Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 190

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 185

←

Archive 188

Archive 189

Archive 190

Archive 191

Archive 192

→

Archive 195

I'm writing here for User:VMS Mosaic, who has opened or otherwise participated in a few AfDs lately where he asserted that newspaper reviews should not be considered a reliable source. The AfDs in question are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Undercover: The True Story of Britain's Secret Police, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disenchantment: The Guardian and Israel, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guantánamo: America's War on Human Rights, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/City of Sin: London and its vices.

In the case of the Undercover article he asserts that "The "Undercover" reviews are basically nothing more than entries on the paper's "Undercover" editor's blog.", which includes reviews by the New Statesman, The Times, and the Sydney Morning Herald. He also likened getting on newspaper websites as "just one step above blog entries. Almost any literate person can write a review and get it published in the online additional of a smaller newspaper." I have to refute this since it is not that easy to get published on a newspaper's website. If he was talking about a website like The Patch, Blogcritics.org (although they do have an editorial staff), or the children/teen review portion of the Guardian I could see his point but papers like the SMH are pretty discerning in who they'll publish and any review on their website will still have to undergo some sort of editorial process. Similarly, any review not clearly marked as part of the Guardians' children's review program would be considered a review article that underwent some form of editorial oversight. (The children's reads will have a link to the project page at the end of the article like this one.)

I (along with others) have stated that the current guidelines view newspaper reviews as reliable sources and that the sources in any given article up for deletion would fall under these guidelines. What he's essentially proposing would make many newspapers unusable as reliable sources, so I've asked him to propose changes to RS and to NBOOK (since he's using this as a way to make this more strict). I figure this can start as a discussion here and go off from there. If it is changed to become more strict then so be it- I just don't think that taking multiple articles to AfD is the right avenue to get this ball rolling when policy currently affirms these as reliable sources.

10:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

To cut to the chase, the particular issue here is a self described blog by an editor on a newspaper's web site where the editor's blog includes one off (i.e., the reviewer has one and only one review in the life of the blog) book reviews submitted to the blog editor. To accept such a review as meeting the requirements of a review per

WP:FAITH effort to state my view point, but I think she missed it due to one admittedly over the top statement I made about the contents of newspapers being crap. I was trying to make a point about web site content, but I used far too broad a brush. We got way off the track at that point. Having said all that, I think we do need to tighten up what is considered a RS newspaper review. VMS Mosaic (talk

) 10:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

[VMS Mosaic] Do you have a link to a self-described blog that is an example of the particular issue of your concern? Thanks.Starkcasted (talk) 15:41, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

User:VMS Mosaic has described newspapers as 'crap' and ludicrously written at the City of Sin nomination 'Almost any literate person can write a review and get it published in the online additional of a smaller newspaper' referring to The Guardian generally regarded as a very good source on Wikipedia. AusLondonder (talk) 16:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• If we're talking about unusable newspaper reviews, I'd say that the following would be unusable:

1. Anything from the Guardian's children's review area. Unlike the main review area, this part of the site allows anyone to review. It's moderated in that you can't post anything that would get you banned in the average forum, but it isn't edited. It's essentially the equivalent of iCNN, but only for children that want to review books.
2. The Patch. At best this might be a trivial source that can be used to back up minor details, but that's being charitable. There's really no editorial oversight to speak of with the site.
3. Seattle PI review. Seattle PI uses reviews from Blogcritics.org, which is essentially a site that sends blog reviews to various websites. Blogcritics does have editorial oversight, but it's not entirely transparent. I remember looking into it at one point and while you do have to apply (give them three articles as an example of your work so they can decide), I've never heard of them actually turning someone down. There's just something about the site that doesn't really sit right with me, so I stopped using any reviews from them years ago. I've yet to find anyone who really considers it a RS, to be honest.
4. Newspapers that only mention the book in a list. These are typically the type of things you get around the gift giving holidays where the book will be mentioned in a list and might even have a brief synopsis but no actual review of the content. Some of these really need to be watched since they're based on user input so there's no real editorial process here, just someone asking for book recommendations and then listing them in the next article.

Those are the basic cases of newspaper (or newspaper-esque) websites or articles that I'd consider unusable. The biggest barrier with some of the list type articles is that so far there's been no clear consensus to not use them. In many cases a review in a RS will give notability and the only way to make it unusable is if the source has done something to compromise their integrity as a RS. For example, Foreword Reviews used to be a reliable source until they started selling vanity awards and got very, very blatant about it, after which point they started becoming unusable as a source.

(｡◕‿◕｡)

17:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• Patch.com is a pro-am site, much like the blacklisted examiner.com. It's not a newspaper, nor all that reliable. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Toyko and Niteshift. I agree that there are increasingly more examples of publications to which you used to safely ascribe blanket reliability due to their editorial standards that now have sections that do not adhere to the main publication's editorial standards, and you need to assess the reliability of these sections case-by-case and determine if they meet RS standards. On the flip side, I think we can establish that certain sections (e.g. the business news section of a well-regarded newspaper) is a RS, even though another section of the same paper is deemed to not be a RS. Starkcasted (talk) 03:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Source: http://www.cannabisculture.com/content/2011/09/08/Smoke-and-Mirrors-Vancouver-10th-Anniversary-911

Article: Zeitgeist (film series)

Content:

The 4:20 Smoke and 9/11 Mirrors Flashmob will take place on Sunday, September 11 from 4:00pm - 4:30pm at the Vancouver Art Gallery as part of the Vancouver Zeitgeist Media Festival, a not-for-profit festival playing host to live music, visual and interactive art, speakers, and comedy featuring "forward-thinking local artists".

Aside from the editorial on conspiracy, is this a reliable source for describing the Zeitgeist Media Festival? Thanks. OnlyInYourMind^(talk) 01:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I would assume the source can be used to support this specific claim. However, I would be skeptical using it as a source for other claims noted as facts, which would require a case-by-case analysis. Meatsgains (talk) 02:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

i don't think that announcements of an event are good sources for the event having happened. events get cancelled all the time. Jytdog (talk) 05:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies :-). Agreed. Announcements are not evidence that an event took place. I only want this source as a description of the festival's intent or purpose. In this case, a primary source for The Zeitgeist Movement group says this festival is one of two annual events, and I'd like to mention these events with some detail as part of the characterization of this group. OnlyInYourMind^(talk) 21:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• Sources: (i) google:Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest and (ii) https://www.google.com/search?q=%2B%22citizens+may+resist+unlawful+arrest+to+the+point+of+taking+an+arresting+officer’s+life+if+necessary%22&tbs=li%3A1
• Article: Plummer v. State (permalink)
• Content: the sentence "This case is widely cited on the Internet in blogs and discussion groups."

) 10:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Guy is correct. Google results can get pretty "noisy" (with lots of false positives), even when the search is clearly specified, and so their raw results aren't useful as references. A statement such as the case here needs to be cited to a second party reliable source. Nick-D (talk) 11:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Google results aren't the same for everyone. And just showing a Google search result isn't a valid source. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Not only do Google search results vary by user and by geographic location, they change over time. Therefore, a link to search results should not be used as a source. When I use search results in a report, one way to do it is to use an incognito window in Chrome and take a screen shot. Even then it is necessary to document the date and location of the search. Jehochman ^Talk 12:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

@Nick-D: I'm confused. Why do you start with "Guy is correct" and then take my view, which is opposite to Guy's? --Redrose64 (talk) 14:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Oops - my mistake. Raw Google searches can't be used as references for statements (or probably anything, really). Nick-D (talk) 22:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you should ask me what my opinion is, rather than putting words in my mouth and then trying to defeat the straw man you yourself created. Nick and I are in complete agreement that Google results can get pretty "noisy" (with lots of false positives). We may or may not agree on other details -- you would have to ask each of us. For example, I reject your assumption that noisy results are always unusable, but I don't know Nick's opinion on that, not having asked him.

Consider the following claim: "The internet meme "No justice, no peace" is more common on the world wide web than the internet meme "Vacation in the islets of Langerhans". Can we verify that claim using Google? Yes, we can. That's because the signal is far larger than the noise -- just as in acoustics, where ambient sound may be able to drown out a whisper but not a shout. Are false positives a problem? Do the Google search yourself (with the quotation marks) and try to find a false positive for either phrase. Are the results inaccurate? All results from any measurements are inaccurate. The question is whether they are inaccurate enough to give us the wrong answer, In this case they are not. "No justice, no peace" is more common no matter who does the search. It was more common last week and last month, and it will remain more common next week and next month. We could ask a hundred people to run the test and exactly 100% of them would find that the internet meme "No justice, no peace" is more common on the world wide web than the internet meme "Vacation in the islets of Langerhans".

So my conclusion is that Google results must be used with care and careful consideration of exactly what they are being asked to support, but they are not totally useless in all situations, nor are they always forbidden by Wikipedia policy. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Guy, are you talking about using Google Search results as sources for talk page discussion, or in article-space? Abecedare (talk) 16:14, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

if the suggestion would be to source "The internet meme "No justice, no peace" is more common on the world wide web than the internet meme "Vacation in the islets of Langerhans" to google searches, that would be

WP:OR. I am not sure that is the suggestion, though. Jytdog (talk

) 16:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

That was a made-up example showing how Google can support a claim in article space without violating

WP:V. If you prefer, look at the real-world example from Plummer v. State listed at the top of this thread. My point remains that that Google results must be used with care, but they are not totally useless in all situations, nor are they always forbidden by Wikipedia policy. --Guy Macon (talk

) 16:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

BTW, Bad Elk v. United States makes the same claim without any source. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

yes, this editor is doing

WP:ORN Jytdog (talk

) 18:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: I am not putting words in your mouth. In this edit you used the words "I believe you are mistaken", so that is why I wrote "Guy Macon ... claims that I am mistaken" above. Also, what is this "straw man" which you say I created but am now trying to "defeat"? --Redrose64 (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog: In that same edit, Guy Macon said to post the objection on the reliable sources noticeboard. This page is, I believe, the reliable sources noticeboard. If it is not, where should I have posted my question? --Redrose64 (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

generally, when editors go wrong in WP, they go wrong many ways at once. If you do what every policy and guideline says we should do - namely find the best secondary sources you can about something, read them, and craft content based on them, you will almost never go wrong. When editors do stuff like this - come in with some pre-determined goal and try to create content about it, they tend to wrong in many ways. Yes, the sourcing is questionable so

