapter usage, those have been incorporated (using prose) into the article. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• The writer of the article in question, Ana Carol, is listed on the site's staff page, as per the link I provided [56]. Considering that she is writing about a general-audience book and television show, her credentials, [EDITED] which include, music, design and "content creation," are sufficient to consider her reliable for straight facts that are readily observable by any reader/viewer without specialist knowledge. She's perfectly capable of reading the book and saying, "Jaime hands Brienne a sword named 'Oathkeeper' in chapter 72." (EDIT: I think I see what Jack's talking about now. Ana Carol is on the staff of the web site, per WP:USERG; she is not an employee of HBO.)
• The Prince Albert article is not a fake link; though it has gone dead since it was first uploaded. It linked to a non-article page in a newspaper containing what appeared to be product information. Per
  WP:BADLINK
  just because the link has gone dead does not mean that the source automatically becomes unusable.
• The other sources are listed here to show any new contributors that the material is factually accurate. I am not proposing that we use Westeros.org as a source. GEOS could work, though. It does collect user-provided surveys, but that's not the part of the GEOS article that's cited; the staff-supplied description of the episode is. In fact, at the time of access, no user-generated content had yet been provided for Oathkeeper. The i09 article is an article, not a forum comment.
• But on Wikipedia, it's not only about accuracy, it's also about verifiability: The blockquote contains information that is readily verifiable by any person capable of 1. watching the episode and 2. reading the book, and the book is among the sources offered. While the novel is certainly verifiable and reliable, it has been argued that it cannot, alone, establish that the content is sufficiently notable. I feel that the article suggested here does that. The novel renders verifiability a non-issue. Now we need something to go with it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Jack Sebastian and I are two of the participants in this dispute. We are here seeking further comment on this issue from a neutral party or parties. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I am just one of many editors in that article that disagree with Darkfrog24. Sidestepping the

drah-mah

of that user seeking to reframe the problem, she is fundamentally wrong in her assessment of these sources.

Gameofthrones.Br is a fansite. We rarely use those, unless citing an interview of someone connected to the cast, crew or author. The reference does not do that, instead offering a blogger a forum to post their take on the ep.

The PrinceAlbertNOW reference is fake. It was dressed up to appear as if it were an authentic article in the outlet, but was actually created within their Free Classifieds section. It bears pointing out that Darkfrog24 added the reference shortly after it was created, and it was deleted by the paNOW's editorial staff after I emailed them about its authorship. It isn't a ref that we can use.

GEOS cites Wikipedia as a source for its information (circular referencing) and is a fansite. It does not cite a member of the cast or crew; it is therefore the product of someone without notability.

io9 is a legitimate fansite; however, the reference comes from a fan-created article (called Observation Deck) in io9's user-created space. Hell, I could create an article there.

A DRN and RfC concluded that the primary source of the book could not be used independently. We could cite the primary source of the book, when referring to the fact that the episode was taken from the book. We needed explicit secondary references for individual chapters. Without them, it is a single editor drawing conclusions without reliable references. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

1. I'm not the only editor supporting this text; there are multiple voices on both sides of this issue. Anyone who feels the need can go to talk:Oathkeeper and talk:Breaker of Chains and do their own headcount. 2. I'm not drawing conclusions, just making observations.

No one is contesting that Gameofthrones.Br is a blog. It is one. While the article includes the blogger's take on the ep, you will notice the proposed text does not. It only includes straight observations about which chapters ended up in the episode.

The issue is whether the exception criteria have been met or not. We've got 1. author is a named member of the site staff, check; 2. credentials are provided, check; 3. are those credentials sufficient for the text in question: Ladies and gentlemen of Wikipedia, your take on this matter, please!

The PrinceAlbert site is NOT fake. If you look at the original reference tag, you will see that the page went up around June 20 and I didn't find it until weeks later. It was exactly as I have described it: product information. Someone was trying to sell access to GoT episodes and posted a description of them, including which chapters the episode was based on. I'd call this source comparable to reading product stats off a box. ...and you're saying the link went dead because you asked someone to kill it? That's not good. Now other Wikieditors can't see it for themselves.

