Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 181

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 175

←

Archive 179

Archive 180

Archive 181

Archive 182

Archive 183

→

Archive 185

• Source: Mitchell, David. (8 May 2010) "David Mitchell on Historical Fiction", The Telegraph: "Charles Dickens’ second stab at a historical novel, A Tale of Two Cities, has sold more than 200 million copies to date, making it the bestselling novel — in any genre — of all time...."
• Article: List of best-selling books
• Content:

Title	Author	Language	Year of publication	Number of copies sold
A Tale of Two Cities	Charles Dickens	English	1859	200 million

Bearing in mind that the figure of 200 million has been in our article since 2008, where it was based on a throw-away line from a theatre review, and that our list is widely copied, including by the mainstream media, it seems likely that David Mitchell sourced the information directly or indirectly from Wikipedia.

The claim that this book has outsold its nearest rivals is extraordinary, and needs extraordinary evidence. Further making the claim unlikely and increasing the demand for evidence:

• The field is not without serious researchers, for example A Hundred Years of Publishing, Being the Story of Chapman & Hall, Ltd. 1930, who would have been likely to comment on such extraordinary sales.
• In 1910 it was reported in The Strand that a total of 24 million copies of all of Dickens works put together were estimated to have been produced.
• Generally "A Tale of Two Cities", though not without its proponents, is significantly less popular than "A Christmas Carol", and less popular than "Great Expectations" and "Oliver Twist".

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC).

You're right that the claim in the article predates the citation given to support it. I would suggest removing the recent citation because it's hard to have total confidence in its reliability, recognizing the possibility of circular reference. However, I wouldn't remove the claim yet, without a good faith search that contradicted it. The list is clear about its limits, and it shouldn't be taken to authoritatively say who wins, when the list is incomplete and contains estimates of unknown range. __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Considering that, as had been explained to Rich Farmbrough before he came here, the claim about the 200 million was made in sources independent of Wikipedia before we first published it, there is no reason to assume that David Mitchell got his information from us, and not from our original source or from whatever source that one was based on. I made it clear on the article talk page that the claim dates from at least 2005. And I dispute the claim that Tale of Two Cities is less popular than his other works, since it seems to be very often used in a school context, which, over the decades, creates a significant number of sales... this source claims that he sold 2 million copies of all his books together between 1900 and 1906 alone, and that's just from Chapman & Hall, not the many translations. This source claims that Dickens (all works together) sold 1 million copies in 1968 in the US alone! The Daily Review (for what it's worth) claims that Dickens' works were printed by the millions in the USSR[1] (20 million by 1966![2]) This source[3] seems to go more into detail on the success of "A Tale of Two Cities" specifically, but from what I can see, it is clear that figures from 1910 and thereabouts are meaningless, as the sales figures of Dickens were still increasing significantly in the 1960s. This source claims that only four titles rank consistently among the bestsellers of Collins (whatever Collins is, it has sold 29 milion copies): David Copperfield, Oliver Twist, A Tale of Two Cities, and Treasure Island. This indicates again that "A Tale of Two Cities" is one of the best-selling books by Dickens, more so than e.g. "Great Expectations".

Fram (talk

) 21:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

There is plenty of reason to think that he used Wikipedia, for one thing almost all mentions of 200m copies are in lists which are clearly derived from that article.

Secondly the raw arithmetic does not add up. In 1968, for example, the US probably formed at least half the market for English classics. The total US sales would have had to be running about 20 million if we are to believe the Canadian Bookseller and Library Journal that the sales are reasonably equally divided amongst his (20 or so) titles.

Nelson, and Collins are publishing houses.

200m might be a good estimate for Dickens as a whole (a decade or so back), and may even be what someone mis-quoted. But to stand this figure up for one book requires good secondary source, not OR extrapolated from his Russian sales. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC).

I think removing that source would indeed be a step forward. I and I presume the others that have commented on this here, here, here, here and externally^{[TOTC 1]} will have searched for supporting data. But that is not really a question for here. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC).

Your links to discussions don't dispute the 200 million, but ask for sources for his other books[4][5], ... I don't dispute that other works by Dickens have sold more than 10 million copies, and invite everyone to include those for which they find reliable sources. But to remove a reliable source on the mere speculation that it may have been based on our list, even though there is clear evidence that the same claim circulated before we published it, and there is sufficient evidence that "A Tale of Two Cities" is indeed the or one of the two bestselling novels by Dickens (e.g. the Collins source given above), is pointless bickering and goes against

Fram (talk

) 08:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

A reliable source which seems not to be based on our list but still gives the 200 million figure: this French magazine, which includes a number of books missing from our list (Alice, Don Quixote, ...).

) 08:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

That does look independent, but it isn't terribly reliable. It's just a report on an image from lovereading.com, which indicates little or no editorial oversight for the magazine - in fact it's aabout as reliable as the Pinterst pages that have pinned the image. The source is a blog post. Of course it may be correct, but we will only find out if a truly reliable source can be found. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC).

Simply noting that according to this source there seems to be some sort of serious question regarding the reliability of the data for any such lists at all. Particular concerns which occur to me include exactly how individual publishers use the word "selling." For instance, would a publisher who sold a huge number of copies of a book to a waste paper management firm count those books as "sold" or not? Would remainder books sold in bulk to a retailer who then sells them as paper count? The article as is seems to be making a number of assumptions regarding the use of the word "sell" which seem to be open to question. One particular concern which comes to mind is the "sales" of the Bible and other works, many of which can be shown to be "sold" to churches for the purposes of being given away. Similar issues relate to the copies of Mao's works, which were given away to newlyweds and which probably count as "sold" by the publisher anyway. The article as it stands doesn't seem to discuss these issues, and that is probably to the detriment of the article itself. John Carter (talk) 00:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

But that is exactly the reason why things like the Bible and Mao's works are not included in our list. It is a bit strange to criticize a list for problems with some books, even though these exact books are explicitly excluded because of those reasons... The reliability of the remainder, yes, we are dependent on what reliable sources print, without the means (or the right, under

Fram (talk

) 07:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, but a blog post and a theatre review are not, despite what you say, reliable sources. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC).

True for the blog post, I didn't notice that about that French source. Why is a theatre review not a reliable source? It may not be the best source, and if we have better sources contradicting it, then of course we can dsicount it; but sources from 1910 or 1930 can not be used to discount sales figures from 2005, certainly not when I have provided plenty of sources from inbetween indicating that this novel was a constant bestseller (one of the most popular of the classics) for much of the tewntieth century, and contrary to what you claimed not one of his less popular works. Is the 200 million correct? I have no way of knowing this. Is it obviously enough wrong to remove it despite the sources? No, there is no reason to let dubious

Fram (talk

) 08:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

A theatre review is not a reliable source because it is not subject to fact-checking in the same way that other traditional journalism was. It is largely the opinion of the author and is not expected to be relied upon as a source of facts, except as far as relates to the production itself (location, cast, time of performances, cost of tickets and so forth). Certainly not as the basis for an encyclopaedic claim.

It's perhaps not germane to the case in question (I can't bring up that original Broadway.com link) but I'd question a blanket assertion that a theatre review is a less reliable source than "traditional journalism". Partly because of a negative - the vast majority of "traditional journalism" has never been fact-checked by anyone other than the author anyway, so theatre reviews are no worse in that respect - but also because of a positive: a serious theatre reviewer (or film reviewer, music critic, art critic etc.) is likely to be far more knowledgeable about their field than a news reporter. In many cases they may have high academic qualifications relating to, and/or be an acknowledged authority on, an aspect of the art form in question. Obviously a case-by-case decision would be needed on whether they were RS, but it would be foolish to throw them out altogether based on some spurious distinction between reviews and reportage. Barnabypage (talk) 08:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The Guinness Book of Records, for all that it is not what it once was, is a fairly reliable source. Hence their equivocation: "it is believed that" the sales were 200m.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC).

Which is all we claim to present as well. Books which are believed to have sold more than 10 million copies, with independent sources supporting that claim. I have no objection to replacing the David Mitchell source with the Guinness source, they both postdate the first online traceable claim of 200 million anyway, so that's not an argument to decide the choice between those two of course. The best would be some relatively recent study by a Dickens scholar, or a publishing scholar, confirming or changing this figure, but without such a source we have to deal with what is available, and accept that they may be in error.

Fram (talk

) 15:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

That is precisely why we have excluded Cervantes and many others. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:30, 13 December 2014 (UTC).

If you have a newspaper source, or Guinness, or anything comparable, giving a figure for Don Quixote, I'ld be glad to include it.

Fram (talk

) 08:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

SimplyPsychology

I was cleaning up some student work and I came across a couple references to SimplyPsychology.org.[6] The site appears to be the work on grad student at the University of Manchester.[7] I'm guessing this isn't an RS (not a recognised expert, etc.) but I thought I'd seek some opinions (it doesn't seem to have been addressed here previously). Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

If it's a grad student doing their own thing, I'd say it generally wouldn't be reliable. A thesis that is reviewed by their committee is considered a shaky source already, so what's essentially an independent website / sort of blog wouldn't even approach that level of reliability.

talk

) 19:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Sounds about where I was (though even theses are seen as iffy in many contexts. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

He does have extensive bibliographies on each post, this resource is still a good jumping off point to find a reliable source that was not previously used in an article and have some new relevant material to be a source to info that has a citation needed template, for example. A lot of non-RS are not wrong or unusable for basic research purposes. Though editors who research and add to articles are a dying breed.Camelbinky (talk) 17:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Is an online article printed in

considered a reliable source?

Thank you! Awesomest editor (talk) 00:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Which article on AVN for which Wikipedia article to support what content? The answer ranges from ABSOLUTELY YES to NO WAY IN HELL depending upon what we are talking about. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your rapid reply. The AVN article in question is:

(Redacted)

I would like to use this article to support the content that the artist (NOT the porn star, but the blogger) known an as Violet Blue was formerly known as (Redacted). This is a direct quote from the article.

I will be using this reference for the page on Violet Blue.

Awesomest editor (talk) 03:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

That looks like it involves a contentious claim. Contentious claims about living people need multiple, better quality sources. The (Redacted) seems to be a possible name that one side in a legal dispute is insisting the other side is called. Totally messy. __ E L A Q U E A T E 04:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, looking more into this, there are serious BLP problems here. It looks like a history of people possibly trying to use the Wikipedia page to harm the subject of the BLP. __ E L A Q U E A T E 04:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• Well, I'm confused. It appears that there's one author that might or might not have been born with the name "Violet Blue", and another (former?) adult film actress that used to be known by that same, exact name. Since it appears that Wikipedia has been involved (and apparently quoted) in this dispute for a while now, I think it would be best to just leave any "birth names" out of both of these articles. Birth names don't usually add a whole lot to Wikipedia articles in this genre anyways. I'm not sure what should be done with this redirect though, which appears to contain the adult actress' "real name", which does not fully appear in her own Wikipedia article - except indirectly through the caption of this picture and a number of mentions of the last name "Johnson". What a mess... Guy1890 (talk) 05:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I've tried to clean up the actress' article to remove any mentions of what may or may not be her real name. Guy1890 (talk) 06:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I think I know the answer to this one, but any opinions on the West Seattle Blog? It's mentioned briefly in the

they have an editor, but that's the same person that has written at least 2 of the 3 articles that I'm interested in.

The specific information it's being used in The Hum article to support is the resolution to an event previously reported in the national press. There was a "hum" that people heard, it was thought to be due to a species of fish,[8] but later determined not to be.[9] So far, so reliable. However normal media then lost interest, but the West Seattle Blog kept at it, located the source, communicated it to the relevant business,[10] who then fixed it.[11] Incidentally, their initial report[12] is what created the interest in the nationals.

The blog doesn't count as a

and the author of the articles isn't a published expert in the field.

Also, assuming the blog is not reliable by WP's definition, can we

) 18:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Counter Currents

Hi. It has come to my attention that a number of articles (amongst several others: Leo Yankevich , Ethnic nationalism, Framheim and Polheim) refers to the website/publishing house Counter Currents. Counter Currents declare themselves as being connected to something called the "North American New Right". I'm very sceptical about this website/publisher, having looked at a couple of the articles on the site. According to Searchlight Magazine Counter Currents is "an American blog/website that functions as a meeting point for European New Right thinking and old style Nazism and white supremacy". Manxruler (talk) 18:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

May this page be used as a reference for contributors to WOT Services? I think it fails notability to serve as such. See discussion at bottom part of Talk:WOT Services#Unbalanced-tag by user 116.90.224.115.— Preceding unsigned comment added by WeatherFug (talk • contribs) 16:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• A bit of background. I came to the WOT Services talk page by way of
  WP:3O. There is an ongoing discussion between WeatherFug and an IP as to whether there should be mention in the article of claims of fraud, etc. against WOT, with WeatherFug arguing that no reliable sources had been produced. I found a citation to the article in question in one of the reverted edits and offered my opinion that, in the absence of better sources, it would be in order to use this one. There is an article on the site's owner here that includes a profile of the organization from the inside of his book. Am I wrong to think it would be allowable? Scolaire (talk
  ) 17:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this source is usable for the material. That article outlines a personal dispute the owners of the website had with WOT, when the article website could be considered "self-published/with little reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". However, the article, WOT Services, looks like it has clear NPOV problems. The only (pseudo) negative material is the fact that they won a lawsuit against them. Everything else is borderline promotional. The reviews section is comprised entirely of a single sentence that reads The rating tool has received several reviews in the press. without mentioning anything the reviews said. This is probably unintentionally funny, as the article is covering a webservice fueled by customer reviews. This is probably an article that should be considered over at the NPOV board, but there's definitely something off. __ E L A Q U E A T E 17:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear Elaqueate, I am puzzled. How does the absence of negative material in an article indicate there must be a NPOV problem? What exactly is the problem? And what exactly does the expression "borderline promotional" mean? I must admit the reviews section could use some improvement. If you feel like taking a shot at it, please do not hesitate. Thank you, WeatherFug (talk) 23:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The absence of any negative material in many articles wouldn't indicate there "must be" an NPOV problem in all articles, but in this specific case, where the linked reviews aren't 100% positive, it does mean part of the sources' assessments have been left out, and left out in other sections. Examples of the borderline-promotional corporate tone can be found in the completely unsourced "services" section, which contains sentences like The program software at WOT headquarters is not public. It may be suffering from not having much non-promotional coverage since 2011. On closer inspection, I see that the Reuters source in that article is a press release, not an independent-qualified story. __ E L A Q U E A T E 00:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

User Scolaire took the liberty to also take the discussion here but he apparently forgot to inform you. Please, also be advised to read the report about my major cleanup of the article in December 2011 and take the effort to wade through history from there. My aim is not (and never has been) to just revert criticism, but to keep the article free from insufficiently sourced POV. I have said this several times before and I'll say it again: If you or anyone else can contribute to improve the article with relevant information in a NPOV manner and backed up with references that meet Wikipedia guidelines for WP:RS and WP:N, please be my guest! Thank you, WeatherFug (talk) 01:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I pinged Elequeate when I posted at the NPOV noticeboard, to make sure he was aware of it. Scolaire (talk) 10:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Oops, sorry I missed that. Regards WeatherFug (talk) 11:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't commenting on your specific edits; I'm only speaking to the article's condition as I found it. I took out the lawsuit that mentioned a BLP, as it was only sourced to

self-published sources and a primary court document that didn't directly support all of the details and assessments made in the article. Most of the article is still completely unsourced. __ E L A Q U E A T E

01:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention and work. I hope you'll keep the page in your watch-list. Do you consider the ArcticStartup article a self-published source? Though it seems largely written on basis of the company press release, it contains an original interview with the CEO, plus a copy of the verdict from the Florida court. Regards, WeatherFug (talk) 11:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I'm involved with an editor at the AfD for

12:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

1.Source. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=AKWvPRIkvVEC&pg=PA174&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false

2.Article. Sharabha

3.Content.

The Linga Purana and Sharabha Upanishad also mention this mutilation and murder of Narasimha. After the mutilation, Vishnu assumed his normal form and retired to his abode, after duly praising Shiva. It was from here on that Shiva came to be known as "Sharabeshamurti" or "Simhagnamurti"

22:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

This book is the online (google) book: Elements of Hindu iconography of Gopinatha Rao, one of the most cited books on Hindu iconography. [13]. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

references/sharabha

1.Source. http://web.archive.org/web/20120210092350/http://www.celextel.org/108upanishads/sarabha.html 2.Article. Sharabha 3.Content. The Linga Purana and Sharabha Upanishad also mention this mutilation and murder of Narasimha. After the mutilation, Vishnu assumed his normal form and retired to his abode, after duly praising Shiva. It was from here on that Shiva came to be known as "Sharabeshamurti" or "Simhagnamurti" 22:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankisur2 (talk • contribs)

@Ankisur2: The problem is that celextel.org was the website of an internet store. Did they have an editorial staff vetting the information they put up, or was it just an unchecked dump from somewhere else? You have a good point that the source may not be reliable. —C.Fred (talk) 22:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

In that case,how should the article and reference be modified?

08:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the reference from the article. As explained Ankisur2's "The secondary references (Rao and Granoff) support the version in Sharabha Upanishad. Sarabha Upanishad translation (primary source) is given if any one wants to read the Upanishad further."Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Jay-Z#Clarification. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Source is http://web.wm.edu/so/fasa/filipino-american_history_month.htm for claiming Jay-Z to be a Filipino American. VandVictory (talk) 14:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The claim on the student association website has sources, but does not link to specific articles, which I am unable to find online. Therefore, I do not believe that the student association website is a

reliable source, nor does it back its claim to the original reliable sources.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk

) 21:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed it is just a mention without any references. VandVictory (talk) 23:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Here is the part that was used:

Fact for Oct. 4:

What do Chris Judd (ex-husband of Jennifer Lopez), rapper Jay-Z, singer Enrique Iglesias, actor Lou Diamond Phillips, and MTV Real World star Lori (from the second New York City season) have in common? They are all half-Filipino.

Sources: Spin Magazine, A. Magazine, Filipinas Magazine, MTV.com

Note that there are no live links to these alleged sources, and I have not been able to find a secondary source for the claim. Thus why I removed it.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Can this video be used to source statements about Electronic cigarette hardware? The uses include:

• Use it to source the claim that says that wicking materials and airflow greatly affects the quality of the vape, add that certain wicking setups add to the quality as well.
• Introducing high powered specialized mods. Subsequently talking about what kind of atomizer may or may not be used with them.
• Talking about different materials like pyrex and stainless steel that are better than materials previously used.
• Source a claim that talks about puff counter and puff duration on certain mod (I don't remember if the claim is still there, if not I would add it.)

Journal articles of Doctor Farsalinos are already in the Electronic cigarette article, # 30 and 47 in the list of references. He is frequently cited by reliable sourced like news stories link to search. The video is a interview of him by a E-cigarette reviewer Phil Busardo and could be sourced to his website. link The question is, is the video a reliable source on hardware for the views of Doctor Farsalinos, an expert? AlbinoFerret 00:37, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I would like to add that RS discussing technical aspect of ecigs are extremely scarce. It must be made clear that the intention behind using this source is NOT to make medical or scientific claims but rather describing advanced devices that other conventional source of info ignores. TheNorlo (talk) 02:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

[14] It is reliable because users cannot change the content and only Valve, the official tf2 people, can change it, right? DanDan0101 (talk) 06:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I haven't registered there to try, but from what I read on the Wiki, any registered user can add and change content. So no, I don't think it qualifies as a reliable source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The

) 00:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

...which has not only conducted its own original research

Conflating Wikipedia's specific internal guidelines regarding sourcing with the standard real-world practice of journalism/criticism makes for a really bad start. --Calton | Talk 16:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Calton is correct about the misuse of the term "original research". That said, I'm really uncomfortable using the Huffington Post—which is ultimately a partisan blog, albeit a high-profile one—as a source in general, but particularly for contentious material with

WP:BLP implications. I would strongly favor removing it here and instead prioritizing higher-quality sources.

Vox, on the other hand, seems fine to me. The piece in question looks like sober explanatory journalism. The original poster's sole objection seems to be that the piece is written by a pseudonymous author. First of all, that's not necessarily a problem, and secondly it appears to be false. I don't see any indication that Dara Lind is a pseudonym; what's the evidence for this claim? In any case, I don't see a huge problem with Vox, although I'm open to being convinced. MastCell ^Talk

16:52, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I didn't mean to conflate the two with "original research" as in a Wikipedia term, but that it is "original reporting" and not merely taking a source and running with it. Also the [[15]] post I referred to came out to be blatantly false and the editor continues to reinsert it. With Vox, the fact that it seems to be an offshoot likened to Huffington Post is a concern for BLP. For Dara Lind Dara Lind - Jetpack Comandante" Things that surprise people who mostly know me from the Internet: I am not "mousy"; I am "secretly Midwestern." I don't know how to pronounce my name, either." Does not seem to be an accountable individual. Most of the sources are pile ons and not really advancing anything that hasn't been covered by the New York Times and others. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, what? You think Dara Lind is not "an accountable individual"... why? Because she's less mousy than people expect her to be? Because she's Midwestern? And does this mean you no longer think her name is a pseudonym? I'm confused by your objections to the Vox source, even more so now. MastCell ^Talk 02:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I change my opinion on the Vox article in the article. They correct their errors. Perhaps the one I saw was fluke? HuffPo has 4 I raised issues on, but Vox is fairing better under my tests than I thought it would as a whole. Truly - sample size. I concede to you @MastCell:, unless I find a major issue I'll give Vox the benefit. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

This editor is removing content en masse [16], just because it is sourced to Vox or HuffPo. This while there are ongoing discussions about specific edits based on these sources. Neither HuffPo, nor VOX are unreliable per se, and editors' consensus is to address each sentence sourced solely to these two media outlets to validate them - Cwobeel (talk) 00:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I do not think we consider HuffP or its derivative as RS for controversial BLP, except as the personal opinions of the authors of the article ere. There may conceivably be exceptions, but they would have to be considered one by one and defending--the presumption is against them. DGG ( talk ) 08:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

@

The Huffington Post is the first commercially run digital media enterprise to win a Pulitzer Prize (David Wood, in the category of national reporting). Is it a partisan source? Probably. But Fox News is also a highly partisan source and we consider it reliable. So, material sourced to articles in the HuffPo, like any other source, have to be evaluated on its merits. - Cwobeel (talk)

19:52, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

what you said shows, is that David Wood's work may be reliable. I do not consider Fox reliable on many subjects either--certainly not for anything involving a judgment in American politics. (I am unfamiliar with Vox.) DGG ( talk ) 21:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

• The difference between organizations like FoxNews is that the operate under the aegis of a highly professional news operation, while HuffPo is 2nd tier at best. Rolling Stone should be a major wake up call.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 02:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll take Vox. They are doing better than I thought in checking the details out and they do correct unlike most HuffPo which seem to have lax editorial control and free with their "opinions". Also, David Wood's work may be reliable for HuffPo - but that is an exception and not a rule of thumb. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the reliability of Huffington Post, I'll say this: it's a big site, it has a lot of opinion, and it has some news reporting. On the front page now, I see this article about Colorado marijuana legalisation which seems to feature original reporting based on court records and seems pretty legitimate. Huffington Post does do some original, legitimate reporting. It also republishes AP stories, rewrites stories from other reasonably legitimate news outlets, and it publishes gigabytes of complete crap. For a long time, HuffPo published quite a considerable amount of "vaccines cause autism" opinions, as well as articles from various

—which I think most people are reasonably happy to think of as reliable—publish crazy unreliable rubbish too. You need to apply some human judgment to tell the difference.

As for Vox, I'm not too familiar with the site, but what I've seen has been reasonably impressive and unconcerning. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I have been in a debate with another editor over the User and Critical Reception of the PCKeeper article. Despite positive reviews of this software from reliable sources, this editor has included sources such as a youtube video by Ba Tech (a channel with a whopping 9 followers) and content farms such as http://www.2-spyware.com/remove-pckeeper.html, http://www.safebro.com/pckeeper-virus-remove, http://removirus.com/2014/06/how-to-remove-pckeeper-uninstall-instructions/, http://www.repair-errors.com/pckeeper-removal-the-easy-way-to-remove-pckeeper-from-your-pc/, http://www.pc-virusremove.com/remove-pckeeper-how-to-uninstall-remove-pckeeper/, and http://www.2-viruses.com/remove-pckeeper#comment-1970577. These sites seem to offer generic instructions for removing software (most of them seem to apply to any software) and often read as if they were creating using fill-in-the-blanks template for each piece of software. I have no affinity for PCKeeper (I've been trying to remove promotional language from this article for a while), but calling this software malware when sites like ZDNet say otherwise. Are any of these considered reliable for statements that the software is malware (statements which the manufacturer could conceivably consider libel)? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello! I'm relatively new, so I apologize if I make a procedural mistake, and I'll try to explain the issue fully.

We have a source that would definitely be considered reliable generally, but which makes an assertion that seems quite a bit unreliable in context. The source in question is is a Columbia Journalism Review article, written by Chris Ip. Both the author and the publication are generally considered reliable, and that general reliability is not disputed here. The question is whether the third element of

, the work itself, could have enough affect on the reliability of the assertion presented to question the reliability of the source being used to convey that specific assertion within the WP article.

The issue comes with this statement within the article:

"Yet many criticisms of press coverage by people who identify with Gamergate—about alleged collusion in video games between journalists and developers or among reporters—have been debunked."

I've recreated the inline link as it is presented in the article/source here. The specific issue is that the article treats the subject matter, specifically that there was "collusion... among reporters" as a fact, and cites the inline link, apparently to support this fact. The inline link leads to an article/blog post by Kyle Orland. Mr. Orland is the subject accused of creating and managing the so-called "GameJournoPro" list, the list that has been accused of being the channel by which collusion among reporters was alleged to have taken place.

Without getting into the discussion on whether there was collusion, or whether the list was actually proof or not, the issue is whether a response from the accused list creator could be seen as definitive evidence debunking the collusion charge. There are several other sources that offer their opinion, and they are prescribed with due weight within the WP article as to the charges alleged here, but the source in disputed here is the only one that labels the debunking as a fact rather than an opinion.

So, without any other source within the CJR article linking to where the debunking fact was generated, it appears to only be using the alleged list creator as its source for debunking the collusion charge. If this was simply offered as the opinion of the author, there would be no issue. But by presenting this as a fact, and using the inline link to support this supposition, the reliability of the statement is tied to the underlying link. The underlying link would likely be considered unreliable per

.

So, the question presented here is: When an otherwise reliable source makes an assertion of fact, and uses an unreliable source as the apparent sole support for this assertion, is the specific assertion considered unreliable per

) 17:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding regarding Wikipedia policy here - we don't second-guess sources, and rule them out for specific statements because we don't like sources they may have used. We expect them to use their own standards of judgement, and their own methods of verification regarding the reliability of the sources they themselves use, and if they are prepared to use them for specific statements, we trust their judgement. It should be noted that there is no requirement whatsoever that a source we use even cites a source at all, and most journalistic sources don't. And incidentally, the suggestion that the "sole support" for the CJR statement comes from the articles linked is nothing but guesswork. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

If that is the case, than the following statements in

WP:RS

don't make sense.

"The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:

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

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

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

Any of the three can affect reliability.

And WP:RSContext stating: "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content." Would make no sense if we could not challenge a source. (Emphasis added)

Finally, the News Organizations section in [[WP:RS] specifically states "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article should be assessed on a case-by-case basis." (Emphasis added)

If we cannot challenge sources, even ones that are normally reliable, than how is anything ever done on a 'case-by-case' basis.

Additionally, I stated "apparent sole-source" because it may or may not be the sole source, but it at least does appear to be for that specific statement. Ries42 (talk) 17:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I guess that if it's important to you to write: "The Columbia Journalism Review described the allegations as debunked...", rather than "The allegations were debunked...", then that's fine. I haven't looked at the context, though—if other reliable sources also describe the allegations as debunked, then a blanket statement of fact (without specific in-text attribution) would be more appropriate. I am a little wary of the effort to second-guess reliable sources based on little besides the opinions of pseudonymous Wikipedians, as AndyTheGrump describes above, and I wouldn't push this too far. On some level, it smacks of constructing a tortured six-degrees argument to disqualify a clearly reliable source which says something that you personally find unpalatable. Also, it's obvious that you're an experienced Wikipedian using an alternate account. I don't particularly care about your prior accounts, but please drop the pretense about being "relatively new". It's tiresome. MastCell ^Talk 18:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the compliment, but nope, this is my first time editing on wikipedia and I have no alts or previous accounts. Feel free to check my IP or do w/e you do to check that if you feel the need. I have just been reading a lot about it lately. I think my main issue is that CJR describes the debunking as a "fact" so labeling it like you say makes it seem more like an opinion, but perhaps that's better than nothing.

As for the doubting of an otherwise reliable source, I was under the impression that was encouraged, not discouraged. This is the only source that I've seen which describes it as "debunked" as a fact. There are several other sources that give opinions challenging the legitimacy of the collusion charge, and I would even say the majority of sources do challenge it so. My issue is that this is the only source that claims its a clear fact and it appears to do so on shaky grounds. Maybe another point in the unreliability of this specific source shows that it is out of line with other reliable sources which don't claim its an undisputed fact that the charges have been debunked, but rather just state it is the opinion of those individual authors who believe the charges are unsubstantiated. I would even agree that without the inline link, the source would present a stronger case that it is reliable, but by citing the inline link, it opens up the door to question the initial source's reliability to support the claim. Ries42 (talk) 18:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

@Ries42: Why does WP:RS not make sense? The piece of work is the article in CJR, the creator is the author of the piece, Chris Ip, and the publisher is CJR. As for challenging sources, certainly they can be - by e.g. demonstrating that other reliable sources contradict them. A 'challenge' which is based on a clear misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy regarding sources, which yours appears to be, isn't however valid. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The issue I have is that doesn't seem to be spelled out as such in

WP:RS

is extensive in listing ways a source may be unreliable.

I don't understand why challenging a source can only be limited to providing other reliable sources and not pointing out discrepancies within the source itself and the sources apparent characterizations. Of course such discussion is only appropriate in the talk page, and posting such challenges in the article text would be a clear violation of

WP:NOR. But disqualification of a source based on reliability shouldn't be limited to only contradictions between sources (although in a way we have that, as this appears the only source labeling the 'debunking' as a fact, which is a contradiction). Ries42 (talk

) 18:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

You haven't "point[ed] out discrepancies within the source itself". Instead, you have inappropriately tried to apply Wikipedia standards regarding sourcing in a context where they don't apply. As MastCell writes above, there may be grounds to attribute the 'debunked' assertion, rather than giving it in Wikipedia's voice, but I can see nothing in the source itself that suggests that it isn't a valid source for a statement that the author of the piece considers that many allegations made by gamergaters have been debunked. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

This article uses as sources:

1. About.com
2. Feministvoices.com
3. Paei.wikidot.com
4. Encyclopedia.com
5. Some unknown faculty person somewhere
6. Allpsych.com
7. Intellitheory.com

It is a list of women psychologists, all of whom have their own articles. It was created by a student as a draft,[17] moved by Wiki Ed staff to mainspace,[18], the title was corrected,[19] and finally it was moved more correctly to a list,[20] although there is no clear definition for inclusion in the list. There is a Category:Women psychologists.

Could people please opine on the reliability of the sources? If the sourcing is weak, could this article be moved back to the student's userspace? See also the commentary at the Education Noticeboard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Although #5 ("unknown faculty person somewhere") is a dead link, the url appears to refer to Megan E. Bradley, a Professor of Psychology at Frostburg State University. I imagine she would be a reliable source.[21] -

Location (talk

) 16:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Why do you imagine she would be a reliable source (see

Verifiability)? And the page isn't even maintained; most of the links are dead. SandyGeorgia (Talk

) 16:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

As a professor of psychology, I would consider her to be an expert on who might be women psychologists. The publisher in the url indicates the university she works. -

Location (talk

) 16:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:SPS? Specifically: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so.Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of contents.