) 19:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Except for the fact that you apparently did not read the referenced sources. I reworded a problematic portion and reverted, especially since there are additional sources that have been located. GregJackP Boomer! 20:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I look forward to your response on the article talk page. Jytdog (talk) 00:24, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest that everyone carefully read Wikipedia:Search engine test (full disclosure: I wrote part of that guide) and that Redrose64 and/or Jytdog quote the exact wording of any Wikipedia policy or guideline that contradicts what that page says. In particular, I would like to see the policy or guideline that supports such claims as "a Google search results page fails WP:V and so cannot be used as the linked source in a reference" after I explained exactly how and where such a result can be used. (Which is, of course, with great care and a firm understanding of the many limitations of such a test.) --Guy Macon (talk) 22:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

• A Google SERP would seem to be a poor source for article content. It's variable and lacks editorial control. More importantly, the example given is pure original research.- MrX 00:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll happily stand by what I wrote above. there are problems with regard to every content policy when people use bottom-scraping sources like a google search result. Maybe it scrapes by

WP:V on the basis of some essay (not even a guideline) but then it runs smack into OR and UNDUE. What is the point of having wikilawyering discussions on every noticeboard? Just base content on solid, secondary sources and we don't have to go through all this. Jytdog (talk

) 00:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Great. We agree that it does not violate

WP:UNDUE gives us clear guidance on this: "the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained." Giving the misquote due weight in this case means documenting the fact that thousands of web pages (every one an unreliable source) falsely claim that Plummer contains the phrase "citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer’s life if necessary" and that the actual case contains no such quote. The only question is how to document the fact that those thousands of web pages with the bogus quote exist. --Guy Macon (talk

) 03:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

There is no source for that. There could be one, but it doesn't exist. The fact that none of the law professors with their many many blogs, much less law journals, has not written about this, is a good sign that it is UNDUE. Jytdog (talk) 03:51, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

For those engaged here, I opened a discussion on a related article on related but different OR issues here: Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Bad_Elk_v._United_States Jytdog (talk) 04:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• As explained by Redrose64, using Google searches to verify article content is a very bad idea, and one that obviously fails
  WP:SYNTH because verification of a factoid in an article would involve the reader interpreting what they see in search results. Another point is that for the claim (This case is widely cited on the Internet in blogs and discussion groups) to have any significance, the reader would need to know how the search results compare with other searches—for example, try apple dog love then explain whether there is anything unusual about the case in question. Either the claim is unimportant and can be omitted, or it is important and requires a secondary source for interpretation. Johnuniq (talk
  ) 11:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

WHOIS

Ca.papavero is insisting using WHOIS to describe the ownership of Carly Fiorina's websites, including information about the name of the owner (non notable person) and the fact that one of the domains names is under private registration, based on his understanding that WHOIS is an "official" source. That material was not reported as notable in any secondary source. Editors may weigh in at Talk:Carly_Fiorina#WHOIS. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Are the following sources used at

) 21:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

No. Both are on the low end of the reliability scale. For a subject like Italian American culture, it should be easy to find much better sources.- MrX 00:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

There are many books on the subject, for example: [1]. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:51, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Cwobeel, skimming through the book it appears to be about Italian American Culture, but doesn't really go into the claims of the sub-culture impacting overall American Culture.

Thanks to both MrX & Cwobeel for your views.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I am sure that may be many others. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

@RightCowLeftCoast: If this is a subject of interest, there is a long bibliography in this book [2] - Cwobeel (talk) 20:24, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Is socialistworker.org a RS ? On facts? For establishing notability of an individual who is mentioned in this publication? E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

What exactly is the thing it is supposed to be supporting? In general, socialistworker is an opinion site, generally not reliable for news. They often link to other news outlets though, and that could be used. Kingsindian ♝♚ 23:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Need to know context, but I would say in general no. Among other reasons, their "About" page indicates that they accept reader contributions.

COI Statement

23:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Looking at a BLP of questionable notability. Useful to know that they accept reader contributions. I won't rely on it to carry much weight, if any.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Formerly98. But you need to provide the article in the Socialist Worker and the article it is used to establish notability. TFD (talk) 00:19, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• • An activist, Sherry Wolf (activist) has the fact of having penned articles published on socialistworker.org (which is true, [3], on her WP page. It is being used to validate notability, ("Wolf has also written articles published in....").E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• In general, no, especially not for a BLP. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Isn't Socialist Worker known for having extreme left bias? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Sure, but isn't some of the "mainstream news" known for having an extreme right bias? In my opinion, Socialist Worker is biased and i read it as such, but so is the Wall Street Journal and Forbes, in the other direction. Bias is ever-present in all media, in my opinion, and one kind of bias is not so different from another. I personally would take anything from Socialist Worker with a grain of salt, especially anything that is interpretive or ideological, but i do the same with anything i read from WSJ. SageRad (talk) 16:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

As for the point that Socialist Worker accepts reader contributions for articles, wouldn't the question be whether they automatically publish them, like a Wiki or an unedited Blog site, or do they go through an editorial process and exclude some things, and edit the things they do accept? SageRad (talk) 16:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I can't find a masthead on their website, let alone discussion of the editorial process. There is, of course, a sense in which all publications "accept reader contributions". In this case, however, SW specifically invites: "activists involved in day-to-day struggles, large and small--writing about protests, pickets, meetings and other actions in their area, and taking up the issues and questions they face. We welcome contributions to our Labor News and Activist News sections--and to the ongoing discussions in our Readers' Views department." Which suggest little or no editorial oversight of at least these departments. Whether the rest is edited, or perhaps operated on an ideologically egalitarian, cooperative, blog-like basis (as is true of at least some left wing magazines, see : +972 Magazine) is unclear.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I would say that the source is valid for the statement 'has also written articles in ...', BUT that having written articles on this website, is not valid for establishing notability. Are the other publications/notability claims more solidly grounded seems to be the key question.Pincrete (talk) 11:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

To point out that their about page says they welcome reader contributions is true but a bit misleading. It says "We welcome contributions to our Labor News and Activist News sections--and to the ongoing discussions in our Readers' Views department." Anyway, I agree it's a valid source for the fact she has written for it, but probably marginally relevant or not at all in terms of her notability. Formerip (talk) 12:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Notability is a general issue. That she has written for SW is slightly relevant for notability, but not too much. As far as I can see from the article, she has also written for The Nation magazine. It would require a bit more than one article to make her notable, of course. Kingsindian ♝♚ 12:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Generally speaking, no. But if you have a specific claim for a specific article, we can take a closer look. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

The following content was added to the Monsanto legal cases and to the Glyphosate article:

In April 2015, a lawsuit was filed against Monsanto alleging false advertising for the claim they made that Roundup herbicide (containing glyphosate as the active ingredient) acts on an enzyme that is not found in people.^[1] The plaintiff claims that because the EPSP synthase enzyme is found in microbes of the human gut microbiome, it is therefore found in people. The outcome of the case is pending.

References

1. ^ SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Case No: BC 578 942

• Is the source reliable for the content?
• More broadly - should we ever source content from briefs filed in lawsuits (as opposed to decisions from lawsuits). The question is about briefs. i searched the RSN archives and there have been discussions about affidavits and decisions, but not about briefs per se.
• There are clear questions about
  WP:UNDUE that folks can comment on, if they want but this is not the board for that, of course. Thanks. Jytdog (talk
  ) 14:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Clarification: So as not to waste any uninvolved editor's time, and since this is a discussion,

) 15:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

not a "clarification". the question as stated is neutral and and accurate. and please note that the actual content goes beyond simply reporting that a lawsuit was filed and also describes the claims of the plaintiff. Allowing content based on sources like this would turn Wikipedia into a garbage dump. As i wrote on the glyphosate talk page, allowing content like this is an invitation to turn WP into advertising for litigants on all sides of all issues. Horrible. Jytdog (talk) 15:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying,

WP:WEASEL way of getting a concept into the article that some think has no merit. I would just like to separate out all the questions clearly, and define what editorial decision is for reason A versus reason B versus reason C, and get it all on the table transparently. In this case, i think that Tsavage's comment is useful. SageRad (talk

) 15:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

no i am specifically raising an issue about sourcing. Jytdog (talk) 15:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog: It pains me that I feel forced to contribute to clogging up a noticeboard by your (typical) hasty posting. That said, your statement from the Talk page is, "Tsavage, about your comment on the same content and sourcing at the Monsanto legal cases article, I have opened a thread at RSN here" - you are telling me that this RSN query is to address my question (which is as represented above in the clarification), while using the original example from way earlier in the discussion, one which I assume you hope is a slam dunk for disapproval. It's a kind of bait and switch, with the ultimate result no doubt of simply drawing things out forever - if you get support here for the wrong question, you'll still use that to argue against my point. It reminds me of the "doesn't matter if you're right or wrong, we have such deep pockets, we can litigate you to death" approach to dispute resolution - where do you get our energy for this sort of editing? --Tsavage (talk) 15:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

incoherent personal attack. whatever. Jytdog (talk) 16:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

discussion

• specific content: not reliable - source is
  WP:WEIGHT for content generated from it. Jytdog (talk
  ) 14:32, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
• generally - it is hard to imagine a case where sourcing content to a brief filed in a lawsuit would be a good idea. Generally unreliable. Jytdog (talk) 14:32, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
• I can certainly see cases where sourcing quoted statements describing the plaintiff's position could be made to the primary document (say, directly quoting something that was partially quoted in a secondary source), but here, where it's being used to support the claim that the defendant had made certain statements? Not reliable, not by a mile. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Just to make my general stance clearer: a brief is just as suitable - and no more suitable - as any
    self-published source. If the AMA files an amicus curiae brief on whether Disco Fever is a disease, then that makes just a good source for making a statement about AMA's stance on DF as if they'd put it on their own website. But we would not use it for boastful claims about themselves. In the case of an initial filing, claims about the merits of the case qualify as such. --Nat Gertler (talk
    ) 15:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
• This is an NPOV dispute. The source is reliable in that there is a lawsuit with those allegations. However, it's a primary source and as such cannot demonstrate that the content is worthy of note anywhere in this encyclopedia. To incorporate it in an article as sourced would violate
  talk
  ) 15:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
• That sounds like an editorial decision that editors of a page would make, about whether inclusion of something that is not noted by a secondary source is worthy of inclusion. It is much more likely that something noted by a secondary source with an editorial board would have a stronger argument for inclusion, but i wish to make the point that primary sources are not disallowed. I read
  WP:UNDUE
  and see:

Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to it.