Jack, I checked the GEOS article on Oathkeeper before I used it as a source, and GEOS did not cite Wikipedia. But I'm human and I might have missed something. I've asked you this before and you didn't answer, but if you know where GEOS says "We copied this information from Wikipedia," please show us.

Do not refer to a source as a forum if it is not a forum. Describe sources accurately or you may confuse newcomers.

The primary source is usable right here in this thread to confirm that the Ana Carol article is accurate. I don't agree with the results of the RfC, but I'm not contesting them either. And yes, we can also look at individual chapters and observe that they contain the same events as in the episode. Just because an RfC has deemed that a source is not usable alone does not mean that have to pretend that it isn't there. In this case, we can use the novel as a yardstick to evaluate other sources. I put eyes to the source myself, and the author of this article did get her facts straight.

If we keep going back and forth on this, there's going to be a big wall of text and no one else is going to want to weigh in. I'll commit to a no-repeating-myself policy here on out for this thread if you guys will. You in? Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

If a Wikipedia editor can "kill an article" at a reliable source, then it probably wasn't a citable article to begin with. Only editorial staff at the reliable source can kill legitimate articles. Therefore, the "article" was probably killed because it wasn't legitimate. DonQuixote (talk) 11:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

DonQuixote is also a longstanding participant in this dispute. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I searched the archives of this noticeboard, recalling that I'd heard and asked about io9's Observation Deck forum before: here and here.

GEOS labels itself as "GEOS is fan-owned, and fan-run." The linked content is not usable in this instance.
The paNow article was indeed fake. All I did was ask about the source. They said it was "masquerading as a genuine article" (their words, not mine), and pulled it from adspace. As it was constructed shortly before being added (for no apparent reason) by an anon geolocating out of New York, near Cornell U, it is undoubtedly fake.
I agree with your estimate about people not wanting to get involved in a wall of text. I initially responded here as you had misrepresented the sources. You had not needed to keep responding after that. Follow your own advice: be quiet and let others contribute. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Jack, no the PaNow page was not fake; it was product information; quit it, and please quit repeating your points.

As for GEOS, there is precedent for its use on Wikipedia, and being fan-run doesn't mean it's inaccurate. While I certainly see it as a usable source, it is offered here to corroborate the source under discussion, to show that the Ana Carol article is accurate.

It occurred to me that there's no way for you to know this, but I pass over lots of sources for reasons like reliability and accuracy. Just yesterday I found an educational website that looked like it would fit the bill, but it didn't get the numbers right.

No, Jack, I did not misrepresent the sources, and you are out of line to say that I did. Actually look at what I actually posted: [57]. I referred to them as "primary and secondary" and provided their ref tag information. I even stated that objections had been raised to each, which is not to my position's advantage. I did not otherwise describe them in any way. You referred to the i09 article as a forum, and it's not. You said that Ana Carol wasn't a member of the staff, and she is. That is misrepresentation.

As for the two links you posted, one of them has no discussion and the other has no link. There's no way for that other person to tell what you're talking about. Maybe i09 also has a forum, but the two i09 sources that were mentioned for Oathkeeper were both articles. They have authors and paragraphs and are non-interactive. Describing either as a forum is extremely misleading.

While I'm down for a no-repeat-points policy if it applies to all of us equally, for God's sake, no, you don't get to call me a liar and then say I should shut up about it! Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

And to everyone else, we would still like a neutral, disinterested, previously uninvolved party to weigh in on the source, please. Thanks~ Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea whether linuxgamenews.com is considered a reliable source or not. If it is, will this report ([58]) contribute to establish Minetest's notability?--180.172.239.231 (talk) 10:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Nor do I. But it looks like it's been chucked up on a free Wordpress theme, there are no credited authors and no evidence of editorial oversight, so it's clearly a