The sample at Wikipedia:WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan/Marc Shepherd's Gilbert and Sullivan Discography provides an example of the kind of info needed to assert reliability for a self-published "expert". SandyGeorgia (Talk

) 17:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure. It's possible that she is not an expert in

Location (talk

) 19:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Location, to respond to queries at the reliable source noticeboard, it is helpful to become familiar with all aspects of

WP:SELFPUB. You did not answer the reliability question. SandyGeorgia (Talk

) 21:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure I did. You just don't like the answer. -

Location (talk

) 22:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

No, a person may be a reliable source for themselves, but they can't establish their own notability, particularly in a field as large as this. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Of course... but this was never about a person using self-published material to establish their own notability. -

Location (talk

) 00:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The credits in #7 appears to refer Jonathan Plucker who is an Endowed Professor of Neag School of Education at University of Connecticut.[22] Also a reliable source. -

Location (talk

) 16:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Again, see above. Being a professor does not make one a reliable source. Please put your response in the context of our Verifiability policy at

WP:SPS. Plucker appears to "supervise" the site, where graduate students submit the content. SandyGeorgia (Talk

) 17:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll point out that I don't think lists of X who do/have Y are notable in general. I seem to recall some guideline or policy saying not to do that, but it's escaped me. Either way, what's under dispute in their expertise here exactly? The source should to be reliable enough to determine the person is: 1. a psychologist. 2. a woman. I would think that any professor in the field would be reliable for determining something as simple as that given that they know the person in some fashion. One could get into whether the person in question is really a woman or not, gender identity, etc. but I'd have no idea how that would be tackled.

talk

) 17:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Kingofaces43, the problem is that the "List" goes well beyond a List and just asserting these are "women psychologists" ... it contains considerable text cited to the sources above (which coulda/shoulda been added to the individual bios, with perhaps better sources). SandyGeorgia (Talk

) 17:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Also,

WP:LSC. See List of psychologists; if the content was only a list, I would understand the use of marginal sources. But the content extends beyond a list, with considerable content cited to those marginal sources, and duplicating what should be already in the individual bios. SandyGeorgia (Talk

) 17:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. This is all why I don't like such lists and pretty much agree with you, but alas this isn't the place for that. This conversation may interest you if you haven't seen it already [23]. I would consider faculty, etc in the field. to be reliable sources for this information and general job description pages. Basically, for a person to be listed there, they should be notable enough for their own article anyways. This means there should either be a job description page somewhere, or a biography-ish type source to cite. I'd definitely consider everything else sub-par, but the reliability line seems blurry since it's a relatively simple assertion even though it could easily be incorrect too.

talk

) 17:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I will weigh in on the MED discussion. On the general listy thing, I would not have a problem with using any of these marginal sources to simply say, "this is a notable woman psychologist". I do have a problem with putting out extended bio information based on iffy sources, when that content should be placed in the individual articles, and better sourced. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree. If it's going to be a list, just list the names and nothing more. If the student wants to write bios (regardless of degree) those go on the subject pages.

talk

) 18:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

With respect, I just see a "don't like it" argument here and no real reason to demand the list be shorn of anything that raises it above duplicating the category. We have no guideline/policy that says pertinent biographical information must only go in the (possibly very long) article, nor that lists must be mere names. Suggest you examine some of our featured lists. The main thing I agree on is that a weak source might be sufficient for inclusion in this non-contentious grouping but not for extended biographical aspects. I should note that in my experience writing people lists in the past, that it is infinitely harder to get good biographies of scientists, doctors, business people vs sports stars and entertainers. Seems to me if you can hit a ball or sing a tune then the world will write about you, but if you actually do something useful like research a disease or build a bridge, then nobody cares. You will find plenty lists of famous cricketers and baseball stars with no problems sourcing, and I couldn't give a **** about them :-). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin (talk • contribs) 20:42, December 18, 2014

talk

) 03:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to

) 21:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Isn't a better question why we have this article? The people mentioned seem to be pioneers and that may deserve its own article. But there could be thousands of people included, most without their own articles and it would serve no value. TFD (talk) 04:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

While researching an unrelated topic, I noticed that since-blocked user User:Tobias Conradi appears to be the owner of tango.info[24]. Also see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tobias Conradi.

A link search shows that a few articles use tango.info as a source.

Is Tango.info OK for use as a source? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I can't see how the editing history of a Wikipedia contributor is relevant in assessing the reliability of a source he or she might own. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

As for Tango.info, I can't see any obvious reason to assume it is anything more than a self-published fan site, and accordingly can't see why it should be considered a reliable source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Opinions are needed on the following matter:

) 22:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The 1867 birth year is supported by the GRO Index entry. Keith D (talk) 22:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

How do you know that the birth certificate is his and not that of someone else with the same name born at a different date? You need a secondary source to make that call. TFD (talk) 03:00, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the place is specified also--does it match? DGG ( talk ) 08:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Does it match the source that gives the wrong birthdate? Even if it does, it could be it was for a cousin or an older brother who died in infancy. Or perhaps the name the subject used differed from the one on his birth certificate. TFD (talk) 18:18, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

A primary source can always be used to prove a secondary source incorrect. We don't use secondary sources to prove primary ones wrong. We're getting into terrible precedent when we have to go as far as cover all extraneous, unlikely, and frankly stupid possibilities just to prove a birth certificate "truthy". Some comments on this thread sound like they are straight out of a

birther movement pamphlet.Camelbinky (talk

) 19:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for that common sense! For Rab Howell there is no doubt about the birth and death certificates: I have researched his family tree: no cousins, no older brothers with the same name, the father and mother's name on the birth cert are of people he lived with at the census etc. His death cert is witnessed by his son. The secondary sources got it wrong. It is simple. I have been tearing my hair out trying to get a simple matter corrected on WP - but keep getting stopped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveK1889 (talk • contribs)

Keith D, what do you mean by "the GRO Index entry"? And do you agree with all of SteveK1889's changes to the article? Is that why you didn't revert him or comment about his changes on the article talk page?

) 08:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

But it is patent nonsense to not accept a birth and death certificate as the best source for birth and deaths! It discredits Wikipedia. My other changes are to remove conjecture in club books based on pure ignorance: such as thinking Rabbi might be a mistake, or the Scots abbreviation of Robert, when it is clearly taken from the Old Testament, as Romani names were. It is also insulting to Romani people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveK1889 (talk • contribs)

See WP:NOTFORUM - this has nothing to do with the purposes of this noticeboard. AndyTheGrump (talk ) 17:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I will be 80 years old next month, born in Den Haag and lived through this terrible war. It scarred me for life, my parent and the family emigrated to Canad in 1950. After seeing all the Canadian Soldiers in the City when Holland was liberated I wanted to become CANADIAN. After arriving in Halifax and on the way there I unconsciously started a new life, I don't know how, but erased all those bad war memories, including the Dutch language. There are obviously things you can't forget, bad thing and good things. A good thing I can recall is while I was just 10 years old my Dad whom owned a horse and wagon was hired (I believe) to pick up the dropped food and transport it to a distribution center which I think was operated by the Germans. I was fortunate to be able to go with him to help with managing the horse. I remember only bits and pieces of the operation. We entered a large field which was all fenced off with scary armed soldiers around it, there were German Soldiers at the entrance gate with rifles and bayonets, we were searched, I believe my dad had paperwork from somewhere to prove that he had been hired and allowed to enter. After entering the field we parked the horse and wagon under some trees along the side, my job was to hold the horse at his head when it was announced that a plane was coming. It was an unbelievable sight when a plane flew over, so low that I thought I could touch it if I had been standing on the wagon. Then a big opening appeared at the bottom of the plane and food fell to the ground. It was truly food from heaven. A lot of parcels fell apart upon hitting the ground, and food was scattered everywhere. My dad led the horse and wagon to where the bulk of the food was, the parcels were loaded with help from several other people, whom I assume were also hired. You just cant imagine what it felt like seeing all that food, we were allowed to eat some of the damaged food. The field had to be cleared to allow for another plane to drop more food. We pulled over to the side again under the trees, ate some canned meat and a chocolate bar. We were being watched closely by the soldiers , but while under the trees my dad managed to hide some chocolate bars under the horse's harness to take home for my mother and sisters. Some time later another plane flew over and dropped more food, the wagon was fully loaded and we left the field, were searched on the way out and the load was secured somehow (I can't remember how) to prevent us or anyone from taking any of it. We took it all to the distribution center. By the time the wagon was unloaded and we got back to the stable and took off the harness the chocolate bars had all melted. I'm very thankful for everything that was done by all the volunteers and am appalled that these nasty wars still rage on. I hope and pray that one day there will be peace on earth and good will to men. Gerry Hol

Hey, are sources such as The Huffington Post, Alalam reliable for being used in

) 03:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Please read the notes at the top of this page. We don't make general judgements about reliability of sources (unless they are obviously unreliable, which isn't the case here). Instead, we need to know which source (i.e. specific article, not just publication) is being cited for which particular statement. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

@

Arba'een. Mhhossein (talk

) 13:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

For history etc. they are likely usable, but I am unsure about using specific estimates of number of pilgrims - the "twenty million" figure would need a better source for sure than the HuffPo blog. This s one case where an Iran-based agency (Alalam) should be usable, though I would not use it for a great deal otherwise. Collect (talk) 13:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Given Iran's state of affairs and lack of government transparency, if one uses the Iranian source you would have to specifically mention in the article "according to Alalam" for instance. Otherwise no it is not usable.Camelbinky (talk) 15:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I seriously doubt the actual article would be problematic, and it appears to be a factual article and not an editorial one in the case at hand. Collect (talk) 15:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

@Camelbinky: Could I know more about what you called "lack of government transparency"? Do other reliable sources such as BBC, FOX News, CNN, Times and etc "transparent"? Thank you. Mhhossein (talk) 18:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

@Collect and Camelbinky: How about this one is it reliable for the population and/or this one? Btw, how can the statements by the author of HuffPo blog article, Sayed Mahdi al-Modarresi be used? Mhhossein (talk) 18:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Fox News is not a reliable source. And NO source is ever ever ever 100% always reliable. Every statement by any source must be evaluated for whether it is likely that the source would be reliable about that particular piece of information and if it concurs or disputes other reliable information.Camelbinky (talk) 21:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Fox News is most certainly

WP:RS and making assertions contrary to repeated discussions on this board is not all that helpful. And "reliable" does not mean "correct" in any event - even the NYT makes a fair share of blunders. A Persian source about Persian religious observances is not exactly a place one is likely to find problems, while any source covering "celebrity gossip" is likely to err. Cheers. Collect (talk

) 21:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Lets not do the "Fox news is/isn't reliable" dance again... We have discussed the issue of reliability of media outlets multiple times... and the consensus has always been that major media outlets (no matter what their political leanings... yes, even Fox News, MSNBC, and the Huff Po) are generally reliable for basic news reporting (which does not mean that any given specific report is reliable). However, they are often not reliable when it comes to details (that really isn't their job). And, of course, we need to note the difference between news reporting and news analysis and commentary. Analysis and commentary is only as reliable as the specific annalist and commentator... and needs to be attributed. This is similar to the way the reliability of an Op-ed piece appearing in print journalism depends not on the newspaper, but on the author of the op-ed piece. Blueboar (talk) 21:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

There has been a dispute on New Russia Party about a month ago about this source [25]. The statements made by the writer of the source didn't seem very NPOV to me but they were placed in the article. Can someone please check if this is a reliable source or not? --Leftcry (talk) 04:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

As far as reliability goes... the fact that a source has a POV is not an issue... Sources are allowed to have points of view on the issues they discuss... they don't have to be neutral. We (Wikipedia editors), on the other hand, do have to be neutral. One of the ways we maintain our neutrality when discussing what non-neutral sources say is to include in-text attribution... when we take information from a non-neural source, we phrase our statements to make it clear that what we are mentioning is the opinion of the source. (Whether we should or should not mention that opinion in the first place is another matter... we try to avoid giving

Undue weight to fringe opinions). Blueboar (talk

) 16:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Columns are not reliable sources, except for the opinions of their authors. Unlike news stories, the writers do not have to be trained journalists, do not necessarily have any expertise about the subjects about which they write, are not required to use the same procedures to verify facts, and their writing is not subject to fact-checking.

Blueboar of course is right that sources do not have to be neutral, and many sources we use are not. The adage (from Sen. Moynihan) is "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." So reliable but non-neutral sources use actual facts to argue an opinion, and do not ignore facts they find inconvenient.

TFD (talk) 20:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

It's a reliable source for presenting Cathy Young's opinion of the issue, not for making any factual claims about it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I was told in the Tea Room that there is no absolute policy against submitting content relating to oneself. It is just that the content needs to be objective, which is nearly impossible. So I have tried to gather materials for a short stub article on Nathan Coppedge, a philosopher, artist, inventor, and poet, who lives in New Haven, CT.

However, all I have found to include are a few sentences expressing how he / I have been noted for perpetual motion designs , and also noted as a philosopher.

Those statements are supported (if that) by the following sources:

A somewhat major information-gathering site offers praise, presumably in a peer-reviewed fashion. Although it comes off rough, it is clear that some thought went into the response.^[1] An op-ed page google-ranked 7 has a sub-page in which the same hobby inventor is lauded as a philosopher:.^[2] However, that comment takes place as a comment, not in the primary opinion page. Also, a major reference page has a sub-page google-ranked 3 that cites the hobby inventor's work as a reliable source: ^[3]

I have had trouble gathering three sources which are up to even this level of quality. But perhaps you will surprise me and say that one or more of these might be usable in a stub.

Are any of these usable, even in a stub, or are they considered junk for not being more critical, and/ or not pertaining directly to the topic? None of the sources seem to have reason to be biased in the direction of hobby inventors, in my opinion. Jamal Martin, who says that I am '[C]learly a philosopher of this present age.' is not an acquaintance of mine. It seems to me that more reliable sources, for example, on the subject of Joseph Newman, or Fern Coppedge (a painter), were not soon in coming in those cases.NCoppedge (talk) 02:15, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The kgbanswers link is useless - it merely mentions your name without further explanation, though I can see no reason to think that it would be considered even remotely a reliable source anyway. The Dalia Martin page says nothing about you, while the inventors.about.com page merely links your website. If these are the best sources you can find, there is no possibility whatsoever of an article on you meeting our notability guidelines - we require significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. And it makes no difference if the article is a stub - the notability requirements are the same. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

You don't have sufficient sources and it's not a good idea to have an article about yourself anyway. It will rank first in any search for your name and will not be under your control. Anyone can add anything to it, and you will have to watch it to make sure nothing false enters, or hire someone to do that for you. If anything negative is ever written about you in even local free papers, it will likely be added. TFD (talk) 18:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

When citing a journal article that I found through an academic database (i.e. behind a paywall), I came across this site, thefreelibrary.com (also

\\ 18:58, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Institute for the Study of Globalization and Covert Politics ( www.isgp.nl )

I have started to see material from the Institute for the Study of Globalization and Covert Politics, www.isgp.nl, inserted into Wikipedia articles. The "About" page states that "[a]ll articles on ISGP were written by Joël van der Reijden" and indicates that the website was formerly known as the Project for the Exposure of Hidden Institutions but changed it's name "in an effort to make it sound both better and more professional".

) 22:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

From the site's About page we find encouragement in the statement that "The reason [this] site grew so much in the 2005-2010 period is due to early support of people working for Alex Jones sites Infowars and Prisonplanet." So yeah, it's obviously reliable for any and all statements of fact.

talk

) 23:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

In case it is not obvious, Boris is (a) being sarcastic (b) bang on the money. This falls into the "fuck no" bucket. Guy (Help!) 23:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Yup. About as useful as a chocolate frying pan. Not to be used. Ever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I wanted to know if the following sources are unreliable (regarding music-related articles) because they don't appear here and I have never used them so far.

1. Dubious sources recently added to two specific articles to support the new wave genre (a discussion was previously started on my own talk page) :

• Brutal Resonance (included in this article) (NB : only one song is specifically described as "new wave" and I really don't think it's enough to support this genre, as one song is not necessarily representative of what a band/act usually plays)
• ChuckURadio (included in the same article. I don't think it is reliable at all)
• A book called The Complete, Cross-referenced Guide to the Baby Buster Generation's Collective Unconscious, written by Glenn Gaslin and Rick Porter. (included in this article) I didn't find anything at all regarding the two authors so I don't think this reference should be included to support "new wave".

2. Websites I've already seen several times but I think they are all unreliable :

3. Specific reviews :

• Adrian Denning
• John McFerrin (can be found here)
• Mark Prindle
• Reocities reviews
• Reviews from Sputnikmusic written by Contributors. Emeritus and Staff reviews are considered reliable, User reviews are unreliable, but what about this last group ?
• Wilson & Alroy's Reviews

4. MusicMight "categories"

• Are MusicMight categories reliable ? I didn't find anything which proves the categories used by this website are reliable. (For the record, AllMusic sidebars are not considered reliable ; only the prose itself is considered reliable.)