This makes sense to me, and i agree -- but this does not mean that the point supported by this primary source is *necessarily* the view of a tiny minority. If it is, then so be it, and call it what it is -- as in the example they give of the article about the Earth not including the view of the "Flat Earth Society".

As for

WP:SOAP

, i read there:

Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your opinions.

I agree with this, as well, then the question would be, is inclusion of this piece of information really a soapbox / propaganda thing, or is it about completeness? I can see it both ways, and it would depend on your frame of reference, i am sure. A lot depends on frame of reference. NPOV on controversial issues seems to be a balancing of significant points of view described as such. I feel a certain point of view being pushed by others in the article in question, but i wish to assume good faith as much as i can. It goes both ways. Things are indeed relative. And majority does not decide correctness or rightness. SageRad (talk) 15:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

With that one source, we only know that it is a pov of the claimants and their lawyers. Such a tiny minority has no weight here. --

talk

) 15:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, i think there is a logic error in Ronz's comment above, in that this one source does not have to be the only source by which we can know how many people who think about glyphosate share the POV it represents versus those who think about glyphosate who do not. Or, more appropriately, the real editorial decision to be made would depend upon this question: Among those people who think about glyphosate, does a significant sub-population think that the fact of this lawsuit being filed is relevant enough to be included in an article on glyphosate? Their answer to that would probably incorporate and estimation as to whether they think the matter involved is important and is likely to be correct. In other words, among people who think about glyphosate seriously, how many of them think that the lawsuit reflects a "flat earther" POV versus an interesting and significant POV. SageRad (talk) 15:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I can think of no examples where it is great scholarship to add content based solely on a single brief where the litigation is not reported in any independent, secondary sources. That is horrible. You made it clear you did this because you are so focused on Wikipedia saying that "EPSP synthase enzyme is found in microbes of the human gut microbiome" - this is a perfect example of absolute bottom-scraping sourcing to push a POV. It is not what we are about here. I appreciate you stooping this low because it is giving the community a chance to weigh in on a broader sourcing issue. Jytdog (talk) 15:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• Reliable but Undue on reading the first few pages of the filing, it is clear that the defendant's advertising claim is central to the plaintiff's claim (Page 3). The specific advertising is attached at Page 13 and labelled "Exhibit 1". The specific wording in our article - which is a list of lawsuits, after all - is supported. Even though it is a primary source, it describes the court case, not any wider or general situation. So long as our article wording does not change its own scope, I see no problem. As the case is ongoing, however, we might regard this mention as
  WP:UNDUE, unless there has been significant media coverage. If there are no secondary sources, then the case itself is not notable. A quick search and I can find only one (at examiner.com). I note that the link provided above goes to a page on the class action website, not to any repository of official legal documents. I think I'd want to see a bit more media coverage before including this. --Pete (talk
  ) 15:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:SPS and probably the clearest example of an SPS that exists to make money and push a biased perspective (that is what lawyers are paid to do - make an argument for their client and do whatever they can to demolish the other side). Sourcing content to a court brief alone is batshit crazy in my view. Jytdog (talk

) 16:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree. It's a reliable source - if the case is notable. In which case there'd be good secondary sources, which would recapitulate the same information. The fact that the only mentions we can access lead back to the plaintiff leads me to conclude that this attempt to get a mention in Wikipedia is more of the same, and SageRad deserves some closer investigation. --Pete (talk) 16:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry the whole gang has been investigating the heck out of me and sending me notices of COI and other stuff... so since you make this implication of my motives, let me say that i found the lawsuit to be of interest, and i came across it in my inquiry into glyphosate, and then i saw the section on legal issues involving Monsanto, and i recalled this lawsuit and thought it relevant in a compendium of legal issues involving Monsanto, and i added it to the article. Is that bad? If you want to investigate me, go ahead. If you want to make a formal accusation of some kind, go ahead. I have differing perspectives than do some people who are doggedly watching several pages in that topical area, and who are doing things that seem shady to me. So i guess it's all relative. And it makes a lot of sense. So let's just be honest about what we're saying, right? You're saying it's worthy of investigation that i have a watchful eye toward Monsanto, i think. I say that an aware person *should* have a watchful eye toward Monsanto, given history, and that Wikipedia is a place where information about its wrongdoings should be available to the public and not edited away for unknown reasons based on technicalities and 1,000 paper cuts. SageRad (talk) 16:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

We have policies built up over many years. You would do well to familiarise yourself with them, otherwise you'll run into trouble, especially editing on closely-watched topics. From where I sit, you're trying to use our encyclopaedia as a soapbox. However, this is not the page for discussion of that nature, and I'll leave it there. --Pete (talk) 16:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I think Pete's finding (and I don't know him from...Adam) is...refreshingly rational. Keeping content decisions as much as possible at the article level, which here is about deciding on the noteworthiness of the item in light of available sources, is good. Although consensus is not a vote, more editors are likely to go against inclusion at this point, and while this can be argued against, it's also generally fine as long as the reason for non-inclusion is clear, and that it is NOT that the current sourcing is unreliable. This really belongs on the article Talk pages. --Tsavage (talk) 17:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Tsavage i think you would agree that discussions between you and me are not productive. When you said you wanted to include this at the Monsanto article, I brought it to the community, to spare the mutual aggravation. I don't give a flying squirrel why you agree not to include it, just that you do. Jytdog (talk) 20:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, i fully agree with Tsavage here. Amazing how a simple dialogue in which one is heard and responded to in good faith can feel so good. I'm not here to soapbox, to take over any article, or to push a synthesis. I am here to improve the content of Wikipedia, and i do bring my own experience and perspective, but i also recognize that others have equally valid perspectives. I'm ok to leave the lawsuit off the pages for now, and maybe propose that *if* it moves forward or gets into a more respected source than Examiner.com, that we can revisit it. It's been this meta-level stuff that has been bothering me, not genuine decisions about content made in good faith discussions. SageRad (talk) 17:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

great, SageRag. Jytdog (talk) 20:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not about you, or any other editor. It's about wikipolicy, developed over the years by the community. If we can't find reliable secondary sources, it's not notable enough for inclusion, regardless of anything else. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 21:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Reliable as to the claim made by the party. This would have to be weighed as to whether inclusion would be undue. Unreliable as to the merits of the case or claim. GregJackP Boomer! 18:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• Reliable primary document for the Monsanto legal cases but undue for the Glyphosate article. This is similar to where President Clinton said, "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is." It is pure semantics. Remember, anyone can make any claim in the filing of a lawsuit. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

By saying it is reliable at all you are contradicting your own last sentence, along with SPS and the financial COI of the litigant; there is not even a pretension in a court brief of being neutral. We should all agree on a strong presumption against using court briefs to source anything. Jytdog (talk) 20:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you don't understand the nuanced difference between what the claim is and the merits of the case. I do not agree on a presumption against using court briefs, quite the opposite. GregJackP Boomer! 03:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

i know exactly what i am saying, and that is, that there should be a strong presumption against using a court brief as a source in Wikipedia. a decision is at least aiming for truth; an affidavit is at least sworn to be true. a brief is SPS raw argumentation, aimed to win for the client. why would you ever want a wikipedia editor to source something from one? (real question) Jytdog (talk) 03:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Obviously you don't understand what I am saying, and I never stated that you didn't understand what you were saying. The best place to get the claim of a party is from that party's pleadings. It is where, in every court case, that the party states exactly what his claim and cause of action is. In a like manner, the best place to determine what the other party's defense is comes from that party's pleadings. Whether the claim or defense has merit is a separate manner, for which no pleading or brief is an acceptable source. Those are completely different issues. There is no contradiction between the first sentence and the last sentence, and the fact that I have to explain the difference proves the point. GregJackP Boomer! 05:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

The wording of the article is fully supported by the source. We are not making a judgement on the claim, nor accessing for neutrality. We are simply reporting the basics of the claim, in much the same way as we might summarise the plot of a work of fiction. The real question is whether the case is notable, and without any reliable secondary sources, it is hard to give a positive answer. This may change if the story is picked up or goes viral or something, but I don't think Wikipedia needs to lend itself to that process. We'll report on the story, not be part of it. --Pete (talk) 11:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

We are not making a judgement on the claim, nor accessing for neutrality. We are simply reporting the basics of the claim, in much the same way as we might summarise the plot of a work of fiction. Exactly my point. Thanks Pete GregJackP Boomer! 13:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Reliable, but reliable secondary sources are to be preferred per

) 16:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• No. This should not be included because it is a primary source and the allegations are sub judice, we have nothing in response and that would require us to enagge in original research or synthesis in order to contextualise the case. We could document the lawsuit as described in reliable independent sources if it can be shown to be significant. Guy (Help!) 21:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• Guy, i'm seeing some others saying that the source is reliable to establish that this lawsuit was filed. The question here was not whether the lawsuit's filing is significant enough for an article, and not whether the claims made in the lawsuit are valid, but only whether the source was sufficiently reliable to establish the fact that such and such a lawsuit has been filed. SageRad (talk) 16:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

As others have said above, the source is technically sufficient as a source to establish that the lawsuit exists and to cite the fact that the plaintiffs are claiming such-and-such a thing (although any reference would have to have an in-text attribution making it clear that this is just what the plaintiffs claim and not established fact.) However, it would be better to find a secondary source referencing the lawsuit; crucially, the existence of a brief obviously doesn't establish that that lawsuit or brief are noteworthy. So to answer the original question -- yes, we can sometimes cite a legal brief as a primary source; but it has to be done carefully, and it would almost always be best to find a secondary source as well in order to establish that the legal brief is worth discussing. If absolutely nobody is reporting on this case, then it's hard to see why we should put it in the article, since it would be giving it

) 12:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• Undue. Without secondary sources mentioning this it's
  talk
  ) 02:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

How is this original research? --Tsavage (talk) 11:15, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Because it's Wikipedia editors who have uncovered and presented (i.e. originated) the information that this article exists. Nobody else is saying it's important.

talk

) 12:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

That is nowhere near

OR. It may be undue and it shouldn't relied on for the merits, but it is not OR. It is not something secret that has been uncovered and presented, it is a claim made in a primary source that is reliable as to what claim is being made (or what defense). It may very well be the only source for that information. GregJackP Boomer!

15:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

GregJackP just fyi I work in law, so please stop saying that i don't know what i am talking about. nothing in a legal brief should be considered "information" - a brief is an argument that selects facts and frames them to serve the client. If some POV-pusher wants to try to shove content into WP by repeating that argument in WP and sourcing it to the brief, that is a serious problem. Briefs should not be used as sources. Decisions are the primary sources from court cases, that should be used with care. Jytdog (talk) 15:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, I can only base my opinion on what you write, and what you write indicates that you have not had legal training. Working in "law" includes many things and people, including the clerk that filestamps pleadings, but it doesn't mean that they understand the law, nor that I should go to them for legal advice. The fact that I had to explain the difference between a claim and determining a case on the merits is telling, as is the assertion a brief is not as valid as a sworn affidavit. The later tells me that you are not legally trained, especially since you did not except verified pleadings from your blanket assertion.

The pleading, complaint, or petition may be the only location in the court documents where you can find what the plaintiff's claim and cause of action are. The answer or response may be the only location in the court documents where you can find what the defendant's defense is. Someone who is trained in the law knows that.

Is a brief persuasive? Sure. But if you are not looking to the brief for the merits, how does that affect what the party's claim is?

None of this, by the way, affects your value as an editor. I don't create content in the medical or alt-med areas because I'm not as competent as someone like you. I don't have that type of background. It just means that you and I have different skills. Almost everyone who has commented on this, and every single lawyer who has commented, has said it is reliable for what plaintiff is stating the claim is, but unreliable as to the merits. GregJackP Boomer! 18:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

GregJackP for pete's sake stop commenting on contributors! just stop it. and stop trying to prove you have legal training. it doesn't matter and is a waste of time. Jytdog (talk) 18:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. Quit bringing it up then. I merely responded to your comment, which indicated that you work in law and that you know what you are talking about. In any event, the material is reliable as to the claim, possibly undue, and unreliable as to the merits. GregJackP Boomer! 18:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

i was responding to this. and you continue even now with it. 18:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I know what post you were replying to, due to the threaded nature of this page. However, your first sentence was "just fyi I work in law, so please stop saying that i don't know what i am talking about.", by which you brought your competence in the law into the discussion. I'm happy to drop it, but I'm not going to let you paint this as a situation where you are being mistreated. If you don't want your knowledge of the law discussed, don't bring it up. GregJackP Boomer! 19:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on content, not contributors. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm happy to do so. Is that going to work both ways? I just question it because of the comments being made about my contribution as wikilawyering (here), which also described the conduct of another editor as "shoehorn[ing] content" and "bottom-scraping." Content and not contributors? I'll tell you what, if you make a commitment not to comment on others ("incoherent personal attack," "you stooping this low"), I'll do the same. But otherwise, don't feel like you can tell me to act better than you are doing yourself. GregJackP Boomer! 20:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• Reliable, but perhaps premature. The source is reliable for a statement of the allegations in the lawsuit. Since the case is pending, and the resolution unknown, perhaps it is premature to even include this case in the article. The case could ultimately be dismissed or nonsuited - in which case it probably shouldn't be included. IAAL. Minor4th 18:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

A PROD i recently added to a new article was removed with the addition of a reference to this webpage, which does indeed mention this episode by name. However, I am not sure whether this source is reliable (mainly because I don't speak German), which is why I am bringing it here for further discussion.

00:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I think the issue might be more one of notability than reliability. fernsehserien.de is website for tv series hosted and maintained by some private media/internet company. The content they host or link to seems to be a mix of material edited/organized by company employees, provided by freelance editors, taken or quoted from other publications and user generated content. It is probably reliable enough for sourcing basic information/facts on various tv series being broadcast in German speaking countries. However whether it alone is enough to provide notability for a particular episode seems rather questionable to me, similarly their reviews might not be considered notable. Imho it might be acceptable as a supporting source for minor information tidbit, but resting the bulk of the content and the notability of a subject just on this site seems inappropriate to me.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Previous discussion doesn't seem to have come to a solid conclusion.

As issue is a divorce date for Sharon Leal. The offered source says, "Married October 2001 Divorced 2007" without a byline (which seems to have been important in the prior discussion.

Separately, Essence magazine gives confusing information that seems to dispute this. An article dated either November 2008 (in the URL) or December 2009 (in the copy) has Leal saying she was "going through a divorce right now...", though no sources seem to indicate another marriage in 2007or after that could have been ending in late 2008 or late 2009.

IMDb (not a reliable source, but doesn't mention any marriage(s)) gives a link for her official site, but it is a dead link.

Thoughts? -

) 17:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

The article as it stands now has contradicting information in regards to her dating Paul Becker while still being married to Bev Land with sources saying he is currently married to Dania Ramirez Please evaluate these inconsistencies. Dumaka (talk) 18:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is inconsistent. It does not, however, tell us that Leal divorced Land in 2007 (as hollywood.com states). Additionally, it does nothing to rectify the apparent conflict with the Essence article, which seems to suggest the divorce was in process in late 2008 or late 2009, rather than being completed in 2007. While it seems likely that Leal and Land divorced at some point between 2001 and 2011, I do not see solid sourcing for 2007, unless hollywood.com is reliable. Then we would have the further issue of integrating the weird dating from Essence (which does not seem to support 2007). -

talk

) 03:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a dispute Pearl S. Bucks alleged involvement the the Sixties Scoop. The content was repeatedly added by an IP/new user possibly in good faith but reverted by me and another editor due to insufficient sources. See the following edits for that.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pearl_S._Buck&type=revision&diff=663065872&oldid=663035600
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pearl_S._Buck&type=revision&diff=662840949&oldid=662322016

The issue with the provided sources currently is that even their existence is not easy to verify and their reputation is unclear and whether they alone provide enough notability for the content to mentioned seems rather questionable as well (at least to me). As I want to avoid an edit war, I'd appreciate some other editors to asses sources and content. The sources in question from the 2 edits are:

• Tim Fontaine, Aboriginal Peoples Television Network - APTN, Tim Fontaine, 2012
• Library and Archives Canada, Truth & Reconciliation Commission – Canada, file “Taber Gregory – Henry Desjarlais, wtg for additional citation”, 2012.

Best comment on the article's talk page at Talk:Pearl_S._Buck#Sixties_Scoop to keep the discussion in one place. Thanks in advance.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

CoinDesk has been used as a source at the Bitcoin page. Recently, a user marked it as unreliable. The facts are:

• CoinDesk specializes in bitcoin and digital currencies. I do not think the specialization lowers the reliability of CoinDesk as the source. Contrary to the opinion of some editors claiming unreliability of CoinDesk, specialization is not listed at
  WP:IRS
  as a reason why a news site might be unreliable.
• CoinDesk published their editorial policy and board.
• Facts published by CoinDesk have been reprinted by other sources considered reliable by Wikipedia. The group of outlets republishing the facts published by CoinDesk includes these sources considered reputable by Wikipedia: The Economist, The Telegraph, Reuters, The Wall Street Journal, BBC, The New York Times, CNBC, Bloomberg, and Business Insider. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 14:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

'Specialisation' certainly doesn't make a source unreliable - but neither does it necessarily make it reliable. And given that (according to our article at least), the CoinDesk founder has a financial stake in Bitcoin, it would seem at least open to question as to how independent a source it is. As for mainstream media citing CoinDesk, can you provide a few links illustrating this? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, I think that, as always, we need to look at the specifics of what is being cited - it is one thing to cite a website for hard news, and another to cite it for opinion. This was the real issue with the CoinDesk citation recently discussed [4] on the Bitcoin article talk page. The piece in question [5] claimed to be based on an environmental assessment of Bitcoin compared to "fiat and gold-based monetary systems" conducted by the author, but lacked any evidence of scientific credibility - no evidence that it had been published in a credible peer-reviewed journal, and nothing to suggest that it was anything but selective guesswork and handwaving conducted with the purpose of boosting Bitcoin (I could point out multiple obvious flaws in its reasoning, but that is unnecessary - it is up to those citing sources to establish credibility, not for others to disprove it). As an 'assessment' it appears entirely lacking in encyclopaedic merit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I specifically mean this text: "Exchanges have since implemented measures to provide proof of reserves in an effort to convey transparency to users" sourced by [6], where the source has been marked unreliable by an editor for unspecified reasons. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 15:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Yet another text where CoinDesk citation was marked as unreliable is: "About 1,000 bricks and mortar businesses were willing to accept payment in bitcoins as of November 2013" citing [7]. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 15:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The first source doesn't actually support the claim being made - it states that a specific exchange has implemented measures. And the second source definitely isn't WP:RS for the material cited: "All entries on CoinMap are crowdsourced..." AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Source: http://www.kotkalan.com/sports.html Article: Kabaddi Content: "General reliability"

Fellow Wikipedians, I am currently doing some copy editing of the Kabaddi article, and found this source, which I am considering data mining for some additional facts to flesh out the article. Before I do so, could you please let me know what you think of the source from a reliability pov?

Many thanks for any advice that you are able to give. -

04:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The webpage is almost certainly a copy of an earlier version of our article, and accordingly not WP:RS - compare it with the 'History and development' section here: [8] AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, looking into this further, I suspect that the relevant content of our article may have been copy-pasted from here, [9] though this needs further investigation. If the article as it now stands does contain copy-pasted material, we will have to remove it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi

'c.s.n.s.'

08:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I hadn't heard of this before seeing it being used (and removed) at

) 08:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Just one of four personal blogs run by Usama Abbasi on blogger.com. No indication of reliability. Abecedare (talk) 09:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Would pages from http://www.dailyscript.com/index.html be considered to be reliable as sources? An editor has added this page from the website to cite information in Beetlejuice#"Beetlejuice" or "Betelgeuse". I cannot find anything about the website other than it is "a collection of movie scripts and screenplays to serve as a resource for writers and actors and those who simply enjoy reading movie scripts." I guess that means it is sort of a database for scripts and does not generate the content itself, right? Does that mean the script being cited is a primary source? Can it be used in this way if it is? FWIW, I think the edit that was made is not entirely correct and does not reflect what is said in the source. I just want to see if the source is reliable before fixing the bare url and fixing the text. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I would say that this website does look like a reliable source, however there are a few things that make me seem skeptical about it. First off, the website is not published/doesn't have any publication date. We have no idea what their sources are and where the information is coming from. Wiki policy states that "media sources must be produced by a reliable third party and be properly cited." It almost seems like it is publicly generated information. I don't think it should be entirely ruled out, but there should definitely be other sources being used in the article. Good luck and Cheers. Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 21:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I have a concern regarding usage of FILMIBEAT.COM (previously known as entertainment.oneindia.in, which redirects) as a source for

articles. The content is poorly written and does not strike me as a source we should be incorporating into our encyclopedia.