WP:SPS, and shouldn't be used for notability, or anything else.. AdventurousMe (talk

) 14:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Islamization_of_the_Temple_Mount#Synagogue_on_the_Temple_Mount for a discussion between a fellow editor and me about the reliability of a certain modern source, itself quoting a medieval source, and the reliability of that medieval source as well. The discussion took place over December 4-7, 2013, and then was dormant. Recently, my opponent in that discussion made an edit based on his opinion that the sources are not reliable for the statement they come to support, which I reverted, based on my opinion that the sources are reliable for that statement. Your comments on the issue will be appreciated. I suggest to comment there, to avoid repeating arguments that have already been made or that already have been countered. Debresser (talk) 02:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Is [www.sabrang.com] Sabrang Communications a reliable source?

sabrang.com is clearly not an RS because it is just an activists' web site. However Communalism Combat can be regarded as a primary source just as Manushi or Hinduism Today. But they are not mainstream "news outlets" and what is contained in them cannot be reported as a statement of fact unless backed up other RS. An in-line attribution would be needed to quote material from any of them. Uday Reddy (talk) 15:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The following RFC could use additional input and may be of interest to the members of this noticeboard

While the HBO series Game of Thrones is on seasonal hiatus, I wanted to get some input on the reliability of Westeros.Org. I've come across it being used to cite plot bits here and there, but Westeros is a self-proclaimed fansite. Unless we are talking about a reference to an exclusive interview with someone from the cast and/or crew from the series, its usually not usable. Would that be a correct assessment? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Westeros.org is unquestionably a fansite, but it has its uses. Specifically, I've used it to look up phrasings that I can plug into search engines and so find other sources that support the same material. ("Ah, the fandom refers to 'chapter 72' as 'Jaime IX': Google, Bing, bring me that magazine article!" "Hey, there's a quote from one of the writers in here; verbatim web search, away!") Still, actually using it in an article would depend on what it's being used to support. I don't see straight facts about the Song of Ice and Fire novels and the Game of Thrones TV show as anything to get in a twist about, especially if it is used as a corroborating source rather than alone, but literary analysis and fan theories are probably out. Its ideal place on Wikipedia is probably the external links list.

Full disclosure: Jack and I are both involved in a few disputes regarding sourcing for articles about the Game of Thrones TV show. For that reason, like Westeros.org, my take on this matter should not be used alone, but it might be useful for corroboration. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Fuller disclosure: Jack and Darkfrog and many others are involved in this dispute. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

That's 100% correct. This dispute has five longstanding participants and a few others who chimed in. See talk:Oathkeeper and talk:Breaker of Chains. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

1. Source: Vani Hari's webpage Foodbabe: "Should I get the Flu Shot?"
2. Article: Vani Hari#Flu shot
3. Content:

   In October 2011, Hari posted an article on her blog titled "Should I get the Flu Shot?" in which she claimed that seasonal influenza vaccines are both harmful and ineffective, and urged her readers to consider avoiding them. In her post, Hari claimed that common constituents in flu shots including aluminum, thimerosal, formaldehyde, egg products, and sucrose would cause adverse reactions in users. She stated that she would never ingest any of the aforementioned ingredients herself, claiming that the medical community endorses them due to "corruption" and "greed."[citation in question] Mark Crislip, an infectious disease doctor and contributor to the "Science-Based Medicine" blog, wrote a response piece entitled "Scam Stud" in which he sharply criticized Hari's claims.[34]

See the initial discussion at Talk:Vani Hari#Microwaves and flu vaccinations. The Content was removed, but was recently restored. It is my contention that this paragraph is not RS because it comes from Hari's personal, self-published webpage. – S. Rich (talk) 15:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

That's all right as far as the RS goes. It's a primary source that Hari made the given statement, so fine in an article about her, which this is. The question should be - so what? If merely one other blog responded to this statement, I'm not sure that makes it particularly notable. I'm guessing lots of her blog posts have at least one other blog responding. What makes this particular statement and response more worthwhile of space in our article about her than the others? --GRuban (talk) 23:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Reply, by OP. The problem is her webpage is