It would help me a lot if someone could give me an answer ASAP for all these sources (and maybe other editors by the same way). Synthwave.94 (talk) 04:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Have you investigated the credentials of these websites? Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and most of them seem to be unreliable. However it would be better someone like you can confirm I didn't make any error. Synthwave.94 (talk) 16:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think we can answer the question (and certainly not quickly)... There is no such thing as a 100% un-reliable source (nor is there such a thing as a 100% reliable source). We can't simply take a list of sources and declare them reliable/unreliable in a vacuum .... We have to examine the specifics of how each is being used... knowing the context is vital. We need to examine the specific statements that each of these sources is supporting. A given source might be unreliable in one context, and yet completely reliable in another context. That said, I would agree that, on the surface, these sources seem iffy... there will be more situations where we would consider them unreliable than there will be situations where we would consider them reliable. Blueboar (talk) 14:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't expect a full answer you know, I only expect answers such as "this website doesn't seem very reliable". I always take care about the statement supported by one specific source, but also about the overall reliability of a specific source. I recently got a problem with highly dubious sources added by another editor in two articles : Brutal Resonance and ChuckURadio (both were included here to support the "new wave" genre) as well as a dubious book written by unknow persons included here, again to support the "new wave" genre. None of these sources seem reliable and I would like to be sure they are actually unreliable before removing them again. This is one of the reason I always avoid sources I usually don't use. Morepver I didn't find anything at all about all the websites mentionned above which prove they are reliable (as I said they don't appear at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources, even among the "sources to avoid" identified by other editors). I saw them in several articles and I would like to know if they should be kept or not to support a music genre. I hope it would help you a little bit more. Synthwave.94 (talk) 19:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I added the ChuckURadio source to the one article. It is the website of a radio station, so it would pass basic reliability issues in terms of editorial oversight, non-self-published content, etc. However, that is the only real source I can find that strongly supports Den Harrow of new wave, so I would say that

WP:UNDUE applies here. Also, there is this journal article that suggests that Den Harrow wasn't new wave, and that source, as an article published in a journal, appears more authoritative than the word of a DJ for some small radio station. For the book in the Baltimora article, I don't see any reason to question it. It is a work published by a third party, Boulevard Books, and the book is social science, discussing the "big-'80s", which I would say is relevant to the discussion of musical genres as musical genres would qualify as a valid subject of cultural study. The author might not be notable, but notability is not inherent to a discussion of reliability. As for the other sources, I'm not involved in any discussions involving them, but most seem unreliable. With Music Might, as long as Garry-Sharpe Young was the sole contributor, which is true for the link given above, I would consider the genre tags valid. The reason that they are considered invalid for AllMusic is because they are usually unrelated to the content contributed by an actual writer - the tags often conflict with the written review.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done

) 01:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I imagined most of these sources were unreliable, so I'm not going to use any of them. Regarding the book I previously talked about, notability matters. Authors of a field are supposed to be recognized as experts in their own field (eg. Christgau, Unterberger, most music critics who writes for AllMusic/Spin/Rolling Stone, etc fall under this category. That's not the case for Glenn Gaslin and Rick Porter. Can you prove they are music experts ? Can you prove they wrote other "serious" stuff ? I imagine you can't. Compared to the other source, established by authors who wrote several music-related works upon Italian music, this source is far too poor to be included in the article. (NB: stop edit warring while this discussion is ongoing, thanks.)Synthwave.94 (talk) 01:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

@Synthwave.94: It appears you're citing this thread to justify edit warring at Baltimora, when I don't see any consensus for the general statements you're setting forth. Specifically that an editor must demonstrate to your satisfaction that the authors of a book -- a book that was not self-published, and thus for which we can assume editorial oversight -- are "music experts" and/or "wrote other 'serious' stuff". --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

First of all, I would like to know if Credibility has any impact on what constitutes a reliable source.

Specifically for journalistic/news sources I have some questions:

• Does credibility have to be gained over a period time? If so, over what period of time?
• Can credibility only be lost? If so, how do we quantify the loss of credibility?
• Does credibility only pertain to individual writers? If so, does that mean the source overall can maintain reliability?
• Can credibility pertain to a source overall? If so, does publishing non-credible articles/writers detract from the credibility/reliability of the source, and to what extent?

With stories like this and this happening lately, it looks like credibility isn't doing so well. So do these stories impact the reliability of the source significantly enough to be unusable? (Though I guess rolling stone is probably already unusable.)

• What happens to Wikipedia articles that used these writers/sources for some of their content in the past? Or in other words, does changing reliability affect the reliability of past citation?
• Do we/should we have an open dialog of credibility and integrity of writers/sources and should they be proactive or reactive?
• And finally, do we err on the side of skepticism or trust?

Yeah, I know, this is loaded with questions.... TyTyMang (talk) 05:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I imagine that credibility is indirectly addressed in the opening sentence of the Overview in

Location (talk

) 05:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Yup - even the best sources get things wrong occasionally. Which is why we need to take care if using a single source (no matter how 'reliable') for contentious assertions, and why we need to avoid rushing headlong into breaking news. That won't guarantee perfection, or anything even approximating to it, but it may help to avoid some of the more obvious pitfalls. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

In general I would avoid using investigative journalism, and just report the parts of it that are picked up in mainstream media. Whether or not rs requires that, weight does. And the fact is that a lot of the first reporting of stories is inaccurate, but they tend to get corrected over time. That process is what makes mainstream news sources reliable. TFD (talk) 07:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

) 12:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but the core requirement is not "a mechanism for finding and correcting factual errors ", but rather "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The first can exist without being properly employed. The second is earned over time. "Truth" is indeed a problematic criterion, but, on the other hand, there is no reason to include obviously mistaken reports, even if they are published in usually reliable sources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

You seem to think that finding and correcting factual errors is not "fact checking"? A tad outré, that. Collect (talk) 23:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

To be finicky, no, its not, although it's close enough. The important semantic distinction is the one between "having a method" and having earned the reputation to reasoably apply it. I have a method for getting up at 7 am every day... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Our job is to summarize what sources say. Obviously we want that content to be factually correct, but sometimes things will simply get through that are incorrect. The best way to minimize that is to follow what folks aid above, but also avoid

) 16:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry it's taken me a while to process these replies.

So here's my next part: When we make articles on WP it requires reliable sources, or more specifically, reliable articles. I understand we aren't exactly looking for facts or truth.

The question: What happens when facts are available that completely oppose an article that is being use as a source? Does the article lose reliability? OR Does it require another article of a sufficient "quantity" of reliability to discredit the reliability of that article used? (Is there a way to quantify reliability?)

To put it simply, I understand that articles are are not required to stand up to facts on Wikipedia. But are the sources Wikipedia uses required to stand up to facts?

It seems like this should be a no brainer, but from the things I've seen lately I really believe this needs to be addressed. If Wikipedia doesn't rely on facts to some degree then it just becomes a propaganda echo machine for the mainstream/"reliable" media. Has this been addressed before? TyTyMang (talk) 19:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

See

weight. Whom would you trust to define "fact"? The US government? The government of North Korea? The Pope? I tend to put much of my trust in the scientific community, but scientists are usually very reluctant to claim absolute facts, and they still get it wrong occasionally. --Stephan Schulz (talk

) 22:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

"Not to reject any viewpoint as conflicting with fact." What? Then how do we determine reliability? Does that mean all viewpoints that are published in the "mainstream" or somehow already considered "reliable" media are all inclusive viewpoints? Even when they make such big allegations as the UVA rape article did? Is there any actual objectiveness when it comes to the reliability of sources or is it all just on personal feelings?

I don't think we really need anyone to define

fact

as it's already a word with a definition. "A fact is something that has really occurred or is actually the case." Now if you're talking about who can verify facts, then yeah, I guess there is a certain amount of trust required. However a lot of times facts can verify themselves. Though it is possible for some people to ignore them or disclaim them due to their own personal beliefs.

In any case, should Wikipedia take the stance of belief on one side of a contested subject/article or should Wikipedia take the side of skeptical on the subject/article until the contest is resolved? If there is evidence that a "reliable" article is not factual aka false aka untrue, should that content be left on the page until that evidence is verified or debunked? Or should that content be taken down until the article content is proven fact? And because of

Circular Reporting/Citogenesis potentially causing others to copy the article should it matter how many different "reliable" sources post the same non-factual story? These issues can have some pretty big implications on what Wikipedia is. TyTyMang (talk

) 00:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I think it important to distinguish between reliable sources and reliable facts. Even a reliable source built on specific facts includes interpretations of those facts which a careful reader will recognize as an interpretation of those facts. Just because it appears in a reliable source does not mean an interpretation of certain facts should be given as much weight as the facts themselves. That's one of the issues that I've seen come up in some contentious issues. Even though the fact and opinions should be relatively easily determined using the critical reading skills one learns in high school, some editors hold that an interpretation of the facts given by a reporter and or experts interviewed should be treated as "facts."

Opinions in reliable sources certainly deserve coverage, but interpretations given in reliable sources must be treated differently and not confused with a fact, other than the fact that "this source interprets the evidence this way." A lot of contention can, or at least should be solved, by attributing the source of the interpretation of facts. Just because a source is generally reliable doesn't mean that source (much less all of it's contributors) should be accorded the final say in interpreting any particular set of facts.–GodBlessYou2 (talk) 21:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

A few things to remember... 1) Sources can become outdated... new information may cause a re-evaluation of things that previously were accepted as "fact". 2) Experts often disagree with each other... and different experts can even disagree over what the facts actually are. (in which case, we stay neutral and present both sides as being opinions) 3) our articles are never "finished"... we re-write sentences, paragraphs and even entire articles all the time. If an article states something as fact... and it turns out that there is a reason to question it... we can discuss the situation and change the article as necessary. Blueboar (talk) 22:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Alright, thanks everyone for the insight. It's been very helpful. I just have a couple more questions then.

I do understand we have guidelines for determining RS and then we have this Noticeboard here. But in the end it all seems to end up being subjective. Some people will argue for the reliability of a source and some will argue against it. And even sometimes people will admit a sources is questionably or plain unreliable but will consider a specific article from that source as reliable for a specific instance. But it all seems to come down to a consensus of opinion. Is this correct?

When things like this happen, how do we settle disputes like this? And to what extent can we cite evidence for or against the claims of that disputed source? Sure some "facts" may be up for interpretation of course, but when facts point to an article/source being unreliable should that not also be up for consensus here? I'm pretty sure that

WP:NOR

is not violated by preventing material used on WP articles as it specifically mentions that the policy doesn't apply to talk pages.

Thanks again! TyTyMang (talk) 05:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The article on

) 04:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Filipino Advocates for Justice

Is this a reliable source? Added here at Demographics of Filipino Americans.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I would say that it should not be used in this context. It appears as though that source has been added to deal with the {{One source}} tag, however, the credits at the end of the document state:

Source of all information except remittances:

“Filipino Immigrants in the United States.” Migration Policy Institute

“Revisions to Remittance Trends 2007.” The World Bank

Given that the Migration Policy Institute appears to be cited immediately prior to this one in the diff you provided, we have some sort of circular referencing going on. -

Location (talk

) 06:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I have moved the content and replaced it with its original information source.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I invite you to take part in an RFC on rather Media Matters, Daily Kos and Breitbart be removed as sources for the

) 01:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

And the sources are all perfectly acceptable for opinions cited as opinion, and "IDONTLIKETHEM" is a remarkably poor anti-policy-based concept. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

It's really a matter of context... in the context in which they are being used, they are reliable. Blueboar (talk) 15:25, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Australian Business Traveller is on the blacklist of references, so any reference citing ausbt.com.au gets automatically reverted by

with content that can always be found elsewhere.

My feeling is that, though it's certainly a special-interest publication, it meets the criteria in

and, at the very least, shouldn't be automatically removed as a reference on site. It acts much more like a reputable news source than a personal blog. It tends to reports things like new routes served by airlines and changes to schedules. As such, it is often a good source for changes in destination lists on airport pages. (Normally, by practice, airport destination lists are uncited with the implicit reference being the airline's current schedule. I think that dated articles with a permanent link and an author from Australian Business Traveller are much better sources than this implicit reference to airline schedules.)

This was brought up here in 2012, when Australian Business Traveller was a new publication. It was brought up by an editor of the publication, which probably raised conflict of interest concerns, though there was essentially no discussion.

Any thoughts? —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 19:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Seems to have been reported for ref link spamming in January 2011 link to report. Generally, you can search on the

Ravensfire (talk

) 23:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out; I searched in several places to find where and when it was added without success. (I'm still a little confused, as ausbt.com.au is in the log but not User:XLinkBot/RevertList.) The history of spamming and the usage of AusBT as a source by editors of that site is certainly a bad start. However, at this point, almost four years later, I do think that it's an often-useful and unique source that should be removed from the revert list with the caveat that Wikipedia editors should watch out for future spam. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 01:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

1. Source. http://22november1963.org.uk/oswald-on-tsbd-front-steps (The "About" page does not reveal the identity of the website owner or its contributors.)

2. Article. Ike Altgens

3. Content. The italicized section of the following sentence:

While on assignment for the AP on November 22, 1963, Altgens made "perhaps the most well-known of any still photograph"[4] of the in-progress assassination of President John F. Kennedy—a "controversial"[5] snapshot that has led to a decades-long debate among supporters and critics of two official investigations concluding that accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald is not visible in the doorway of the Texas School Book Depository as the gunshots were fired.[6]

Further comments on this source are being solicited as

) 00:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The website includes links to a book: 22 November 1963: A Brief Guide to the JFK Assassination by Jeremy Bojczuk. I think it is safe to assume that Bojczuk is also responsible for the website. I can't find any evidence that he is a qualified historian, and accordingly can't see why he should be regarded as a reliable source concerning such matters. Though if the website is being cited for a statement that "official investigations conclud[ed] that accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald is not visible in the doorway of the Texas School Book Depository", one would have thought that other sources would be available anyway, unless I've misunderstood something. Or is it the assertion that "a decades-long debate" has gone on concerning the photo? That would also clearly need better sourcing, or perhaps rewording - I'm sure it is still being debated, but is the debate of real significance beyond the conspiracy-theorists? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, is this a reliable source that there has been "a decades-long debate"? While conspiracy theorists believe that everything is up in the air, there are no mainstream sources indicating that is the issue that fringe (i.e. conspiracy) sources make it out to be. -

Location (talk

) 05:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

As the article's primary contributor and its GA nominee, may I weigh in?

I chose 22november1963.org.uk because it is a measured, sober compilation of the various theories, which in turn arrives at measured, sober conclusions where there are conclusions to reach. The instant page, for example, lists the questions raised and the evidence—or lack—presented, properly dispatching that which I would consider fringe (if not outright lunacy). I argue that a lack of "mainstream" coverage does not define "fringe" when the "mainstream" appears to have chosen to leave the issue entirely in the hands of researchers and historians.

The issue is balance within a presentation of fact: while Wikipedia cannot be seen to support any conclusion or theory—be it lone nut, multiple lone nuts, conspiracy to assassinate, conspiracy to cover up, or even the demonstrable shortcomings of the official investigations—neither can it be seen as a participant in a whitewash. Please know that this is neither accusation nor insult. Most if not all of the Web sites like 22november1963.org.uk, mcadams.posc.mu.edu and jfklancer.com, and even repositories like AARC, maryferrell.org and history-matters.com, would not exist were it not for the persistent questions of Oswald's actions and locations when Kennedy was murdered, and the hard work (with varying degrees of legitimacy) by the Weisbergs, Meaghers, Lanes, Bugliosis, Grodens, Marrses, Posners and McAdamses of the world. —

^ATalkPage

22:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

How does this source not violate

Location (talk

) 22:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I can't argue with that, beyond the sobriety of the material. I have been looking and continue to look for a better source, but this site outlines the problem in a stinging, ironic indictment. —

^ATalkPage

23:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Update: now written out. Should pass muster. —

^ATalkPage

01:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi all,

I recently came across an editor, FACT CHECKER repeatedly reverted for adding poorly sourced material. I reverted as well, but didn't want to get into an intense edit war. The editor used this as their source for all the information added, and said they were removing non-factual information. This relevant history explains it all. Is the source stated in edit summaries a reliable source or should the article be kept without the additions? Can anyone help us reach consensus here? I also think the most recent edit is a sign of quacking pretty loud, but I'll leave that to a different noticeboard. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 06:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

As I've said in the history, I consider bigeyesmovie.com to be not only a primary source but a "conspiracy theory"-type source that has an axe to grind and emphatically "debunks myths". FACT CHECKER's angry tone and choice of sources look very much like a form of suspiciously specific denial. That's just me, though.

39

06:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Would articles from the website magazine "spiked" be considered reliable for their opinions on issues that touch upon their sector? It appears to be an established political source, commenting on mostly British politics and other issues such as free speech. It would appear reliable from my own limited experience, but I'd like to know from someone with a bit more experience if it would be acceptedable on WP. Thanks! Ries42 (talk) 14:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Every source is reliable for an attributed statement about what it says... however, reliability only addresses part of the question. We also have to consider how much

WEIGHT to give to Spiked's opinion. Not every opinion merits being mentioned. Blueboar (talk

) 14:41, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Article published in journal of a local historical society

I would like some thoughts on the usability of:

Eby, Jay W. (Fall 2012). "John Gosper, Arizona's Would-be Governor" (PDF). Territorial Times. VI (1). Prescott, Arizona: Prescott Corral of Westerners International.