For example, the

article refers to this link as a source:

• http://entertainment.oneindia.in/celebs/radhika-sarathkumar/biography.html

• http://www.filmibeat.com/celebs/radhika-sarathkumar/biography.html

I am seeking community input as to whether or not we should be relying on this website for biographical texts. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 19:12, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I have never been particularly happy with anything relating to oneindia.in It seems often to be an aggregator and I've seen enough examples where the aggregation appeared to include material that closely resembled our own articles. Proving unattributed use of our material would require a lot of work but perhaps we need to try to do that at some point. For now, I would suggest not using it in BLPs on the basis of "least harm". - Sitush (talk) 08:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Press TV is the Iranian state television service. At Talk:United_Synagogue#Rewrite there is some discussion as to whether it can be relied upon as a reliable source related to criticism of a Jewish religious organisation (United Synagogue) and its links with Zionism and Israel. I'd welcome input. --Dweller (talk) 10:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, all news outlets are

talk

) 11:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

The issue here is not so much the reliability of Press TV as a news source, but rather its relevance to the article. The quote used in the article (that United Synagogues is a "Zionist pressure group") is not factual but editorial, and is, in fact, presented as such in the article. The quote is presented to support the claim that United Synagogues' position on Israel ("Israel and Zionism", as the editor insists on stating) is somehow controversial in Britain. But in my understanding, a three-word reference by an indisputably biased Iranian on-line newscaster is not in any way an indication of the existence of controversy.

I therefore question whether this noticeboard is the appropriate place to continue the discussion. Pardon me for cross-posting this to the article page. --Ravpapa (talk) 10:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

User

05:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Use of gold in nuclear weapon design is widely mentioned in many sources as a few seconds in Google Books will demonstrate. In fact, when the W-71 was decommissioned it was referred to as a "gold mine". Crosbie removed very large sections of a previous editor's work based on single-word problems like this, "soft" which I am restoring because they're correct, as well as citing during the process. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I post on this reliable sources noticeboard for the sole purpose of establishing consensus on whether johnstonsarchive is a reliable source. My understanding is that johnstonsarchive is a self-published site and is therefore not a reliable source, and may not be used as a reference in Wikipedia. -

Crosbie

19:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. The basic rule for any collection source of this sort, SPS or not, is that the work contains quality references. Encyclopedia Astronautica is SPS, but is based on clearly indicated high quality cites, and is widely used here.

Looking at the site in question, I find two and a half pages of references for an article body about 6 pages long (excluding the TOC). Those references are widely used in articles here, including FA's. That said, I've only passed over them.

Do you have a specific reason for doubting this page as a source, other than it being SPS? Remember, SPS is not "self-published is bad", it's more like "self-published requires closer examination". I do not see that having taken place here. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Crosbie

19:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

How reliable is politicalgraveyard.com for biographical information (non BLP)? Blueboar (talk) 12:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I would say 'not at all'. It looks like a personal web site of no particular renown, which would put it under

WP:USERGENERATED. What particular fact is being cited to it, though? --Aquillion (talk

) 21:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree. There is no editorial oversight. There are a lot of false "legends" about historical political figures that pop up over the years, sometimes deliberately by contemporaneous rivals or by ideological rivals in later eras. We don't want to proliferate these stories. Starkcasted (talk)

Looking at this site for use in an article. It seems well done and the editors appear to be knowledgeable and reasonably neutral. My concern is the perceived lack of editorial oversight. Any opinions? [16]. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree it is well done and the editors seem to be knowledgeable, but they are by no means neutral. Quite the opposite. Their mission states:

Wall Street On Parade hopes to level the playing field between Wall Street and the 99 percent. Wall Street is a jungle of devices to effect an institutionalized wealth transfer system. The goal of this web site is to provide the jungle guide to the 99 percent in the hope of bringing about citizen-inspired change.

And, all of the articles on the home page and a few others I skimmed are, consistent with that mission, reporting on alleged (I didn't take the time to see if they were credible allegations or not) misdeeds and corruption on Wall Street. They have an "Investigations" tab, and one of the creators states in her bio that she "worked on Wall Street for 21 years. The last decade of her career was spent as an outspoken critic of Wall Street’s corrupt practices, its private justice system and the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act." Starkcasted (talk)

• Ok. I was really planning to use it as a source for a case that had already been settled, just to report on the results of the settlement. They gave a more clear explanation of the case than some of the regular sources. BTW, I don't view wanting to expose perceived corruption as necessarily non-neutral, as long as they're factual about it. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:14, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out the source was not neutral. But, I agree with you that a non-neutral source can be reliable. I'm new at this, but my read of

WP:BIAS is that, while the Wikipedia article must be neutral, it can cite sources with a particular point of view. From a reliability point of view, I haven't dug deeply, but this source seems reasonable. In fact, having a mission statement that plainly lays out the non-neutrality of the site is a good sign. Starkcasted (talk

)

The Line of Best Fit

I'm wanting use this website as a source but I'm uncertain of its reliability. I'm particularly wanting to use this story for a

) 01:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Is this the website you are referring to? http://www.thelineofbestfit.com/ Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 21:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes Comatmebro. Slay A Bit (talk) 04:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Looks like a simple interview. What is it that you wish to source? SageRad (talk) 14:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Middayexpress is replacing an Economist article which says the Camden Somali Youth Development Resource Centre helped pupils to improve their exam results with a letter to a local paper from the centre chairman. Surely this is not independent of the source? http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21583710-somalis-fare-much-worse-other-immigrants-what-holds-them-back-road-long http://www.thecnj.com/camden/2008/030608/letters030608_02.html Talk:Somalis_in_the_United_Kingdom#Somali_Youth_Development_Resource_Centre BrumEduResearch (talk) 19:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

The Economist is a reliable and independent source. A letter from an involved official is neither. bobrayner (talk) 03:20, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for querying this here, BrumEduResearch, and for the opinion, bobrayner. Middayexpress is now suggesting that we use this instead of the Economist. I still think the Economist is much preferable and don't see the need to replace it in any case, but other views are welcome. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:29, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Is that a press release? bobrayner (talk) 13:57, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

It certainly reads like one, or at least as an article that has been based on one (Hiiraan.com is a Somali news website). Cordless Larry (talk) 14:45, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Seems to either be or be derived from a press release to me. Additionally, search results on the name used in the PDF Properties include reference to him as "co-founder of the Somali London Youth Forum", which the article notes was partly set up by the Somali Youth Development Resource Centre. So it isn't independent. --146.199.151.33 (talk) 14:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm actually not insisting on the letter, though as the Chairman of the Somali Youth Development Resource Centre, its author is certainly very reliable on the functions of his organization. I think this ceremony link on the centre's annual awards is preferable. It was pointed out that that ceremony link only insinuates that the organization was credited with having helped to improve the exam results, which I suppose is true. However, the same could be said for the other link. It too doesn't assert outright that the organization helped to achieve this, only that that was its founding objective. Middayexpress (talk) 16:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I've linked to that above, Middayexpress, but it doesn't seem that that is independent of the subject either - see 146.199.151.33's comment. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:39, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the author is an independent college consultant with a specialization in the Somali community [17]. The ceremony link was also originally published on various Somali media outlets [18]. Middayexpress (talk) 17:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

He has previously written things for the centre, so he's clearly not independent of it. There are no such concerns about the Economist. I really don't see the problem with the Economist article as a source. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

The

) 11:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

While the author appears to be a perfectly credible professor of history, his specific usage of "white elephant" doesn't appear to be demonstrably within the definition given in the article and elsewhere. The source is thus accurately described as "weak" and I don't think that using it would enhance the article. I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

According to the wikipedia article: "..it is an object, scheme, business venture, facility, etc., considered without use or value.". The professor characterises the temple as "a white elephant that had been sitting half-finished for half a millennium". I do not see how he could mean something different than the definition given in the article by using that term.Clicklander (talk) 13:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I have found a PhD thesis that could potentially support some material at

) 09:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The thesis would be used as the primary source, but Wikipedia looks for secondary sources first - (say) a write up in a paper or mention in an online article that supports the PDF. You can mention and link to the PDF, but it may be scrutinized because it's the primary source. Post it into the TALK page as a request and see what happens --j0eg0d (talk) 10:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, j0eg0d. The reason I posted here was that the talk page of the article isn't very active, and I doubt it would receive a response there. I can try though. I'll also look to see if the thesis has been cited, though it's a pretty niche field, so I doubt that the specific claims about tolerance have been cited elsewhere. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, thinking about this more, I'm not sure that the thesis is a primary source in the context in which I want to use it. If all I am doing is citing her claim that "Such discourses have been reproduced by academic writings on the diaspora in the UK (cf. Constantinides 1977; Ladbury 1977) and through media reports and analyses", then surely the thesis is the secondary source, and Constantinides and Ladbury are the primary ones? Cordless Larry (talk) 10:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Do you need to cite the thesis at all? The sources being cited in the thesis are both from Between Two Cultures: Migrants and Minorities in Britain, which is itself a secondary source. Wouldn't you be better using that albeit that you will probably have to visit a library to review it as no online or ebook version appears to be available?

talk

) 09:51, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Exactly what I'd started to think myself,

QuiteUnusual. I'll stop being lazy and get to the library. :-) Cordless Larry (talk

) 13:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

@

talk

) 14:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Cheers,

QuiteUnusual, that's super helpful. I know Todorova's work, but wasn't aware that that book covered the Cypriot diaspora. I'll seek it and the other source out. Cordless Larry (talk

) 22:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Quick question about a source.