WP:ABOUTSELF because she goes beyond what she is doing and into the dangers/effectiveness of the vaccination. Most importantly, her comments are exceptional claims. Lastly, she is commenting about third parties, e.g., the medical community and drug companies. Couching her comments with "she claims" undermines SPS policy. That is, if we allowed any blog posting to be placed on WP with "s/he claims..." or "s/he says..." or "his/her opinion is..." this would allow any and all such statements to be placed in articles. (WP should not be used as a vehicle for such material.) – S. Rich (talk

) 00:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

To address a few things, I think my comments in the talk page and

undue weight, so they would definitely not belong there.0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib

] 18:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The difference is we have secondary sources reporting on what Duke said. We do not have Duke's blog as the reference for what he said. Posting a Duke blog posting that repeated his statements would be improper. – S. Rich (talk) 19:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

This is about sourcing, and the David Duke stuff is not going to be helpful here. The material you talk about is sourced to the Anti-Defamation League not to David Duke. If the only threshold was that a person could be verified to have said something on their blog, then Wikipedia articles could contain the entire contents of people's blogs, prefaced by "The subject said,". When using self-published sources they need to at minimum not run afoul of the

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Claims involving influenza vaccines in general would have problems with at least the first four of those. Those points are that the claims involved must be compatible with:

1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim

;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities);
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;

Tacking on a "she says" or "she believes" does not inoculate the material from being about problematic claims that she is presenting as reality not personal belief. Does this mean the article can't describe her notable beliefs? No, the article can talk about her beliefs but they must be filtered through a non-SPS source and not sourced directly to her website. The policy is there to ensure that some independent RS has something to do with it and has supplied some context and NPOV, rather than listing everything she's ever published on her word alone. The material is "about" what she asserts about flu vaccines; that is clearly "about" what she feels about third party material, which means that it certainly involves claims about third parties. We have to cite it to other sources, such as The Charlotte Observer or another reliable and independent secondary source. __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

More briefly, if a source says on their blog "Cars were invented in Antarctica." you can say it is primarily about the writer's belief about the invention of the car, but you can't say that it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject. Material that involves her claims about what happens during flu vaccines is material that involves claims about events not directly related to Vani Hari herself, whether it also speaks to her beliefs or not. __ E L A Q U E A T E 20:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I think you missed my point, which is that the reliability of the source depends on the context. I've said earlier that the inclusion of this flu stuff would be contingent upon sources indicating the weight of the statements, but that is irrelevant to the reliability of this particular source. If you establish that this is a noteworthy aspect of a person's life or views, you can use primary sources to cite factual content (such as the fact that she made these claims). Whether or not she's making ridiculous and unscientific claims (as David Duke is making above), is also completely irrelevant, because the article is about her and her views, so we just need to establish that we're not giving undue weight to this particular blog post. See

WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD

.

I strongly disagree with the "extraordinary claims" analysis - that would only apply when covering the subject of the claims, not when covering the person's views on the subject of the claims, there's a strong distinction there. If someone is a noteworthy UFOlogist, you can use primary sources for facts about their beliefs regardless of whether or not they are an "expert", but you can't use them to establish "notability" (obviously the notability standard doesn't apply, the "undue weight" standard is what applies, but they're broadly speaking similar in quality). The standard would be exactly the same if we were trying to show that she likes peas or a specific brand of shoe - we want to reflect the content in the sources, and the secondary sources sort out what is relevant content to include and what's not. Either way, the reliability of this particular source is clearly not an issue - no one is disputing that it's a reliable source of her claims, and no one is claiming that it's a reliable source for the truth of her claims. That's a totally different question as to whether those claims should be included in the article about her.0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 01:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with whether we include claims about a subject's beliefs (we do) or whether we sometimes use primary sources (we do). It has everything to do with whether we use SPS as a source when they involve certain conditions. This material fails the