OCLC 384616745

.

as a source of general biographical information for the article John J. Gosper. The journal is published by a local chapter of Westerners International, a group who's purpose is to promote "fun and scholarship related to the North American frontier West". As such, I am not sure if they can be accurately described as a historical society or if they are something less formal. Conversely, as shown by the OCLC number in the citation, the publication is available in several regional university libraries. The article will used primarily for information on Gosper's personal life (marriages and business dealings). I own personal copies of the Goff and Wagoner books mentioned at the end of article and know of a couple other sources available via Google books, but they all focus primarily on Gosper's public life in Arizona Territory (time in office as well as his divorce from his first wife). --Allen3 ^talk 16:15, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Several articles have recently been created based on the following source:

• Other Systems of Units (a sample chapter from Encyclopaedia of Scientific Units, Weights and Measures)
• Author: François Cardarelli
• List of articles at editor's talk (permalink)

The sample chapter shows tables of units such as at section "3.3.1.1.1 UK Linear Measure" which includes "Other units of length which have been used in the UK are:", then lists 18 entries such as "1 wrap (UK) = 240 feet". I asked the editor (link above) whether there is any additional information in the book, so far without response. I suspect that the book is not sufficiently reliable to be used for novel information. For example,

) 11:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• Springer is a respectable publisher and the author seems to be a qualified and practising scientist. As a Frenchman, the author is perhaps a bit clumsy at dealing with traditional English measures, that's all. Andrew D. (talk) 12:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• Looking more closely, I see that the work has a translation credit, "M.J.Shields FIInfSc, MITI" and it's in its fourth printing. It contains extensive information about units from many cultures and periods of history such as "Arabic Units of Weight (System of the Prophet)" or "Old Balearic Units of Capacity (Dry)". As it is a huge compendium across such a wide field, there are bound to be occasional issues, but so far as I can see, it's of reasonable quality. The wrap, for example, seems to relate to yarn manufacture. We don't have an article on the corresponding measuring device - the wrap reel so I'm going to start one now. For detailed cases such as that, we need more specific sources but this one provides a reasonable overview or start. Andrew D. (talk) 13:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment - I have a copy of this book. The bibliography is split into four sections: 1) Specific references, 2) References about the metric system and the SI, 3) References of general interest, 4) Historical references. And it says - These references, which contain formulae, definitions, and conversions factors, are books specializing in scientific units and their conversion. They are listed to their publication dates. There are 170 books (total) listed in the various four sections with dates of the books ranging from 1728 to 1998.

A comparison from the book to this article -

Circular millimetre

; Referenced to pg 33, 3.3.1.2.3, Circular Units (text below copied from book, book emphasis - not mine):

Very rarely, so-called 'circular' units have been used, mainly for wire sizes and then only as the circular mil in the USA. In an analogy to square measure, circular units represent the area of a disc of a diameter equal to the equivalent linear unit. A circular mil is the area of a disc one mil (0.001 in) in diameter, and hence equal to 7.85398163398 X 10^-7 in² or 5.067 X 10^-10 m². Circular units should not be confused with circular measure, which refers to the expression of angle in radians.

The table (from book, 3-11) associated with the above text:

Circular units [1 cin=5.067074794 X 10^-4 m²]

Circular inch (cin)	Circular millimeter (cmm)	Circular mil (cmil)
1	=645.16	=1 000 000
	1	=1550

No comment on the reliability or accuracy of book or comparison posted above, not an expert on these matters. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:50, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

There is a dispute (see Ramzy Baroud above) about the interpretation of a prior discussion's results, concerning Counterpunch as a source. No outside editor has pitched in as yet (Looks too complex?). Could experienced wikipedians please read and interpret precisely the 'majority view' at this discussion which took place in 2008. Thank you.Nishidani (talk) 17:48, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if 2008 tells us much anymore, but I fail to see why Counterpunch should be considered a reliable source. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:53, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

There have been a number of editors throughout the years who have argued that it is not rs. The argument is that the magazine presents writers whose opinions tend to be on the left, which is not a valid reason for exclusion. Most of these editors use the term "left" to mean someone who would never consider voting for The Tea Party or UKIP. The fact is that most articles are written by respected journalists whose articles are also published in the most repected news sources. Robert Fisk for example "holds more British and international journalism awards than any other foreign correspondent and has been voted British International Journalist of the Year award seven times." Ramzy Baroud's articles have been published in hundreds of newspapers. The only issue I would mention is that columns are rarely reliable for facts and something only reported in one source is rarely significant.

A 2008 discussion does not bind us today.

TFD (talk) 18:28, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Opinions of people notable in a field should always be allowed when properly cited as their opinions. Amazingly enough, opinions are not facts, thus the cavils about this source or that source being biased in their presentation of facts is a tad useless when considering using properly cited opinions. Collect (talk) 18:35, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

There is also a problem is our facts/opinion distinction. What appears to have happened is that 4 mainstream newspapers within hours of the incident reported that the PFLP had claimed responsibility for the atrocity, drawing on one wire service. This is in wiki use a fact,(both the fact that they reported this, and a fact that the PFLP claimed responsibility). Fisk as an historian and journalists is reliable for facts,- and it would be odd to argue that his books can be cited for facts, but a piece of his in Counterpunch cannot be thus cited because he uses that venue. I think Baroud's reportage with links for what the PFLP websites say is reliable. Attribution is the solution, surely, not blanket dismissal of the medium in which this or that article appears.Nishidani (talk) 18:48, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Dude. CounterPunch has been brought here more than once. Stop trying to make arguments based off a single discussion. This migt be in regards to yet another attempt to put it in or it is based off above. If it is the later, just chill out and let the conversation develop without freaking out.Cptnono (talk) 05:42, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

At my age, I am a dud, not a dude. I came to this board because shouting 'garbage' at a source as you did, is not a sound argument. It is just an attitude. Secondly, my analysis shows that both you and Epeefleche are distorting the result of the 2008 discussion. Thirdly, you opposed Baroud, and supported a text that is now known to be false. Fourthly you had a thin number majority to enforce the suppression of Baroud, and refused to reply to detailed analyses showing that the conclusion you drew about the 2008 discussion was incorrect.

WP:IDONTLIKEIT was thrown my way. So I have requested neutral colleagues to review. At the moment, it would appear that the issue is far more nuanced than you would make it out to be. I don't freak out or get inflamed to the point that editors ask me to chill out, so please desist from the hostility. This is a request for technical construal of a discussion, and a review of the merits of including a scholarly source, and attitudinizing or not assuming good faith are atmospheric noise. Thank you.Nishidani (talk

) 11:18, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I see no reason why CounterPunch should be excluded from consideration as a reliable source because of its radical leftist stance, or because of its sour view of Zionism and Israel state actions. The founder, Alexander Cockburn, was a highly respected writer for publications as widely varying as Village Voice, Wall Street Journal and Nation. CounterPunch writers are real journalists. CounterPunch sources are referenced in more than 140 Wikipedia articles. The CounterPunch source should be considered a notable opinion, and its conclusions should be enough to question the "facts" of other sources. If CounterPunch says one thing and another source says another thing, then none of the sources ought to be conveyed to the reader as fact. Instead, the conflicting opinions should be attributed. Binksternet (talk) 18:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Are these sources suitable for including the comic book Priya's Shakti on the List of feminist comic books?

• "Comic Book: Priya's Shakti". priyashakti.com. Rattapallax. Retrieved December 22, 2014. Led by Priya, her followers, both men and women, spread the message of women's equality across the Earth, and not to remain silent in the face of violence against women and injustice.
• Chowdhury, Jennifer (December 15, 2014). "India's Newest Heroine Breaks Rape-Talk Taboo with Comic Book". NBCNews.com. Retrieved December 22, 2014. Devineni wants the murals to resonate with people that pass by them. 'We want people to tell their friends "I stand with Priya," he explained, 'and support women's equality and the struggles of rape survivors to seek justice.'

Releated discussion at the List of feminist comic books talk page.

--Lightbreather (talk) 22:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The NBC News piece, surely is. The site http://www.priyashakti.com can also be used within the limits of

WP:SELFPUB - Cwobeel (talk)

22:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

My problem with it is that it says "women's rights" and not "feminism". Why didn't they say feminism? Why did they just say "women's rights"? There hasn't been anything presented AFAIK where the author or an RS said Priya's Shakti is feminist. Why does this matter? Many women are for equality, but not for "feminism" (example of RS saying that). Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 22:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

These are certainly reliable sources for saying that the publisher or creators said the things that they've said. However, "feminist" is a judgment, and even if they had explicitly said that it was feminist, "feminist" is a subjective analysis, and we would normally look to significant third-party sources for subjective views. Basing a list on what people want to promote their work as would seem to be a bad path to go down. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes agree. Stay close to the sources, always. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Nat, I don't know what it means to call feminism" a "subjective analysis." Feminism is advocacy for the empowerment and equality of women. (There are different kinds of feminism, but there's no need to delve into that here.) The creators of Priya's Shakti offer it in opposition to patriarchy and misogyny, [28] and describe Priya and her followers as "spread[ing] the message of women's equality across the Earth ..." [29] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I emailed Ram Devineni, one of the creators of Priya's Shakti, to ask whether he regards it as feminist. He replied that he regards it as a "very feminist comic book," and gave permission for this to be posted. He also said he is willing to answer editors' questions about it.

The project's website says: "The project centers on the Goddess Parvati and Priya, a mortal woman devotee and survivor of rape and is rooted in ancient matriarchal traditions that have been displaced in modern representations of Hindu culture." Here is an article by Lina Srivastava, Priya's producer, discussing matriarchal traditions:

Our narrative dives into the matriarchal origins of Hinduism from millennia ago, mining that narrative to understand that Hinduism and Hindu-based cultures which affect millions of people does not support the subordination of either women or men and does not need to be interpreted as such. ... Additionally, Priya is not docile, light-skinned, hyper-sexualized or objectified in the way mainstream Indian or global media often presents women. She is both an everywoman as well as a superhero who starts to build her own movement through the help of a powerful ally in Parvati. This framing helps us focus the story not on perpetrators or punitive action alone, but on a woman honing her own voice to speak out against the oppression she faces and gather a force of allies through love, song, and connection.

We're not allowed to use emails as sources, but combined with the published primary and secondary sources, it seems to make clear that the work is appropriate for List of feminist comic books. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:15, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Given this information, both in primary and secondary sources, as well as the self declaration, I see no problem with adding that book to the list. No harm done if it's listed.- Cwobeel (talk) 02:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, SlimVirgin. Lightbreather (talk) 02:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I was leaning against this one because it was depending on interpretations of statements that didn't explicitly mention feminism though I personally saw it as a work that embodied feminist principles. At the same time @Chess: rightly pointed out that the sources used express ideals that aren't only in the purview of feminism. Then SlimVirgin's email correspondence pretty much sealed the deal. I can't see how there would be any issue with including in the list at this point. Though it would be nice if Mr. Devineni put that statement on the internet that's easily linkable too. Capeo (talk) 04:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Slim, two people can look at the same work and come out with very different judgments about whether it's feminist, and neither one of them be wrong. That's subjective. Is Red Sonja feminist? Is Omaha the Cat Dancer? There are strong opinions on both sides of those. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Going by your logic, it seems we would never be able to describe anything as "feminist". That there is some dispute about Red Sonja being feminist does not mean that the dispute extends / pertains to Priya's Shakti too, which is under discussion here.OrangesRyellow (talk) 08:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Take attention to this edit summary: "close ref tag - if you want those page numbers, get the UTex library to order them on interlibrary loans - Marshall's thesis and Morton's book are must reads and not ethno-history tubthumps like other sources being compiled onto th[...]" (from this edit). The same Wikipedian criticizes "ethno-historians" in many of his edit summaries.

Can someone please clarify this? I think that "ethno-history" books are perfectly fine to use. I also think that they can establish

for a subject, can they not? I should be able to use "ethno-history" books as sources, shouldn't I? WhisperToMe (talk) 05:20, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Referred by many reliable authors, published by a good publishing company, yes it is reliable enough for citing. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

From: Talk:Chinese_Canadians_in_British_Columbia#Enough_sources_to_prove_standalone_notability_of_Vancouver_Chinese_and_do_an_article_split.3F

Books:

• Johnson, Graham E. "Hong Kong Immigration and the Chinese Community in Vancouver" (Chapter 7). In: Skeldon, Ronald. Reluctant Exiles?: Migration from Hong Kong and the New Overseas Chinese (Volume 5 of Hong Kong becoming China).
  ISBN 1563244314, 9781563244315. Start p. 120
  .
• Ng, Wing Chung. The Chinese in Vancouver, 1945-80: The Pursuit of Identity and Power (Contemporary Chinese Studies Series).
  ISBN 0774841583
  , 9780774841580.
• Yee, Paul. Saltwater City: Story of Vancouver's Chinese Community.
  ISBN 1926706250
  , 9781926706252.
• Anderson, Kay J. Vancouver's Chinatown: Racial Discourse in Canada, 1875-1980. McGill-Queen's Press, November 4, 1991.
  ISBN 0773562974
  , 9780773562974.

The reason why I ask the question is that I want to add content from the ethno-history books and also confirm the notability of Chinese Canadians in Greater Vancouver. Even though there is a talk page discussion at Talk:Chinese_Canadians_in_British_Columbia#Enough_sources_to_prove_standalone_notability_of_Vancouver_Chinese_and_do_an_article_split.3F about whether the article should be split, I think that the existence of many other similar "ethnicity in city" articles which have a precedent in surviving AFD should help confirm the notability of Chinese Canadians in Greater Vancouver as a standalone subject (examples: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/History_of_the_Armenian_Americans_in_Los_Angeles, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Irish_Americans_in_New_York_City, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/History_of_the_Hmong_in_Merced,_California). WhisperToMe (talk) 05:34, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

There is certainly enough material out there to support an expansion of text devoted to Vancouver Chinese, but the question is whether your proposed text can be incorporated into the article about Chinatown, Vancouver. You will have to determine whether the sources focus on the people or the neighbourhood. Binksternet (talk) 17:53, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

The focus is supposed to be the entire metropolitan area's Chinese, not only those in Chinatown, Vancouver. Richmond, british Columbia, for instance, has a large Chinese community. So do other areas in Vancouver. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

What do you think about the answer engine Evi.com? Should that be considered as a reliable source? http://www.evi.com/ DrKilleMoff (talk) 17:09, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

No. It appears to use some sort of AI algorithm to answer questions, using unspecified sources. [30] I can't see how an algorithm can have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and we have no way of knowing whether it for example uses Wikipedia as one of its sources. There is also the question as to whether it counts as a 'published source', given that (as I understand it) it responds directly to questions, and doesn't 'publish' any permanent record. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I've just checked it asking "What is the capital city of Belgium" - it links Wikipedia in the answer, suggesting that it uses it as a source - accordingly, it cannot be used, per

WP:CIRCULAR. AndyTheGrump (talk

) 19:56, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

of the 6 relatively simple questions I asked, it only had answers for "what is the square root of 25" and "when did adolf hitler die"? - and the second one linked to Wikipedia. so no - it seems to be nothing more than a text version of Siri. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Is Khare, C. P. (2007). Indian Medicinal Plants - An illustrative Dictionary. New York: Springer Verlag.

) 06:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

It depends greatly on what article this source is being used, and the material used from the source and its context. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

@Cwobeel: that is why I provided the article Portulaca oleracea and the DIFF above. --Bejnar (talk) 04:25, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

The apparent problem is the use of rat and rabbit studies. The reader might infer that what works on them will work on humans, so we try to avoid such statements except in specialized "research in XYZ" articles. We don't usually do vet-med, and it doesn't seem that is what was intended here.LeadSongDog come howl! 05:30, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

So, am I to conclude that it is a reliable secondary source, but that the material cited was inappropriate to include in this article at this place, because of concerns related to the giving of medical advice as expressed at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)? --Bejnar (talk) 09:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Foth-Regner, Kitty (2010-05-10). "Guest Review from Kitty Foth-Regner: "Slaughter of the Dissidents" by Jerry Bergman". The Discerning Reader. Archived from the original on 2014-12-26. Retrieved 2014-12-26.
• Bergman, Jerry (2011-04-11). Slaughter of the Dissidents. Washington: Leafcutter Press.
  ISBN 9780981873404
  .