Hey guys, I just want to know, do you consider TMZ to be a reliable source? The reason I ask is because, TMZ has said on their website that the former actor Reynaldo Rey has died, but I couldn't find any searches confirming it except for TMZ after a Google search. I added on Rey's article page that he died and put TMZ as a source, but do you think I should be using TMZ as a source? Or is it unreliable, and should I remove the info about his death? SpeedDemon520 (talk) 00:34, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Rey's death is now confirmed by Variety[20] , so that will solve your immediate problem. (By the way, Variety mentions that TMZ reported the story first.) --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. SpeedDemon520 (talk) 00:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

To answer your broader question, I think it's reasonable to say that TMZ is controversial, but that may be less about their reputation for accuracy--they seem to get the facts right most of the time, when they report something as a fact--than for the focus of their coverage, which readily extends into gossipy subjects that Wikipedia generally avoids. (For example, see the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 184#TMZ.) My personal view is that a TMZ news report, stating without qualification, and with an identified source, that a notable person has died, should be usable, but usually something less controversial will turn up quickly (as it did here), meaning there's often no need to push the question given the concerns generally raised about TMZ. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I see your point. TMZ did get it right when reporting on Michael Jackson's death (the first news agency to do so). Thanks. SpeedDemon520 (talk) 01:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Updating The 2010 Archive 84: A Report from February 2014 - Executive Chairman of Breitbart(dotcom) News, Stephen K. Bannon's announcement of Breitbart(dotcom)'s turn from an opinion website to a Global Syndication - The Breitbart organization connects Texas & current London-based operations. The extensions to Florida & California in the US, and development in Cairo, Egypt & Jerusalem. These offices are the beginning of an expansion that would add a new regional site (roughly) every 90 days. _NYT Source

I'm taking into account this critique: "Breitbart is categorically not a RS, for very famous reasons

regarding HIS (lack of) journalistic integrity. Sceptre 07:11, 19 December 2010 "
as well this current perspective, "Brietbart is not a reliable source because, wait for it, ...... JOURNALISTIC ETHICS!!! 3 -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:29, 26 May 2015"

A review of the presented "sourced materials";

) 08:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The problem with Brietbart as a "reliable" news source that twists other reporting to be what they want to say, without any evidence they actually do much of their own. (Note that this request is likely GG related based on above poster and the "importance" of Brierbart to the story). Take this article on GG recently [21] which spins this story [22] about the situation of someone trying to contact the police to report harassment which had problems because the person was contacting the wrong department (and subsequently fixed), but treating it as if the police wanted nothing to do with the person. That is absolutely bad reporting, perhaps itself even itching at a BLP violation (I'm only including the link for comparison per BLPTALK) and thus the type of thing that should be avoided as a factual source. A writer's opinion, it shouldn't be a problem as long as it is clearly marked or considered as opinion, but not for factual news. It is not that there are some statements that are truthful, but the issue is separating the truth from clear exaggerations and a history of having this problem. And this is beyond the original Breitbart blogger's own work. --MASEM (t) 06:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Masem. This website is polemical, not news oriented, though they certainly claim to be news. Drudge is a better news source and Drudge doesn't measure up either. Several editors on this board have recently given sourced negative assessments of Breitbart.com and I see no compelling reason to challenge those judgements. Certainly noting in the post above does so. BusterD (talk) 06:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

That's a fixed interpretation when reading the Breitbart London Article; Brianna did "waste time & resources" with false accusations against a county officials through a campaign designed to draw attention before filing a report - Sourced: 1, 2, 3 each stating how Wu was trying to "shame" the attorney into action.

The headline on bizjournals continues the false narrative; Brianna Wu did not contact this person nor did she report anything to the police - but the headline still reads, "GamerGate in Columbus: City attorney's office notified of death threats". Your preferred source is in conflict, not Breitbart(dotcom). Not only did they publish a falsehood, they updated it without confirmation with the Prosecutor ... They took Brianna's word for it.

NOTE: I'm responding to your claims out of civility, but it's leaning off-topic by focusing on Brianna Wu. The issue is "reliability" and again must be noted that Breitbart Corporation is a GLOBAL NEWS SYNDICATE. A much larger more resourceful attribute than the very articles used to discredit it. You're asking to disqualify Breitbart UK, Breitbart US, Breitbart Cairo, Breitbart Egypt & Breitbart Jerusalem.

Breitbart has been lauded for it's role in the "evolution of pioneering websites" including Huffington Post & The Drudge Report. Journalists such as Nick Gillespie & Conor Friedersdorf have credited Breitbart(dotcom) with bringing new voices to debates about politics and culture. Breitbart(dotcom) websites have been both "criticized & praised" for their role in various political issues - Sourced: Atlantic,CNN, and National Journal. You're favoring the criticism while ignoring praise. That's personal bias to equate your decisions. --j0eg0d (talk) 08:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

In considering those three sources, they certainly praise Brietbart the person for his aggressiveness in developing websites to allow voices from outside the center view to report news and opinions, no question. But they do not praise the sites themselves beyond the fact what they exist to do. They in fact point out that the Brietbart series of websites are potentially controversial, and point to a defamation lawsuit raised to one of the sites. This doesn't reinforce any concept that these sites are reliable sources for reporting. In taking the GG story, one of the stories you linked showed that the author/site followed up with the agency in question to verify that Wu spoke with them, though they did not say if there was a case filed or not. In other words, they verified Wu's story. That's fact checking that reliable sources need to have, which Brietbart has not shown. Hence why Brietbart is only as good for its opinions for topics, but not for news. --MASEM (t) 14:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

For Wikipedia's aims, I am more of an inclusionist when it comes to sources. Despite whatever flaws Breitbart has, it seems to me that it is at least as newsy or newsier than The Mary Sue which is included as a reliable source for some things, so why not Breitbart for some things too? Surely they can at least be used to report quotes accurately? 108.52.24.214 (talk) 15:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Does a differing view on the same stories detract from reliability? In this story we're currently talking about the Breitbart piece makes no assertion of its own. They reference an email from the attorney's office as the source of their information. It does appear to be a solid news piece. In fact, if you read the last 2 paragraphs, you'll see that they've taken a neutral position, saying that the threats and harassment have been from both sides. But neutral positions are generally equated as pro-gamergate positions and as such are considered unreliable.

But seriously, what does it take to be considered a RS nowadays? It seems like a paradox. The only way to become a RS is to have already been an RS in the first place.TyTyMang (talk) 16:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

My point is not so much on their views when they are clear and obvious op-eds - there is no reason to necessarily discount Brietbart opinions as part of significant opinions. But when it comes to factual reporting without clearly stating it is an op ed, and where we have other sources to compare against, they do a lot of spinning of the news to present it in a certain light, adding in commentary where it should not be if they want to be taken as a serious factual source. Hence why it currently fails RS for news itself. I think it's fine to use Brietbart opinions as such, but we have to avoid the news spin stories. --MASEM (t) 16:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

It is not impossible that Breitbart will improve in quality as a source however I would suggest that we wait a few years to see what they actually do. They are starting from a very low point and at the very least we would need to see their behavior through an election cycle before any claims to improvements could be considered credible.©Geni (talk) 16:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, it's baffling that some consider Breitbart less reliable than similar quality opinion driven tabloid trash like the Guardian. The problem is not the exclusion of Breitbart, its the inclusion of the Guardian et al. 77.97.24.152 (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, it's baffling that some people think an ideology-driven website with a reputation for gross factual errors, distortions and outright falsehoods, and no reputation whatsoever for fact checking or corrections, is in any way comparable to any news gathering organisation that does fact-check and print corrections where warranted, whatever its political hue. Breitbart is less reliable than Fox News. That is quite an achievement. Guy (Help!) 16:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Breitbart is a fast growing news organization. From their site: "Founded in 2005 by conservative icon Andrew Breitbart, Breitbart News Network is the biggest source of breaking news and analysis, thought-leading commentary, and original reporting curated and written specifically for the new generation of independent and conservative thinkers. Known for hard hitting, no holds-barred journalism along with world-class aggregation, Breitbart News is growing rapidly. The company recently added bureaus in London, Texas, and California, and is currently in the process of launching additional bureaus and verticals." It is a professionally managed news corporation that has been around for 10 years now. I suggest the opinions are reliable for their opinions, and their reporting is as reliable as other such entities (HuffPost, etc.) Capitalismojo (talk) 18:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Not as such, no. It may one day soon become as reliable as Fox News. And then, if they keep up that trajectory, they might reach the level of the New York Times shortly before the heat death of the universe. Guy (Help!) 16:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Please try not to be so incendiary in your rhetoric, also the universe is just as likely, if not more so, to continue to expand. Arzel (talk) 17:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

This is a site that hired James Delingpole to improve its credibility. Delingpole is a widely-derided climate change denier {Redacted}. Whatever might be claimed about Breitbart's intended path to legitimacy, it continues to place itself squarely in the realm of right-wing propaganda.machinery. Any story that's covered on Breitbart that is not also covered in substantially more reliable sources, is either grossly misrepresented (per the Sherrod case), blatantly fraudulent (per the ACORN videos) or insignificant. It takes a looooooong time for any news publisher to claw its way back from that kind of depth of contempt, if it is even possible. Right now the USP seems to be that they are more Tea Party than Faux News.