WP:OR creeping in. These are good boundaries; without them, more politicians' pages would be lists of direct quotes about their beliefs, sourced only to their own campaigns, because they would also be "verifiable self-published beliefs", instead of secondary sources sifting through all the promises and saying which were dubious, or significant.
And yes, primary sources are not bad...but it has to be for information directly involving the subject, not involving third parties or events, and not involving extreme claims that could ever be reasonably doubted. Involving! Saying someone believes an x, involves a claim about x. A claim that a person believes an unusual thing shouldn't be sourced to a SPS. That may seem counterintuitive to you, but it's basically, "If the claim is wild or it involves the subject talking about events far outside of themselves, we need that statement cited to a secondary source that had an opportunity to evaluate it somehow." There would be little problem sourcing a self-published statement that she got a flu shot five years ago, with that statement attributed to her in the article. That's because it's reasonably believable, directly about her personal activities. A simple claim from a UFOlogist that they moved to Germany in 1982 to study UFOs is fine sourced to an SPS. A complex claim from a UFOlogist that UFOs are all painted green, have three wheels, two windows and a bell, should not be sourced to a SPS in a Wikipedia article, even if you can verify they said it by pointing to a primary source. __ E L A Q U E A T E

03:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The

WP:OR to include this source without a secondary source indicating that these statements are important or that anyone cares about them.0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib

] 16:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

You say: The

WP:SELFSOURCE. This material does not meet either policy exception for sourcing stuff to self-published primary sources. A description of her controversial scientific claims must be sourced to secondary reliable sources, not her own blog, even if we preface those claims as in "She said, this chemical and that chemical are harmful".
It's the same situation as in your example; a person's blog stating "I was born on Mars in the year 2039", would also not be useable for a Wikipedia statement that said "She said she was born on Mars in the year 2039". The claim involved is not a simple and believable one and it doesn't matter if you add "She says", it doesn't matter if it's verifiably on her blog, it's still not something we can include sourced from a self-published source. A discussion of that statement that made its way into a reliable secondary source would be usable, sourced to the secondary source. Self-published primary sources are great, but they are only usable for certain things, and that doesn't include the material you were seeking to include. If her views are discussed in better reliable sources, we reflect that, sourced to them, paraphrasing how they talk about those views; otherwise you have to show 1. she is considered an established expert, or 2. the claims are non-contentiously and directly about herself and not third parties/events. Self-published primary sources are sources we can use when they meet the exceptions, and I haven't seen where this material clearly meets the exceptions outlined in policy.__ E L A Q U E A T E

22:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Now look, the article may be about her, but the material is something like "She states that the aluminum in flu shots causes adverse effects". That's not strictly about a common "belief" that any reader can quickly judge the quality of. She's not presenting it as a personal view, but of the findings of non-mainstream science. Yes, it is verifiable that she wrote those words down, but there is a higher threshold than that for whether something is reliable enough for us to repeat possibly fringe claims. Those thresholds include

WP:V grounds. I'm sorry to repeat this. Your statement It is not an extraordinary claim to say, "I believe I was abducted by aliens" is not something I think most editors would agree with.__ E L A Q U E A T E

15:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

That whole block of text shouldn't be included without some indication the blog post was somehow significant and noted, from an independent RS (and not another blog). Otherwise we could list a mention of every individual blog post anyone's ever done, sourced to the blogs they appeared on (eg "On Aug 2, she made a comment on her notice board, sourced to her notice board"). If an RS has noted her opinions on vaccines, a statement about her holding those views could be included, but sourced to that independent RS. Otherwise people are using the article to document bloggy back-and-forth.__ E L A Q U E A T E 13:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

To S. Rich, you can see if the edit I made addresses your concerns. __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

It does. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 15:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

To be even-handed, I have to point out that some of the criticism that is both sourced solely to blogs and that also somehow makes a claim about her personally (not strictly her claims) should also come out, even though I completely respect the expertise of some of the bloggers involved, per