Creation-evolution controversy#Public policy issues

Creation-evolution controversy#Freedom of speech

'Creationists claim there is evidence of a widespread discrimination against research scientists and academics who oppose evolution'

These two sources appear representative and reliable witnesses to the views of the community they respresent, one corroborating the other. This has been contested.

) 12:49, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

The first appears reliable that the view is held by the person (can't check the second). However, the issue appears to be weight in dealing with fringe opinions, which isn't the purpose of this board. Rwenonah does seem to have summarized the standard approach to tackling fringe content at the RfC you linked to, but I'd suggest taking additional questions to

talk

) 17:42, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

These sources do not meet rs (except for the opinions of their authors.) TFD (talk) 19:50, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

It seems one source meeting some RS. However, since there is no literal question in the original post I think they were just giving notice that there is a RS question at RfC

Talk:Creation–evolution controversy#RfC: Claims of discrimination against Darwin sceptics Markbassett (talk

) 15:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Government Laboratory High School

The above article has been on my watchlist for over 7 years now and I had some dispute with the creator and main editor of the article way back then. My problem was/is it was originally completely unsourced, then sourced with a single publication. The publication in quesiton is the School's own magazine, which I have a feeling may be biased. To make matters worse, the magazine has no online presence and seems to be inaccessable to anyone outside the school.

Most of the claims in the article aren't a problem, but a new editor has cropped up and slipped some content in (perhaps accidentally) before an existing ref.

The details are as below;

1. Source. Anushilan: 2002-2003 issue (Page- 158). Retrieved on November 17, 2008.
2. Article. Government Laboratory High School.
3. Content. diff showing latest edit although my problem is also with the sentence before.

-LÒÓkingYourBest^(Talk|Edits) 00:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:NSCHOOL (Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools

?) is likely warranted.

In the above diff, I think it is reasonable to doubt that the citation provided backs up both sentences. I would move the added material behind the citation, add {{citation needed}} to it, and ask

Location (talk

) 20:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Reliable source for darknet sites

What does it take for something to be considered a reliable source for darknet sites? "Mainstream" publications that report on sites like

) 22:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

9/11 sources

Are these reliable sources for 9/11 conspiracy theories?

Gordon Farrer

1. Farrer, Gordon (November 5, 2010). "Don't get caught in the web of conspiracy theory truthiness". Sydney Morning Herald – Smh.com.au. Archived from the original on 27 April 2011. Retrieved May 30, 2011.

Charlie Brooker

2. Charlie Brooker (July 14, 2008). "So, you believe in conspiracy theories, do you? You probably also think you're the Emperor of Pluto Charles Brooker for The Guardian Unlimited July 14, 2008". The Guardian. London. Retrieved September 20, 2009.

Charlie Skelton

3. Charlie Skelton (September 11, 2009). "9/11 anniversary: a lovely day for a spot of protesting at the BBC Charlie Skelton for The Guardian Unlimited September 11, 2009". The Guardian. London. Retrieved January 9, 2010.

Peter Tatchell

4.Peter Tatchell (September 12, 2007). "9/11 – the big cover-up?". London: Guardian News and Media, Ltd. Archived from the original on 10 January 2010. Retrieved January 12, 2010.

911truth.org

5. Multiple uses of this website... Griffin, David Ray, PhD (December 4, 2005). "Flights 11, 175, 77, and 93: The 9/11 Commission's Incredible Tales". 911Truth.org. Retrieved October 28, 2009.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

It is "reliable" for what it says its members think/believe, BUT only in context of specifically attributed material "911truth.org members believe X" and generally only when the beliefs have also been noted and commented upon by third party actual reliable sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Site hasn't been updated in years, so you will have to still look elsewhere if the matter requires some updated information. VandVictory (talk) 01:57, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

911review.com

6. Multiple uses of this website... "Operation Northwoods". 911 Review.com. Retrieved June 7, 2010.

It is "reliable" for what it says its members think/believe, BUT only in context of specifically attributed material "911review.net members believe X" and generally only when the beliefs have also been noted and commented upon by third party actual reliable sources. (belated sign) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Also look at the content being sourced to them, which includes social and psychiatric commentary.--Theamazo (talk) 21:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Please help us evaluate the following sources for the article

. The link after each item takes you to the citation as used in the article.

1. The blog of "Faith Leader, Theology Lecturer, Author" Sayed Mahdi al-Modarresi on huffingtonpost.co.uk.[35]
2. Al-Alam News Network, owned and controlled by the Iranian state.[36]
3. Shaykh Saleem Bhimji of al-mubin.org, "Translators, Publishers & Distributors of Islamic knowledge based on the Teachings of Prophet Muhammad and His Illustrious Family", writing on al-islam.org.[37]
4. IslamicFinder's scripted Hijri calendar.[38]

--Anders Feder (talk) 08:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment: This older discussion dealt with some parts of current request. Mhhossein (talk) 04:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I would like to get opinions on some articles from TechRaptor. Its reputation is rather nascent, but I don't think that is a basis to dismiss it out of hand. Here are Alexa statistics[[39]]. It is third-party published material, not user-generated, and it has an editorial structure. It has and enforces a code of ethics[[40]] for its contributors, indicating editorial control. There are specific examples of corrections and retractions.[[41]][[42]][[43]][[44]] There is no evidence of conflicts of interest or specific failures to correct errors. I think its unreasonable to expect more than this from a source for claims that are not

.

It is proposed to be used in the article

for the following claims:

From [[45]],

1. An attempt was made to boycott the game SeedScape based on the developer's identification with Gamergate.
2. The incident caused a dramatic increase in support for the game on Steam Greenlight.

From [[46]],

1. Information about investors in Polytron, developer of the game Fez, was leaked in August 2014.
2. Kellee Santiago made a monetary investment in Polytron in 2009.
3. Kellee Santiago was the chair of the Indiecade awards jury in 2011, when Fez won Best in Show.
4. The chair of the awards jury bears primary responsibility for coordinating the juror process.
5. Santiago recused herself from voting, based on her financial interest in Polytron.

From [[47]],

1. Edward McMillen, developer of Super Meat Boy and Binding of Isaac, believes that in specific instances IGF jurors have voted to "help out" particular developers rather than on the basis of the submitted games.

From [[48]],

1. The Warehouse Group, a New Zealand retailer, has made a decision to cease offering all games and movies rated R18.
2. This decision was motivated by criticisms of Grand Theft Auto V, particularly its depictions of violence against women.
3. Grand Theft Auto V features much more violence against men than women and generally disincentivizes violence against women.

Rhoark (talk) 21:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

To pick just one item out of your shopping list: the story implying skulduggery by Kellee Santiago. It's written by a guy identified as "BA in Computer Science from NJIT and is a fledgling software and video game developer." The story is predictably dire and inaccurate. To the website's credit, they do publish a correction by Indiecade that says Kellee Santiago recused herself (ie: there is no story). These fellows are literally amateurs. Not a reliable source. No news website with a functional journalistic process in operation would have published that false story. --TS 23:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

There were no inaccuracies in the article, even before being updated with Indiecade's statement. It would be easy for a person to draw incorrect conclusions without the update, but that was the state of the best available information prior to Indiecade's input. Rhoark (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

As a rule, reputable news organizations will not publish articles making negative claims or implications without first seeking a response and comment from the person or organization accused. In this case, the non-story nature of the "story" would have been revealed prior to publication and there would have been no reason to proceed with such unfounded implications. This is as per the SPJ Code of Ethics, which states that ethical journalists should Diligently seek subjects of news coverage to allow them to respond to criticism or allegations of wrongdoing. Sending a single request may or may not constitute "diligent" efforts.

Regardless, there is no reason to include a debunked allegation that amounts to nothing - contrary to what the headline still claims, there is no evidence of a conflict of interest at Indiecade. The fact that someone properly recused themselves from a situation of potential conflict of interest is not likely to be newsworthy or encyclopedic. The fact that the only source discussing the situation - and the only source making such an allegation - is TechRaptor, suggests that it isn't a real issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Unreliable. Their Staff page includes an editor with no editing credentials and many, many writers, none of whom appear to have previous journalism experience or degrees. I find very few sources responding to or reposting their content, which is not only a sure sign that they lack a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", but also that nobody really knows about them. Their Facebook page has under 1400 likes and they are very prominently looking for Patreon funding. (Seriously, that ad is on every single page.) And they do change.org petitions, apparently. That just seems...odd for a news source. According to a
  previous discussion, they pay per article view—which they admit—and authors have stated they edit their own articles and TechRaptor itself does not do any copyediting. This is the very definition of an amateur, unreliable source. Woodroar (talk
  ) 00:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The people involved do not seem to have a lot of experience, and the site has not had a lot of visibility. For which claims do you feel that makes them unreliable, and why? Rhoark (talk) 00:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

For all claims, short of the exceptionally rare circumstance we would use them as an

WP:V requires that we "[b]ase articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", and TechRaptor doesn't have that reputation. Even if they were factually correct in every article published from now on, it takes time to build that reputation. It's not like The New York Times hired some schlubs off the street, printed a few copies and were considered reliable overnight. That takes time, sometimes years, especially if they start by making amateur mistakes like NorthBySouthBaranof mentioned above. But that's really what they are: amateurs, and it will be some time before they gain a positive reputation for us to consider using them. Woodroar (talk

) 00:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I feel like a determination of reliability for innocuous facts ought to be capable of being made within the next 6 months, otherwise this is becoming a backdoor requirement that sources themselves be notable as topics. Rhoark (talk) 17:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe you misunderstand

WP:BURDEN you won't be able to add them back. It's better to start with proper sourcing in the first place, especially since we're dealing with a controversial topic. As far as notable sources go, that isn't a requirement, but in many cases it goes hand in hand: sources must have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", and that typically means other reliable sources are writing about them; so if we don't have an article, it's very likely that we'd be able to write one. I hope this helps. Cheers! Woodroar (talk

) 18:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I had hoped by posting this here it would attract more attention besides the usual suspects from the article talk page. Rhoark (talk) 17:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm a tea house host helping a new editor who wants to either create a new article or add info to an existing article. Here is the draft article which has been rejected several times: Draft:The_Property_(Malibu_artists_colony)

I'm wondering about all the refs he currently has there. They all seem borderline to me, not great but not necessarily invalid. The specific refs are:

A book by Jay Ruby called Coffee House Positano: http://www.upcolorado.com/book/2726 I searched for this book in my local library (San Francisco... and the system searches all libraries in the city) and also in the Link+ system which is a collection of academic libraries in the Bay Area and didn't find the book in either although I did find that Jay Ruby has other published books in the system.

A story in a small local paper called the Malibu Times: http://www.malibutimes.com/malibu_life/article_3d0d3bdf-4267-50fb-a6c8-6d6fee3654e4.html Not sure how credible small papers like this are.

An article in a journal called Anthropology Now also by Jay Ruby called Studying Sideways in Malibu: http://anthronow.com/current-magazine-cover/september-2014

The two options we are considering are either writing a new article about "The Colony" or (probably more likely) adding the info to the existing article about the Coffee_House_Positano Do any of these references seem strong enough to establish notability for the new information about this artist colony that grew in the ashes of the Coffee House? --MadScientistX11 (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone have any idea if this is to be considered reliable or not? From what I can see some of the information seems to be added by registered users; I've tried to register in order to figure out how much but something failed during confirmation. I'm specifically wondering if the credits listed are user-contributed or added in other ways. Bjelleklang - talk 15:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I've never heard of this site, but based on the About page, it's either a user-generated content site or a fan site, neither of which are considered

reliable for Wikipedia purposes. A Quest For Knowledge (talk

) 18:31, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

That's what I suspected, thanks. Bjelleklang - talk 20:27, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Dear all,

I am having a bit of a problem with the book History of the Popes by Joseph McCabe (London 1939). Mr. McCabe, who never had formal education in history, "was an English writer and speaker on freethought, after having been a Roman Catholic priest earlier in his life."

In the article for

) we find this statement:

Two of the leading papal historians of the time (...) shared a belief that Leo engaged in "unnatural vice": these were Leo's governor Francesco Guicciardini, who wrote "At the beginning of his pontificate most people deemed him very chaste; however, he was afterwards discovered to be exceedingly devoted – and every day with less and less shame – to that kind of pleasure that for honour's sake may not be named" (...)

The statement has a reference to page 409 of McCabe's book.

The problem is that Guicciardini's text is very old and anyone with internet connection has access to lots of editions. All of them contain the first part of the citation: that at the begninning of his pontificate Pope Medici was known to be chaste and of good morals. It so happens that in every version of the text, the second part of McCabe's quotation is missing.

Anyone with internet connection has free and immediate access to the following editions:

Italian (original language):

• A XIX century edition, Florence 1836, page 418.
• Another XIX century edition, Paris 1837.
• A XX century edition, Florence 1929, page 49.
• The italian wikisource version.

German:

• Darmstad, 1849: "Er wurde fur keusch gehalten und fur einen Mann von vollkommenen Sitte." Page 66.

French:

• London 1738: "la réputation qu'il avoit lui-même d'être liberál, poli, & de moeurs irreprochables", page 317.

Spanish:

• Spanish Manuscript: "estimado por casto y de perfectas costumbres", page 958. Copied by hand 1691-1697.

English:

• London edition of 1753: "the reputation of a chaste person and of unblameable manners", page 144.

None of these include anything similar to what McCabe quotes "he was afterwards discovered to be exceedingly devoted – and every day with less and less shame – to that kind of pleasure that for honour's sake may not be named".

I ask your opinion, because to me it seems as if McCabe had quoted the first part from Guicciardini and invented the rest. I believe that McCabe's book should be considered "not reliable", and that the false quotation should be mended to reflect what Guicciardini really said. What do you think? El Huinca (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I've only looked at the English translation (page 114 btw, not 144) and didn't find anything resembling the second half. I tried searching the book for various phrases that might have been used but couldn't find anything. I have seen several quotations probably originating from McCabe though, such as the "Who's Who in Gay and Lesbian History: From Antiquity to the Mid-Twentieth Century"[49]. They also claim to quote Guicciardini, but doesn't make it clear what edition was used. Based on what I've seen I'd say that the book should be regarded as unreliable, but given how many other sources there are that uses the quote it should probably be mentioned in the article somewhere. Bjelleklang - talk 23:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a strange one. On the one hand, multiple sources don't include that sentence, which points toward the unreliability of the sole dissenting source. But on the other hand, Joseph McCabe appears to be widely cited and quoted, and I find no sources commenting on his faulty quotations, so I'm not sure we could consider him unreliable. I am unable to find any sources speaking to this discrepancy, either, so any explanation we give would be

WP:DUE, where were simply go with the words favored by the most translations, which doesn't include the second sentence. Of course, whether or not Joseph McCabe is reliable is irrelevant at that point. Just my $0.02. Woodroar (talk

) 07:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Adam Curtis on Vladislav Surkov

User:Sayerslle has used a link [50] to a YouTube clip of a segment from the television program Charlie Brooker's Screenwipe broadcast in December 2014 to support the following claim in the Vladislav Surkov article, 'He also backed anti-Putin parties, but then said that this was what he had done, with the result that uncertainty arose as to what was real, and what fake.' For convenience, an apparently accurate transcript of the segment may be found here: [51] The excerpt in question is a short piece by English documentary film maker

08:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

this is the guardian in 2013 - He was considered one of Russia's most deft politicians, crafting Russia's system of "managed democracy" and steering its powerful propaganda machine, mainly via control of state-run television.

Yet his star has been steadily falling since Putin returned to the presidency last year and pursued a path of open repression over the cunning manipulation favoured by Surkov.[52] - the portrait is clear enough in RS whatever . Sayerslle (talk) 11:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC) Sayerslle (talk) 11:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I like Adam Curtis, but this film isn't a suitable source for a biographical article because it's light on detail and because Curtis is not well-known as an reliably uncontroversial filmmaker. It's a also a copyvio. Formerip (talk) 12:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

and the economist As the political mastermind for Vladimir Putin for most of the 2000s, Mr Surkov engineered a system of make-believe that worked devilishly well in the real world. Russia was a land of imitation political parties, stage-managed media and fake social movements, undergirded by the post-modern sense that nothing was genuine. ideologuesexit - the economist, the guardian, peter pomerantsev in the lrb - the portrait is clearSayerslle (talk) 12:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Source in question: Ramzy Baroud, 'The Rise and Fall of Palestine’s Socialists,' Counterpunch November 27, 2014.

Is Ramzy Baroud writing for Counterpunch a reliable source for facts concerning the obscure Marxist splinter group Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine?