Any story which has been reported in more reliable sources, should be referenced from those instead. And the reason we have this request, is in order to promote an agenda in a content dispute where there is a superabundance of polemical and unreliable sources. This is a pointless request and pretty much disruptive. Guy (Help!) 18:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

"is in any way comparable to any news gathering organisation that does fact-check and print corrections where warranted, whatever its political hue." So why is the Guardian a reliable source? You didn't answer the question Guy. 77.97.24.152 (talk) 10:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Updating The 2010 Archive 84
Proposal of a Secondary Resolution: Apologies for any facetiousness, but this begs to question ... If Breitbart(dotcom) is the "unreliable source" founded by Community Consensus; Then this conclusion must demand Wikipedia to remove every source of Brietbart(dotcom) from every WIKI page that presents it as a RELIABLE source. How many articles is that(?) Do you imagine? Masem, BusterD, TyTyMang, Geni, Capitalismojo, JzG, Arzel, 108.52.24.214 & 77.97.24.152
--j0eg0d (talk) 02:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Viable vs reliable are two different things. Reliable means we can't use it for factual claims, particularly contentious ones, but this does not mean that op-eds they publish may be useful as secondary sources for opinions as long as UNDUE/FRINGE is respected. --MASEM (t) 02:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

As it stands; Anyone may (and do) claim contemptibles, actualities, "fringe news" or "poor sourcing" for anything. Who decides on-the-spot definitions? - Let's pretend I didn't use the word "viable" ... You realize there's a tremendous amount of Breitbart(dotcom) sourcing throughout Wikipedia. Refusing one "reliability" as a consensus means the altering of "several" pages with "several" group & individual complaints. An educated guess foresees a long battle to conclude a totality of sources that ARE or ARE-NOT reliable; Especially considering opinion pieces from Huffington Post, Gawker, The Daily Beast, The Mary Sue, Salon, etc ... Will also be on the table for concurrent rulings. Do we want or need that? --j0eg0d (talk) 03:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

A quick check with AWB shows that only 97 pages on en.wiki have Brietbart.com links, and the majority of those pages are people that are connected to the site, or situations where Brietbart is a major factor in the situation (such as the ACORN videos). As such, this isn't as widespread as suggested. --MASEM (t) 04:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

In Content alone, there's 342 URLs and in Everything there's 846. But rather than diverting off-topic; Can we resolve the questions? --j0eg0d (talk) 04:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• There's no way it makes sense to argue this has yet gained a widespread reputation for factual accuracy and fact checking - as noted above this so far remains an all spin and no substance propaganda machine which wikipedia can well manage without. --_nonsense ferret 11:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Textbook

questionable source

, has a reputation of poor fact-checking and making inaccurate claims:

• http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/17/business/media/breitbart-news-network-plans-global-expansion.html
• http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/07/20/agriculture.employee.naacp/index.html
• http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2013/02/20/chuck-hagel-and-friends-of-hamas-five-questions/
• http://ajr.org/2014/11/12/most-amusing-corrections-ever/

-

Strongjam (talk

) 21:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• Questionable source is putting it nicely. Breitbart has a reputation for not just lack of fact checking but actual false statements. See this PolitiFact ruling for example. Or this. Or Business Insider. Or The Atlantic writing about a lawsuit.
  re
  }} 21:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• Breitbart.com has been discussed many many times... so please look in the archives before we discuss it yet again. The fact is, no news source is ever 100% reliable or 100% unreliable. Individual stories within the news source, or individual facts within a story can be challenged as being inaccurate (and thus unreliable)... but not the publication as a whole. Reliability always needs to be evaluated in context... we always need to look at how the source is being used. The same source can be completely reliable when supporting one statement, and completely unreliable when used to support a different statement. Blueboar (talk) 21:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes of course, its the warm feeling we get in our tummy that tells us when to use it ;) --_nonsense ferret 21:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Many of you are ignoring the obvious; These URL sources that refute reliability of Breitbart(dotcom) are FIRST alluding to Andrew Breitbart & his BigGovernment blog ... not Breitbart(dotcom) itself. Breitbart(dotcom) came after the BigGovernment blog - They aren't the same thing. SECONDLY the man Andrew Breitbart has been deceased for 3 years. He doesn't contribute to Breitbart(dotcom) or manage it's global syndication. My observation is recognizing political separations here; Breitbart(dotcom) certainly leans towards conservative views and it's understandable that liberal ideologies (Washington Post, NY Times, ETC) would argue "merit". Politics encourages this discourse, but it isn't Wikipedia's policy to pick sides. --j0eg0d (talk) 08:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• Breitbart has a long and sordid history of publishing falsehoods, misrepresentations and outright fabrications, as is thoroughly detailed above. It is the opposite of a reliable source, and perhaps the canonical example of such on Wikipedia. The fact that they are "conservative" is a red herring; a similarly-liberal-leaning outlet would similarly be rejected as a reliable source if it repeatedly and unrepentantly made flagrant and clearly-ideologically-motivated factual errors or fabrications targeting people or beliefs the outlet has disagreements with. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Leaving aside the rather hysterical thread above, Law School Transparency actually does not appear to be a reliable source, and does appear to have been systematically added against Wikipedia guidelines. It's a campaigning website, in the end, and I'm not seeing much evidence that it is widely regarded as an authority of sufficient significance to be added to this many articles. Put simply, there is good reaosn to think that LST wants to (and does) use Wikipedia to promote its cause, and weak evidence if any at all that including its links improves our articles. Guy (Help!) 16:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Guy, I'm the executive director of LST. I encourage you to view our website to learn more about our organization. The coordinated effort to edit law school Wikipedia pages was not done by anybody affiliated with LST. Once I learned of it, I offered help so that they did the best job possible. Our mission, much like Wikipedia's, is to put information in people's hands. Insofar that we want our information on the site should be no surprise. Nevertheless, it was not an LST effort.

We are widely cited by the traditional and legal press. From the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and NPR to the National Law Journal and ABA Journal, our research and our policy proposals are cited because we are careful, professional, and accurate. Moreover, I encourage you to look at all of our press coverage and all of the columns and law review articles we have written. LST is a group of experts and we are clear about what issues we address and why.

One final note. We think we know who Unemployed Northeastern (on Wikipedia) is, and he is impersonating an individual who writes under that handle on many publications that cover legal education reform. Another account was also just created on Wikipedia that impersonates a well known reform advocate, Steven J Harper. sjharper_belly is the name on Wikipedia I believe, and he edited the LST Wikipedia page but it is not the real SJH. Kyle McEntee (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@

WP:COIN. Just trying to make you aware of relevant policy. - Marchjuly (talk

) 21:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC))

@Marchjuly: Thanks for linking me. It's not clear to me that it's a COI concern, I will have to read about that more. My concern here is that the user is impersonating a real person rather than who the impersonator is. While there likely is a COI due to who the impersonator is, I'd rather argue LST's reliability case on the merits, I hope that makes sense. I did think it was relevant to say that an impersonation is happening and that I have confirmed it to be the case. Kyle McEntee (talk) 21:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

As noted above by Epeefleche, LST has been treated as a reliable source for for factual propositions relating to law school employment outcomes by a number of typically reliable sources in non-opinion pieces. I'm thinking specifically of Forbes,^[1] the New York Times,^[2] and U.S. News.^[3] I think including the employment score statistic improves articles. I am less convinced that the debt figures do. I'm open to persuasion based on something other than a editor's personal opinion (or that of any one blogger) in either direction, however.

Sneekypat (talk) 19:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

(@Sneekypat: Hi Sneekypat. Please use Template:Reflist-talk if you're going to use the <ref>...</ref> markup to add links to your posts. The template helps prevent the links from being pushed to the bottom of the page and being mixed in with other references cited in other (perhaps unreleated) posts. Thanks. -Marchjuly (talk) 21:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC))

Read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. As executive director of LST, you should not be adding links to LST to Wikipedia at all - and neither should you be 'helping' others to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@Sneekypat:, in an effort to fully explain the projected debt figures, which prospective law students find very valuable, here is a page that helps explain them: http://www.lawschooltransparency.com/reform/projects/Non-Discounted-Cost/. You can click a school name there to see additional debt scenarios.

@AndyTheGrump:, I recently read the policy and have avoided editing anything since that time. But let me clarify the minimal edits that I did -- I did not add any pages or content, but I did add an internal link to Law School Transparency to a handful of pages (10?). This is something the others were doing but some did not do. The "helping" I referred to was to ensure accurate numbers, but we never did that and we won't do it now that I know it's inappropriate. All of that said, I do believe the appropriateness of adding links is not relevant to whether we're a reliable source. I appreciate Wikipedia's reasonable rule there. Kyle McEntee (talk) 21:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@Kyle McEntee: How would you address the primary reliability issue being raised, that being the assertion that LST provides a more positive evaluation of law schools that pay fees sought by LST? bd2412 T 14:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

@

Bd2412

: That it is patently false. We do not and have not taken money from law schools. On our website, all data are systematically presented according to a very clearly defined and explained methodology. On Wikipedia, we did not enter any data but from what I have seen people entered info just by looking at our site. I can't tell you how frustrating it is to be accused of something so unseemly and absurd. We are a nationally recognized organization for the high quality work we do and did to reform law schools behaving in unbelievably unethical manners. Nobody credible claims otherwise. If the claims were credible, I wouldn't field calls from every major news outlet on a routine basis.

@Kyle McEntee: I think the concerns are in reference to the "certification" that LST had on its website a few years back^[1]. I think it would be helpful to me, and maybe others, if you spoke to that a little. Sneekypat (talk) 17:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@Sneekypat: We did not end up doing the program. It's too bad though -- the program was a good idea and we had support from a number of schools. Even folks at the ABA thought it was a nice way to increase disclosure. You can read the full explanation behind the program here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2290858 As with any certification system, there are administrative costs that need to be covered. That is the norm. The comparison to extortion was humorous -- it's a legal term that several (and I mean only several) law professors could not (ironically) wrap their heads around. The typical hallmark of extortion is that the party getting paid creates the problem. But we were trying to address a problem that law schools created for the legal profession, so it was actually quite the opposite. Nevertheless, we did not end up doing the program -- so whatever the description somebody wants to make of it, it's not an active project and we will not make it active. Kyle McEntee (talk) 21:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• 2 discussions, in excess of 12,500 words (according to the word counter on Word), and I'm starting to wonder if there is any sort of light at the end of this tunnel. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

There are quite a few YouTube links being cited as reiable sources in this article. They are not in English so I can't say for sure if they are acceptable as reliable sources per

) 22:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

While it might be useful to post the links that concern you in particular, I've just checked through some of the YT links used as refs for the article, and the accounts have been suspended. One, which still exists, certainly bears all the hallmarks of being an unofficial account.

Nevertheless, there in an inherent problem with such lists (and there are a number of similar lists in Wikipedia), being that

WP:BURDEN lies with them. --Iryna Harpy (talk

) 01:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Radikal.com.tr

Is this article website a reliable source for the following statement made in the article for Diyarbakır.

According to a November 2006 survey by the Sur Municipality, one of Diyarbakır's metropolitan municipalities, 72% of the inhabitants of the municipality use Kurdish most often in their daily speech, followed by Turkish, with small minorities of Assyrians, Armenians and Yezidis still resident.