WP:UGC}. SPS are arguably okay to address the substance of a claim, but not the person. __ E L A Q U E A T E

16:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your even handed approach. The Forbes piece may be acceptable as a NEWSBLOG. As the experts are commenting on the claims about how flu vaccines work, it seems they are not writing about Hari as a person. In any event, this portion of the thread may be best discussed on the article talk page. – S. Rich (talk) 16:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The Forbes one is a "contributor" blog, which is a fascinating RS problem all by itself.[59] Contributor blogs are user-generated-content unless it says "staff writer" under the writer's name. I removed it to be safe on both RS and BLP grounds without prejudice to the idea that there are strong and compelling criticisms of the substance of her claims. I think it gets into disputable territory when the headlines call her fool or idiot as to whether including the citation is also including a personal claim. There are many sources of criticism for her, and I think the article is best served by including those most clearly focussed on the claims or are most clearly not SPS.__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I noticed an editor adding an analysis from a blog to a

I tried to raise this kind of issue from a different direction and got no response here. I don't think that simply because something is labeled a blog, it should be discounted as a reliable source. I think we should consider the source. A blog is simply a method of delivery of news. If it is associated with a major newspaper, we should consider it as reliable as the newspaper. A small blog done by an expert in a particular subject, should be respected. You would see a history of expert information from this source that proves their veracity. A blog just written by "some guy on the internet", should get the same respect as he were a kook standing on a soapbox on the corner. That same kook should deserver no better respect if somehow he manages to get his opinions published in a book, though it should be noteworthy if that book is widely read and thus disseminated amongst the public. You are specifying an opinion piece distributed by a major newspaper, thus we must assume this opinion is widely read if not widely held. And the writer claims to be an expert in the field, which is how the newspaper credits his opinion. Its reliable as an opinion. And that's my opinion. Trackinfo (talk) 09:16, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

See

WP:NEWSBLOG. I'm not a particular friend of the Telegraph, but for basic news and properly attributed opinions, I see no problem. I would not use the particular article in question as a source for facts - it's written very much in the style of an opinion piece. --Stephan Schulz (talk

) 09:50, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I personally treat all blogs as self-publications. The newspaper is just hosting the newspaper blogs, but it is not giving them the benefit of its "publication". Uday Reddy (talk) 15:40, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Trackinfo that this should be treated as an opinion piece from a respectable newspaper whether it is called "blog" or not. However, it does matter what specific content the article is being used to support. Could you post the line or lines here? Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

(Pinging some users to participate @

• Source: An interview by Black magazine to a singer.
• Article: Trouble (Natalia Kills album)

The source given above links to an interview by Black magazine to singer

• I read through the about page that you pointed out, and the fact that they monitor reader submissions is a plus (in my eyes) in regards to quality control. I don't see any reason why the source can't be trusted. WikiRedactor (talk) 17:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• I can't find any problems either. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 18:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• Looks good to me! —JennKR | ☎ 18:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

• You've got green light from me too. I would have responded back at WP:ALBUM earlier, but couldn't find the link which leads to this review. But seems fine to me.--Retrohead (talk) 07:41, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Is this source^[1] RS for this edit. I have given two further examples from other sources on the talk page of the article, "While it has been documented that crimes of war were committed by all sides to the conflict, the most exhaustive United Nations (U.N.) report, as well as an assessment by the United States' Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), estimates the following proportions: 90% of the crimes committed were by Serb fighters, 6% by Croat fighters, and 4% by Muslim forces."[60] "In an exhaustive report to the United Nations, a special Commission of Experts, chaired by Cherif Bassiouni of DePaul University in Chicago, concluded that globally 90 percent of the crimes committed in Bosnia-Herzegovina were the responsibility of Serb extremists, 6 percent by Croat extremists, and 4 percent by Muslim extremists. These conform roughly to an assessment drafted by the American CIA."[61] yet the addition was reverted with the claim that the source is not reliable and is biased. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:55, 2 August 2014 (UTC)