I tried to raise a discussion on this, providing detailed sources that showed that the text at 2014 Jerusalem synagogue attack was false, by citing Baroud's article. This was dismissed by a mechanical reference to an, to me, inconclusive debate back 6 years ago, at RSN. I don't think a single, dated, unsatisfactory discussion here can be taken as binding for eternity as though it were established policy. My view is that one must examine the quality of the source (Baroud, not Counterpunch), the standing of the author, and the nature of the material requested to be used. It turns out that later sources I turned up confirmed what Baroud had documented, yet regardless of this (a good test of reliability) some editors just refuse to accept him, since the article appeared in a journal they appear to dislike.

Counterpunch 'muckrakes', a perfectly legitimate branch of Investigative journalism which was the particular area of expertise of its founder Alexander Cockburn, and of one of its leading writers Patrick Cockburn, an expert on the Middle East. It specializes in getting over authoritative opinions that are not aired in the mainstream press. Counterpunch exposed the New York Times presentation of the fabricated data leading to the decision to invade Iraq (and was cited by mainstream historians like Chalmers Johnson for doing so. See his The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic, Macmillan, 2007 pp.351,352,363,364). The mainstream source got everything wrong, and Counterpunch proved it. It publishes ex-Wall Street financial experts turned academics like Michael Hudson, Reaganite economists like Paul Craig Roberts, retired CIA analysts like Franklin C. Spinney, U.S. Senate national security expert and Congressional Budget specialists like Winslow T. Wheeler, Christian political conservatives like William S. Lind, historians like Robert Fisk, Israeli Knesset figures and pundits like Uri Avnery and Ari Shavit, historians like Gabriel Kolko, Peter Linebaugh and East Asian specialists like Brian Cloughley and Gary Leupp. None of these are known for their ideological brow-beating or slipshod use of facts, for example. To the contrary. They are polished, notable and established experts in their respective fields.

As to Ramzy Baroud, he is an Arabist, has 3 well-received books to his credit, and as a journalist, publishes widely in such mainstream press outlets as

etc., as well as working on a late doctorate at Exeter University. Baroud's Counterpunch article is scholarly, analytic and cites all the statements by links to the relevant primary sources in Arabic etc., so they can be independently confirmed.

In reply to Cptono's note about editorial control over content. Well, why is it partisan I/P editors never raise queries about quality control the following sources used throughout the article, none of which is known to exercise editorial control on fact checking, none of which to my knowledge has a reputation for reportorial or in depth accuracy by area specialists, and many of which are dubious. The answer is, they are all, save 2 'friendly' to a POV (which Baroud's article is not).

• Arutz Sheva (4) A settler organ, with no known legal status in Israel, and long banned.
• The Hindu
• Al-Araby
• Israel Hayom.(once in Hebrew six times in English), a free distribution paper created by Sheldon Adelson, the casino magnate on behalf of the Israel PM Binyamin Netanyahu. Notoriously partisan.
• The Jewish Press, an orthodox hence sectarian community newspaper.
• Algemeiner Journal notorious partisan
• Jspace community paper
• PFLP website Primary Source
• The Daily Star (Lebanon) (3)
• Fox News Infamous for its carelessness with facts
• La Información Dominican Republic University newspaper
• Sputnik (news agency) mouthpiece of the Russian federation, i.e., political.
• Daily Sabah Turkish paper created this year
• The Hollywood Reporter
• New Jersey Jewish News

Independent outsider reviews of this issue would be appreciated. Thank you. Nishidani (talk) 20:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with inclusion for the following reasons:

• CounterPunch has historically been less than suitable here at RSN (attribution has been a way to use it for prominent opinions by established writers)
• Regardless of the author's merit's, what CounterPunch deems appropriate to publish and what they have potential editorial control over is problematic. The source has been called "extremist" but I think it is safe to simply say that they tend to have some sort of agenda and are contrary to the point of sensationalism ("edgy" is a nice way to put it). I question the appropriateness of a needlessly long quote and even giving it a potential page hit through the ref section.
• Ramzy Baroud doesn't seem that prolific at a glance. I'm not as familiar with the writer as others but nothing jumps out as so important that it receives weight (attributed in the text or not). A Google search shows what could easily be considered a heavy bias.Cptnono (talk) 06:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Question. We are under an obligation to be neutral and coherent in our application of policy. If these are your criteria, why have you raised no objection to the many sources I have cited above, which have been used to document the article. They all fail the high bar you set for Counterpunch(none of those sources, furthermore, can boast of the quality contributors some of whose names I have listed as published by Counterpunch). Nishidani (talk) 12:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Stop it. I have raised my objections (as did a few other editors on the talk age). We should wait for others to chime in instead of dragging your IDIDNTHERERTHAT to AE..Cptnono (talk) 05:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Both you and Epeefleche have misinterpreted (see below) a RSN discussion. It is perfectly normal to request clarification as to why you object to Counterpunch and a Palestinian author, while quietly accepting sources all over that page that are POV-pushing, mediocre, and fail RS. Neither on the talk page, nor here, will either of you clarify this point. I too certainly think this should be reviewed by independent outside editors, but in the meantime, I am perfectly in my rights to request that vague pronouncements and a failure to actually do anything but rehearse an opinion be clarified. Thank you. Nishidani (talk) 12:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• I believe it is long-settled here at RSN that Counterpunch is not an RS. This is especially the case for anything controversial. I see no reason to change that judgment. Epeefleche (talk) 07:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't settled, and your judgement is a mischaracterization.

11 editors pitched in. 3 were neutral. One was dismissive. 7, a majority, tended to suggest it was citable for opinions if the author was notable, or the opinion of 'substantial interest'. I.e. whether Counterpunch is citable or not depends on who is writing, and the editorial circumstances (substantial interest of point cited, which is the case here).

• ChrisO posed the question. No longer active. Neutral
• PelleSmith (corrects hostile characterization of Noam Chomsky, a contributor to Counterpunch) neutral
• Itsmejudith (corrects characterization of Robert Fisk (a Counterpunch writer) as left-leaning. Neutral

• Jayjg. Negative (‘strong political agenda and bias’ a 'left wing version of [[FrontPage Magazine’)
• Zeq (banned editor): ‘CounterPunch is a valid source for opinions but not for facts.’
• Relata refero. No longer active. removes links to CounterPunch unless the individual writing for them is notable enough in his or her own right.
• Crotalus horridus No longer active. ‘None of these should be used as sources in contentious articles related to political/social topics, unless the author is particularly well known and their opinion is likely to be of substantial interest in and of itself.’
• Merzbow (No longer active: ’I agree with those above we should only reference an article in this mag and others like FPM if that article's author is notable in his own right.’)

• User:Blueboar
• User:eleland
• User:Nishidani (Agree with refero, i.e. ' It depends on who writes there.')

So, back in 2008, in a short discussion, Counterpunch was not dismissed out of hand. The majoir commentators put an unless/if condition on citation. Both Epeefleche and Cptono are taking it as a thumbs down, when the verdict was mixed and conditional. Secondly, the question I posed is not whether Counterpunch is reliable, but whether a notable author specializing on the I/P area, who, unlike all the other newspapers cited in the article, examined the primary Arabic sources, and correctly noted what the newspapers on day one failed to note, is citable. If we say he isn't, we are potentially laying down a precedent that a notable author/specialist cannot be used to correct an error on Wikipedia if his views are only cited in a non-mainstream newspaper. That is fatuously absurd.Nishidani (talk) 11:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

There is now another discussion below on this. To get things on track, it would be awesome if people completely involved could discuss if:

A) Counterpunch is reliable?

and

B) Is the author Ramzy Baroud's and/or his column significant enough to warrant inclusion?

Edit in question: here. Article is 2014 Jerusalem synagogue attack (by the way, if we had another source we wouldn't have to even worry about it)Cptnono (talk) 06:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

We should not give carte blanche to Counterpunch as a reliable source - although I can see the appeal to editors who want to push controversial points. However, in this particular case I think it's reasonable to cite it, since it's reasonably well aligned with what we get from genuinely reliable sources. bobrayner (talk) 15:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Bob -- Tx ... I think, actually, that the rubric is that where there are "genuinely reliable sources" that state x, and others such as Counterpunch that state "close to x", we are to cite to the genuine RSs for the proposition they support. Epeefleche (talk) 17:45, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, EP, Baroud gives a very detailed analysis, not 'close to x', but 'x' and much else (w, ..y,z). The article is far more comprehensive than the other newspaper reports, which (a) got it wrong or (b) got it right but were minor 'RS' not quite your western mainstream press, and were overlooked. The question is not therefore 'Is Counterpunch reliable' (I don't think any mainstream source is reliable in itself, and try to multiple-source in this area to make sure details are not partisan). The question is, 'Is Ramzy Baroud's article a qualitatively solid one' for the detail in question, and only secondly, 'does its appearance in Counterpunch invalidate it as a source?'Nishidani (talk) 18:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Stop replying to everything. We can't get a reasonable consensus going when you run away with the conversation. You are obviously outnumbered on the article. You failed to create a neutral request here. We finally have an outside editor providing some reasoning but you just won't stop. So far we are looking at 4 editors to 1 with 1 involved going your way. No one else is going to chime in if you won't stop commenting. Just shut up for a couple days and let it run its course. This is why you get bullied.Cptnono (talk) 06:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you familiar with wiki boards? Questions are asked, and discussions take place. Through rational exchanges, a consensus is met. One does this to avoid mere vote/opinion stacking. This is the procedure I follow, and your repeated interruptions of my attempts to engage with interlocutors in a thoughtful analysis of the issues is, as you allow, 'bullying'. Wikipedia is not Athens, still less am I Socrates, but you are behaving like a sulking Callicles in the latter part of the Gorgias. I regret personalizing this, but you keep needling, rather than addressing substantial points. So let's drop the animosity.Nishidani (talk) 09:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• "Arutz Sheva (4) A settler organ, with no known legal status in Israel, and long banned (@Nishidani)

It's not correct information. It was banned as radio station before 10+ years and I've already notified you that there is legal Galei Israel station in this radio niche. What we are talking about as a source now is Israel National News - one of many different quoted sources in a broad Israeli media spectrum.

• "Fox News Infamous for its carelessness with facts"

What about CNN, BBC, Reuters, etc. so criticized for their bias in Arab–Israeli conflict? :(

• "Israel Hayom, Algemeiner, The Jewish Press" - what else? :) as "Notoriously", "partisan", "orthodox", "sectarian" (what about Ynet, Walla!, Haaretz ownres, sectarian...?)

Such your private & negative characteristics have no sense without concrete examples approving their not-reliability. --Igorp_lj (talk) 13:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Israel National News was rendered legal by a law that was then repealed, so it appears to operate without a licence. It is used all over Wikipedia and is thoroughly opinionized, with an overwhelming concern for reporting emotions and weird theories. No respectable journalist writes for it. All the other sources are browbeating, sectarian and not mainstream. I don't use them, but I don't run a campaign to elide them at sight automatically, without even consulting the cited page to evaluate it, as several editors are doing.

As noted above - Counterpunch is usable for opinions cited as opinions. It is not specifically known for fact reportage, nor is it considered a secondary reliable source for claims of fact. At least per discussions here. Collect (talk) 14:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with attribution. But the question is not about Counterpunch, but whether a scholar and widely published journalist like Baroud, when he publishes, not an opinion piece, but an analysis of numerous Arabic reports regarding an obscure group of militants, can be summarily dismissed simply because his report was published in Counterpunch. Our stringency about RS is not ideological, but functional: it aims to ensure factual reliability above all. It is being used however, selectively (against anything that throws light on the higher intricacies of Palestinian factional politics) here, by editors who reflexely remove Counterpunch at sight, and let the blogging opinionizing of minor Israeli sources pass without challenge. This is what I find deeply disturbing. No coherence in editors' excision of material.Nishidani (talk) 13:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the discussion on CounterPunch is done. Is the author Ramzy Baroud and his column significant enough to warrant inclusion even with attribution? Cptnono (talk) 10:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Correct me if I err, but the outside consensus was that there is no intrinsic reason to deny citation of Counterpunch, that we are not beholden to the 2008 discussion, and that citation with attribution if the author and his views are notable is acceptable. Only Collect and User:bobrayner has taken the trouble to add a comment here specifically on Baroud, i.e. 'is usable for opinions cited as opinions,' echoing his other remark that 'Opinions of people notable in a field should always be allowed when properly cited as their opinions.' Given that Baroud is has a solid journalistic curriculum in major mainstream newspapers, I can't see any objection from four of the five disinterested editors who have commented (User:The Four Deuces; User:Collect; User:Binksternet, User:bobrayner vs User:Thargor Orlando who, by the way, said the 2008 discussion is not informative). The rest of us are partisans, and our views have no weight.Nishidani (talk) 17:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Is this source [53] a reliable source for labelling living and dead persons as "Jewish" where no other sources in their articles make such a claim? I would note this book includes people of "Jewish ancestry" on any type as "Jewish". Kurt F. Stone has no apparent academic credentials other than writing two books about "The Jews of Capitol Hill". [54] gives his c.v. -- he is a rabbi, and teaches at Florida Atlantic University and Florida International University but his c.v. does not seem to establish him as an expert in the field AFAICT. He is not a Professor AFAICT at either university.[55], [56] ("Adjunct Instructor"). Scarecrow Press generally appears RS otherwise - but I am concerned about using this particular source to simply label people as "Jewish" especially since at least one was specifically Roman Catholic in life as far as I can tell. I would also ask separately - is being buried in a "Jewish Cemetery" proof of self-identification as "Jewish"? Thanks to all. Collect (talk) 19:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Just as I created an article on wikipedia about Female Lieutenant Governors, I am now focussing on creating on for Jewish members of Congress. There are articles on wikipedia about members of Congress being Asian, African-American, Female and LGBT, I thought it would be a nice edition to add one about those who are Jewish. I have sourced the editions to my article so the information is neither incorrect nor wrong. SleepCovo (talk) 19:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Just a comment of an uninvolved editor. Jewish is not just a religious designation it is also genealogical. Rabbi's are usually reasonable experts on the topic of being Jewish as they have specific criteria laid out that they must follow. But I make no determination on the book itself or this person. AlbinoFerret 19:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

However, could a Rabbi designate someone as Jewish by Jewish law without that person being Jewish in an otherwise meaningful sense and/or without them wishing to be identified as Jewish. Formerip (talk) 19:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Such as not being in any way self-identified as "Jewish" noting the many discussions about people adding "Jewish" because of "Jewish name" or "Jewish grandparent" etc. Where an author is only an "adjunct instructor" the person is not specifically to be regarded as a scholarly authority. It reads far more like a selection of anecdotes about people with Jewish names than a sourced book -- which it is not (one reviewer pointed this out as a problem - as it contained simple errors about people he knew). The removal of problem examples was reverted -- including a reversion of a strange typo ("Suceeded from the Union" I found a strange way to describe a person). Scholar.google.com shows a marked paucity of anyone else even mentioning the books en passant. BTW, a rabbi can not define a person to be Jewish who does not so self-identify. Collect (talk) 20:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Just a comment or two on the last point. Of course a person can be Jewish who does not self-identify. As with a newborn, born to Jewish parents. Separately, Judaism is not just a religion. The Jewish

Louis D. Brandeis School of Law [Palmer, Henry, A History of the Jewish Nation (1875), D. Lothrop & Co.] [The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Vol. 7: Berlin Years, Albert Einstein, "The Jewish Nation is a living fact" (June 21, 1921), Princeton University Press] Other religions are, in the "normal case," distinct from the nation. In other words, there was not a Protestant, Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, or Atheist nation per se. Those who are members of these religions are not members of a nation or "people." Jews, peculiarly, are not just a religion, but are also a nation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epeefleche (talk • contribs

) 20:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Only just noticed this. Those are all points, dear EP, made in the lead of our articles

WP:SYNTH and selective highlighting and erasure of alternative sources, that falsifies a hugely complex inframural refusal to agree on a viable definition (that, I think, is one of the wisest things the Jewish traditions bequeaths the rest of us - the indefiniteness of the category. Classically, 'Jews' are as much the creation of anti-Semitism as of anything else. In any case Brandeis was writing in 1915, without the wisdom of post-Holocaust hindsight. I suggest you, on behalf of his deceased spirit, read Alain F. Corcos, Who is a Jew? Thoughts of a Biologist Wheatmark,2005, or at least the intro. Both he and his brother Gilles were born to French Jewish parents, survived the Nazi genocide and emigrated to the U.S. Corcos, a molecular biologist, decided he wasn't 'Jewish', he thought the term a misnomer. His brother Gilles self-identified as Jewish. Both were right. There is no legitimate definition from any group, outsiders or insiders, that can objectively fix such a subjective and deeply complex, intimately personal issue like identity, which is no business of others to determine. For him, you're Jewish if you practice Judaism (whether as a convert or as someone satisfying rabbinical criteria, it doesn't matter) Suffice it to read Raul Hilberg's chapter on this to realize how fraught this is with dangers. There is a refreshing and rare sanity in Wikipedia's policy of denying editors the right to define biographical subjects in terms of any ethnic 'brand' that would not be acceptable to the subjects themselves.Nishidani (talk

) 16:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Problem is this has been discussed many times on Wikipedia - always with the same result. We do not call a person "Jewish" because they had a Jewish ancestor, or have a Jewish name. We do not call a person "Jewish" in any BLP per

WP:BLPCAT

without strong sourcing. The book presented does not even give its sources, or any footnotes, has no sign of being fact checked, is not written by a person with academic credentials in journal publications, or any publications other than being from an "adjunct instructor" who wrote two books on the exact same topic.

Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources.

Is fairly clear, I trust. Collect (talk) 23:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• Another comment. It appears that this page isnt the only WP article on the subject. List_of_Jewish_American_politicians seems to be a rather well sourced list that includes members of Congress. While it is off topic for this page, I wonder if WP really needs two pages on this topic. AlbinoFerret 15:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't like these classifications,in fact I detest them, but they're here. I think as Collect says, one has only to include self-identifiers, duly attested by reliable sources. Barry Goldwater had Jewish ancestry on his father's side, but was raised Episcopalian. Religiously he was not Jewish, in rabbinical terms he wasn't either. He occasionally noted his Jewish roots, as I suppose he occasionally mentioned his maternal Anglo-Saxon Protestant roots. Since, as AlbinoFerret notes, there is a better sourced page on the same subject, this article should perhaps be merged into that, always taking care to source the new claims accurately (self-identification).Nishidani (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: Barry Goldwater was just added to the

Jewish members of Congress list [57] Will someone please set that editor straight on the rules for labelling anyone with Jewish ancestry at all as "Jewish"? Thank you! Collect (talk

) 22:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure it is rs. But the author only says that these people are in his opinion Jewish. (See p. xv[58]) He is clear that other people may have different opinions. Furthermore it is a tertiary source about a topic that has been "largely overlooked in the history books." So it is of pretty limited use as a source anyway. TFD (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

On p.xiv, there is the example of LaGuardia, another Episcopalian like Goldwater, who was, unlike Goldwater, in rabbinical terms a Jew, since his mother was Jewish. But the author fails to note that

Zeev Jabotinsky) so these factors did not matter as much as the political and cultural identity.Nishidani (talk

) 15:34, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Fully agree with Collect - I think that's the second time in recorded history. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

This question arises from a few talk page sections

. In the Cheng article "Research gaps related to the environmental impacts of electronic cigarettes" Cheng makes two statements:

" No studies formally evaluated the environmental impacts of the manufacturing process or disposal of components, including batteries. "

From later in the journal article:

"No studies specifically evaluated the environmental impacts of e-cigarette manufacturing; issues related to use of resources, assembly, nicotine source, tobacco cultivation and global production "

Is the Cheng article a secondary source on these subjects seeing as the source article itself expressly tells us there are no primary sources for it to look at or review on these subjects? AlbinoFerret 13:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes it still is. It is a review article and they performed a systematic literature search. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The only literature search (newspapers in this case) it did found information on advertising and battery disposal. Those are not part of the question, and in those areas, it is a secondary source. The question asks in the cases where there are no primary sources, and it clearly sets forth there are none, is this article a secondary source. AlbinoFerret 14:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

It would be helpful to say what "Cheng" is. It's

COI

14:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Please explain how a source can be secondary without primary sources on these topics. It does review some newpaper articles on battery disposal. But that is not part of the question. In those areas it is a secondary source or review.v The question is, if there are no primary sources to review, is the source secondary in these specific areas? AlbinoFerret 14:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The primary sources are all the studies that the review reviewed.

talk

) 15:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Aren't you talking past each other here? If the review itself says that on topic X there are no sources - then within topic X it would be a primary source (or a secondary for the information that topic X has no sources). On all the other topics Z,Y and V the source is still a review/secondary source, since for those topicareas it relies on primary sources. Correct?

So on some topic areas this particular review is partially reliable, and on others it is fully reliable. Just as with any other source :) --Kim D. Petersen 15:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

It is indeed a secondary source. The value of review articles is that in reviewing primary literature, they not only tell us what findings were important, but areas that are not covered well in that literature as well. In either case, a review is commenting on the primary literature it reviews.

talk

) 15:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Kingofaces43 Just pointing out, there are no primary sources on the subjects in question. Chang sets that forth in the source in the quotes above. I am not questioning if the article is a secondary source on topics it had primary sources for, even poor ones, but the topics that source said it didnt have primary sources for. AlbinoFerret

15:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The primary sources for the two quotes you provided are the sources reviewed by the Chang for those topics. Maybe I'm just not seeing where you going very clearly, but are you saying that those primary sources reviewed by Chang do not support the general idea that "No study found/discussed X"? My feeling is that you're having trouble with the idea that the author made a statement about the studies they review, but don't cite a specific study. If that is the case, the author is citing all the studies they reviewed. If that isn't quite what you're getting at, could you clarify a bit more?

Kingofaces43 I will be happy to, the source did not review any primary sources in these areas, the source clearly states in in the quotes that the no studies exist. The only sources that Chang looked at that had anything to review were advertising and battery disposal. I excluded these areas from the question because they had primary sources. In the areas that Chang says there are no studies, he didnt review any, not even newspaper articles or poor reports. AlbinoFerret

18:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll leave the rest for my comment below, but if the review says there were no studies, then that is what they found. If there was some problem in the methodology that produced some bias, you'll need to wait for another review to correct it. It's not our place as editors to dig into that degree of scrutiny, that's the job of scientists publishing in the field.

talk

) 00:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree it is indeed a secondary source, and it is indeed a review, and thus one of the best sources within the med area. But i don't think that this is the question (see my "talking past" post above). The question should be: Is this source useful/reliable for information on "environmental impacts" in the disposal/manufacturing process - given that the source itself states that this particular area isn't covered by any primary sources, and thus must be conjecture by the authors of the study? (of course it can be used for the information that no information exists - but not aside from that) --Kim D. Petersen 15:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The source appears to state in general (from the quoted sections above at least) that environmental impacts are not well evaluated. That would be the synthesis of the literature in the voice of a secondary source and would be reliable for such in the article (assuming there aren't other sources to equally weigh). When authors are commenting on the state of the literature, that's a secondary source as it is based on the primary sources they evaluated. I can understand how statements of no study found (etc.) something can be tricky here, but those cases are citing all the primary literature they reviewed.

talk

) 16:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem isnt the fact he is pointing out that no studies exist, The problem is he forms opinions on the environmental impact of component manufacturing where no studies exist for him to review. So statements like "A 2014 review stated that the emissions from making nicotine could be considerable from manufacturing if not appropriately controlled." in the WP article. When he states that no studies have been done in this area. AlbinoFerret 18:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I see, so that's a different question than what was originally posed at the top. What you quoted should be tweaked slightly if it is as you describe. A "could" in this context without a source to back it up should not be used to mean there is evidence of those emissions, but is reliable to say there is legitimate concern it may happen (would need further study, etc.). Basically, there's science-speak going on a general reader might not pick up on that could lead to the former conclusion rather than the latter. I'm ok with the current wording still in that context, but the main factor there is that the article is stressing concern rather than demonstrating known evidence. I'll take a read through the source and try to make more sense of it in a bit.

talk

) 00:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I found the section is question (first full paragraph of ii56), which is a summarizing paragraph to the topic. It seems there are plenty of primary sources being discussed in the previous paragraphs between journal articles and patents. It doesn't sound like the scenario being described above. That's exactly what we're looking for from a secondary source to put into context the primary sources. "A 2014 review stated that the emissions from making nicotine could be considerable from manufacturing if not appropriately controlled." appears perfectly fine now that I've had the time to go through the it in terms of reliability for a secondary source. One could even drop the 2014 review stated prefix as we can state what reviews say in Wikipedia's voice typically, but that's up to the folks at the article. As long as the content isn't stating there is direct evidence, but rather the potential for high emissions, (as the quoted text does alright) this seems fine in terms of reliability too.

talk

) 02:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I find this a curious response... 3 patents and a chemistry paper is "plenty of primary sources"?? There isn't even a review of papers on what practices or manufacturing process that are currently being used for producing nicotine. --Kim D. Petersen 13:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Plenty was relative to there being no primary sources as mentioned earlier for some reason. As I mentioned on my talk page though, it's not our job as editors to engage in peer-review, but relay what reliable sources say. Our job here is to determine what the kind of source is in relation to the proposed content. It doesn't look like the quoted statement is outside the purview of a secondary source as long as the content is mirroring the risk-analysis tone that there is a likely potential for issues rather than a definitive there are known documented issues. What has been quoted above seems to do an ok job of doing that.

talk

) 22:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

A small group of editors active in articles relating to

, apparently simply because they favor the idea of a fine-tuned universe, (in doing so, justifies the deletion by an ad hominem attack accusing me of "Creationist POV-pushing". The two sources are:

• Stephen Barr, (2006) Modern Physics and Ancient Faith. University of Notre Dame Press. ISBN-10: 0268021988.

• Bernard Haisch, 2010, The Purpose-Guided Universe: Believing in Einstein, Darwin, and God. Career Press. ISBN-13: 978-1601632777

Within hours of creating a stub article on Maxim Makukov whose peer reviewed paper on panspermia was covered by numerous secondary sources, including New Scientist, and the Huffington Post, The New Indian Express and others, an editor guarding the other pages nominated it for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maxim Makukov . He and other editors who collaborate with his POV on these controversial articles have made intimidating and derogatory comments of the type described in examples of ownership behavior [59],[60][61][62], and have argued that articles in Icarus, New Scientist, Huffington Post, and the other source I have cited fail to establish that the subject is notable, claiming, by inference, that their judgement of the topic as "fringe" trumps the notability of coverage in mainstream media, including a peer reviewed journal. Their allegations that the coverage in the press was of the "April Fools joke" type is simply wrong and demonstrates a lack of serious consideration of the sources. It is evident that they also intend to object to including these sources in the panspermia article. So, I ask if the following are reliable sources regarding Maxim Makukov and panspermia?:

• Kemp, Christopher (22 December 2014). "Is the answer to life, the universe and everything 37?". New Scientist. Retrieved January 4, 2015.
• Speigel, Lee (April 9, 2013). "ET Genetic Code May Be Found In Human DNA, According To Kazakhstan Scientists' Biological SETI Theory". Huffington Post. Retrieved January 4, 2015.
• shCherbak, Vladimir; Makukov, Maxim (May 2013). "The "Wow! signal" of the terrestrial genetic code". Icarus. Retrieved January 4, 2015.
• Villard, Ray (April 1, 2013). "Is An Alien Message Embedded In Our Genetic Code?". Discovery. Retrieved January 4, 2015.
• Do aliens exist? Answer may lie in our genes The Times of India. Apr 3, 2013.
• An Alien Code May Be Hidden Inside Our DNA! George Dvorsky. Io9. April 10, 2013.
• Scientists Think Aliens Embedded Message in Our Genetic Code, Like, for Real Becky Feldman. ScienceFiction.com.
• Alien message embedded in our genetic code? ZeeNews. April 2, 2013.
• Scientists claim aliens put secret genetic code in human DNA Trent Moore. Blastr.com Tuesday, April 9, 2013
• A whole new world By Deepshikha Punj. New Indian Express Published: 27 October 2013
• Discovery – Alien genetic code may be embedded in Human DNA TBU NEWS ⋅ APRIL 27, 2013
• Alien message embedded in human genetic code? the Freepress Journal | Apr 03, 2013

I believe the editors objecting to these sources are treating their own judgement of the the validity of the hypothesis and evidence claimed by Makukov above the fact that his hypothesis and story have been covered by numerous reliable secondary sources. Clearly, anything remotely related to the creation vs. evolution issue falls under the controversial topics category and it accepted that such topics, given the breadth of coverage and controversy, even if classified as pseudoscience by the majority of scientists, still warrants Wikipedia coverage. Editors' personal opinions regarding the validity of a claim related to panspermia, such as that made by Makukov should not trump the notability established by numerous reliable, secondary sources covering the claim. —GodBlessYou2 (talk) 06:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Which part of

WP:AGF do you not understand? Dominus Vobisdu (talk

)

This is a scientific subject and thus needs to be notable in the scientific field you're trying to present it in. Makukov has published 5 papers that I can find since 2007 and those papers have been cited 8 times, in total. They don't meet notability requirements. Aside from notability almost none of your links would be an RS on the subject. Some are literally science fiction or movie websites.Capeo (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

As long as no attempts are being made to qualify this as science, there is no issue in reporting this type of material, if it is well covered. A subject does not need to be scientific to warrant coverage in WP. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

This is pretty much moot now, as Makulov himself has !voted for deletion at the AfD, stating that he was horribly misrepresented in the popular press and, consequently, the article that GodBlessYou2 created, and goes on to list all the errors in the articles listed above. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The article about Makukov is just about one paper he wrote. The sources used are not really rs for an article about a scientific theory and the article actually sensationalizes the already sensational writing in the sources. He did not say that there is an ET message in our DNA but that it is a possibility. There is value in exploring all the various possibilities in the chance that one of them may turn out to be true, but that it is not the same as saying this theory is true. TFD (talk) 21:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure where to put this, but I thought some here might find it interesting. A definition for London School of Economics on the Urban Dictionary website claims that LSE has 'produced a quarter of all nobel prize winners in Economics' [63]. Whilst a significant number of such winners have been associated with LSE, far fewer have been produced by LSE: from [64], I can count no more than five out of seventy-five. Nonetheless, this claim was forced into the lead of the article by single-purpose accounts [65], [66], [67], where it has stayed for around six months. Amazingly, The Guardian fell for this and repeated the claim on its website [68]. I am not sure who should feel most embarrassed: Wikipedia or The Guardian! 86.170.130.156 (talk) 13:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, what would the procedure be if a user were to reinsert the information using the Guardian link as a source? 86.170.130.156 (talk) 14:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

How do you know the Grauniad's source was Wikipedia?

COI

14:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I spent some time searching for a source for the claim made in the lead and managed to find nothing relevant (here is an example search [69]). Other than the Guardian page that came up, the only other sites were the Wikipedia page and pages that mirror Wikipedia (like this) and the Urban Dictionary page. I very doubt The Guardian took it directly from Urban Dictionary. 86.170.130.156 (talk) 14:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

This seems to be a dispute about the meaning of the word "produced". Does it mean the Winners studied there, worked there, or what? You say that perhaps around a quarter have been "associated" with the LSE. Well, that's an even more obscure term. I should imagine that almost all major economists have been 'associated' with it in some way (giving lectures there, attending conferences, having fellowships etc), so 1/4 seems rather low for "associated". Clearly Urban Dictionary is not a serious source, but it seems to be merely your assertion that this is the origin of the statistic. It was used as a source by one IP, but it was soon replaced by other sources. I'm guessing it's more likely to originate with marketing material produced by the LSE itself. As with all such claims, it can be taken with a pinch of salt, precicely because there can be no absolute definition of "produced", and the institution has an obvious motive to big itself up. This is one of those cases for which we really need to know where the statistic originates in order to evaluate how it should be presented. Ideally it should be quoted rather than presented as fact. Paul B (talk) 15:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I have not been able to find any such claim on marketing material. It might well be one of those urban myths that some believe to be true. The other source was just a source from the Nobel website stating how many times the award had been given and the editor telling us to make the mathematical deduction ourselves (

WP:CALC

seems to suggest it is a bit too controversial for this).

I would read 'produced' as 'studied there': it would be strange to claim LSE 'produced' an economist who studied and worked somewhere else and only joined LSE after the award. See here for 'associated': the article cites thirteen (of the sixteen the LSE website claims) as being a graduate of LSE, or an attendee/researcher, or a member of staff prior to, during, or after the award was given. Institutions are notorious for trying to 'claim' as many Nobel prizewinners as they can! Considering I cannot find any reliable secondary sources for the information, I cannot see how we can include it in the article. 86.170.130.156 (talk) 15:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The LSE website seems like a pretty authoritative source; they certainly would not understate the number of Nobel Prize winners who have attended or taught at the school. I'd suggest using their numbers, and refrain from suggesting the school "produced" these people (as their affiliations may have come after winning the prize). TheBlueCanoe 17:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree completely. The article already includes this information in the lead. The reverted addition involved taking these figures and coming up with the 'one quarter of winners were produced by LSE' statement. 86.170.130.156 (talk) 17:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)