I am mainly interested in the accuracy of the 72% statistic as some editors are arguing that no one in Diyarbakır speaks Kurdish. A machine translation gives "What language most spoken in our daily lives we?' 72 percent of respondents to the question of Kurdish, 24 percent of Turkish" but it is difficult for me to evaluate the validity of the source as I do not speak Turkish, but I would like to know if this source is reliable. Thank you for your assistance. Winner 42 Talk to me! 02:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't speak Turkish, either, but with regards to the publisher, (

WP:INLINE attribution. --Iryna Harpy (talk

) 05:19, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Tree-Ring Services

Can Tree-Ring Services be used to supplement architectural dating info provided by Historic England? The article in question is Denham, Buckinghamshire, and the text that this source is/was being used to support is "Analysis of a sample of timbers from the main building and its associated barn have found that they were felled in the winters of 1472/3 and 1473/4, indicating that the relevant parts of the building were erected in 1474 or soon after". Because this info is different to the dating given by Historic England, and because Tree-Ring Services is a commercial site that is advertising its service and I wasn't sure of its reliability, I removed the text and ref (diff). There is a brief discussion, with extra detail from another editor (Brixtonhill), here. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Both sources can be cited. Tree Ring Services appears to be a respected and professional service - see the list of research publications in scholarly journals at http://www.tree-ring.co.uk/Contact.htm . The Historic England date was based on stylistic features and the tree ring date should be considered an additional, more precise, date.Martinlc (talk) 11:05, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Ran into this group reading American Islamic Forum for Democracy trying to figure out who Timothy Furnish is.[23] Wondered if we had an article on it. We don't, but it's used quite a bit as a source.[24] In Muslims Against Crusades it's used as a source for statements about two living people. The source is [25] and is written by the editor. It starts "Forget notions of freedom of speech in Britain. Freedom of speech, if it does still exist in that Godforsaken country, is now subject to cultural relativism." I haven't looked any further yet, but that looks pretty dubious as a source. Doug Weller 14:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Looks to be a pretty reliable source, given the times it's been used here. That article you cited does look like an opinion editorial rather than a neutral news report, but they can still be used as sources. SpeedDemon520 (talk) 15:06, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I can point you to plenty of unreliable sources that are used many times here,

WP:FRINGE to me. Cordless Larry (talk

) 15:41, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely unreliable blog and

fringe. GregJackP Boomer!

06:26, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Looks like we may need to go through and check all the articles where it's been used. Doug Weller 08:04, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

http://www.mahdiwatch.org/index.html appears to be another of his blogs. I don't have a problem in using articles he has published in peer-reviewed journals, but his blogs are over the top. His book also appears to be fringe based on reviews in peer-reviewed journals. GregJackP Boomer! 14:59, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I wanted to know whether Kirkus Reviews in general, and this one in particular, are considered reliable sources for the articles about the books they are reviewing (in this case,

17:58, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Note that they publish "book reviews". Choor monster (talk) 18:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

How does one tell which ones are paid reviews on that site? --_nonsense ferret 18:05, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

The paid reviews should be marked as such with the text "Kirkus Indie". (They don't always do this conspicuously so check carefully for reviews produced after 2009.) —Psychonaut (talk) 18:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

There are presently two kinds of reviews published by Kirkus. Traditional Kirkus reviews (which include all the reviews they published between 1933 and 2009) were produced professionally and independently of the publishers, so there is little doubt that they meet our criteria for reliability. However, in 2009 they introduced a new, parallel business model known as "Kirkus Indie" in which they offer reviews for hire. It is debatable whether or not these reviews can be considered reliable, as they are written only at the behest of the author or publisher (though Kirkus claims that this has no bearing on the actual content or opinion of the review). See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 180#Kirkus Reviews for further discussion.

The particular review you've linked to is from 2004. It predates the Kirkus Indie business model and so should be considered reliable. —Psychonaut (talk) 18:13, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

There is a difference between reliability and notability. The reviews are reliable, but they might be poor indicators of notability. It's like questioning whether a book was on a certain best-seller list or not, when what you meant to ask was whether there were rigged sales. Choor monster (talk) 18:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Kirkus from 2004 is reliable, and perfectly suitable for the indicated book article. Binksternet (talk) 06:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

A particular user has been going on adding the link called siskelandebert.com to various film related article's EL section. While being reverted the user edit wars and in one of the article, Madonna: Truth or Dare he left this message on the talk page. Can you guys help me out with the validity of these statements? —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 04:26, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we can say whether he owns the website or not. It looks like it's only being added as an external link so I'm not sure what we can do here at RSN. Perhaps a better place to discuss it would be first at

WT:WPSPAM#siskelandebert.org, so if they refuse to discuss or continue to add the link then they will eventually be blocked. - Marchjuly (talk

) 05:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for giving direction. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• The siskelandebert.org website purposely hosts copyrighted material. Their whole purpose is to copy Siskel and Ebert reviews that were aired on TV, so of course each segment is copyrighted by the producers. There's NO WAY we can link to it. Binksternet (talk) 05:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

WP:COPYLINK so I'm pretty sure all you need to do is reference that if the other editor tries to argue to the contrary. If the other editor continues to link the material despite being warned, they will eventually be blocked by an admin. - Marchjuly (talk

) 06:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

In a discussion on my talk page, the editor in question, Firstmagnitude, acknowledges that he does not have written permission from the legal copyright holders to host these old Siskal and Ebert review videos. I have warned the editor in the clearest possible terms. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Please remove all links to siskelandebert.org -- thank you! Firstmagnitude — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firstmagnitude (talk • contribs) 15:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC+9)

 Done Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi,

I am submitting Robert Bateman's "No Gun Ri: A Military History of the Korean War Incident" for consideration. As of 2015, the book has been at the center of a very heated and prolonged debate on

, which has led to ban attempts and undoubtedly frightened off many editors. This book has been submitted previously here, but little input was given.

I would greatly appreciate any and all input by editors uninvolved in the NGR dispute.

GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 20:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The book is published by Stackpole Books and has been well received. Some reviews:

• Journal of Cold War Studies
• Professor David Sneed Despite these few minor problems, Bateman has written a book that should be a valuable resource for scholars, the media, and the general public. He reveals the pitfalls of drawing conclusions from incomplete investigations and shows how true historical research should be conducted.
• James Irving Matray, The Journal of Military History Bateman skillfully uses photos, forensics, and numbers to make his case.
• Airpower and Space Journal Anyone interested in military history should read this book not only to learn the facts, but also to become familiar with a primer to the genre. Bateman’s intertwining of the disciplines of military history and investigative journalism results in a decent how-to book for anyone interested in knowing how a military history is crafted. In so doing, he presents a course in critical reading of inestimable value.

Just adding some of the reviews. WeldNeck (talk) 20:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The reviews, mostly in military periodicals, were by people, often military men, with scant knowledge of the subject (the U.S. Army’s massacre of South Korean civilians in 1950), but with a built-in bias and a mistaken assumption that the writer was operating in good faith. It was published by a low-quality, Pentagon-affiliated publisher, with a retired Army colonel as his editor. The writer is a veteran of the 7th Cavalry Regiment, the very unit responsible for the No Gun Ri Massacre, is active in the regimental association, and was quoted in the Washington Post after the news report was issued confirming the No Gun Ri Massacre in 1999 that he would “expose” the Associated Press journalists who brought disrepute upon “my regiment,” as he sometimes referred to the 7th Cav.

His book is a jaw-dropping accumulation of appalling omissions, inventions, distortions, self-contradictions, misreadings of military documents, and other serious errors and untruths, as he mounts his polemic against the AP. The multi-member AP team that spent months researching No Gun Ri, and won a Pulitzer Prize for investigative reporting for their work, found more than 100 examples of such serious untruths and other problems in the book, and wrote a 10,000-word critique detailing them (available by emailing me at [email protected]).

In summary, however, any one of the following five salient points should disqualify this book from consideration as a reliable source:

1) Incredibly for someone claiming to do "historical research" on a mass killing, Bateman totally ignores the victims, having made no effort to contact Korean survivors and other Korean witnesses. Nor did he visit Korea and the scene of the killings. In fact, without ever speaking with them, he denigrates the Korean survivors, people whose accounts have been corroborated by U.S. Army veterans, as liars and frauds.

2) He quotes a mere four U.S. veterans who were at No Gun Ri, and quotes none on such key points as casualty estimates and fire orders. The AP team interviewed 26 ex-soldier witnesses, many of whom remembered large numbers of Korean dead and on-scene orders to fire.

3) He ignores a series of orders in writing, found at the National Archives, in which high-ranking U.S. commanders in mid-1950 ordered civilian South Korean refugees shot.

4) He conceals from readers the fact that the 7th Cavalry journal that would have recorded on-scene orders to shoot the No Gun Ri refugees is missing from the National Archives. Instead, he falsely suggests he has reviewed all relevant documents and no such orders existed.

5) He claims to have established that "two guerrillas" were among the refugees. His sole basis for that is a cited document that shows nothing of the sort, an unrelated document he hijacks for his purposes, and whose contents he carefully avoids sharing with his readers.

In connection with No. 5, WP contributors can perform a one-minute exercise to see the deception themselves, by going to the italicized passages beginning “What follows,” which explains and links to the hijacked document, here

Talk:No Gun Ri Massacre#Maybe we need to set some ground rules

In addition, a concise, dispassionate, informed critique of the Bateman book was made at WP by a Ph.D. candidate who has done extensive research on No Gun Ri and similar Korean War incidents, and who details a series of severe flaws, concluding, “One of the above flaws alone ought to render any work of research seriously compromised.” His contribution begins “Speaking as a PHD candidate” at

Talk:No Gun Ri Massacre/Archive 5#The other POV

Bateman's self-contradictions alone (in one chapter he’ll claim, ridiculously, the massacre didn’t happen, and two chapters later lay out his scenario, “the truth,” of how it happened, and on and on) would make this volume laughable, if it were not so tragic. This 7th Cavalry Regiment booster should never be considered a reliable source on a 7th Cavalry war crime. Thank you. Charles J. Hanley 22:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

With all due respect to both, I am aware of your opinions on Bateman; I am trying to seek outside opinions. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 23:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

This source was previously considered at the RS noticeboard Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_153#No_Gun_Ri:_A_Military_History_of_the_Korean_War_Incident with an additional comment after archiving Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_154#No_Gun_Ri.2C_Bateman_book.--Wikimedes (talk) 08:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The links and "exercise" in my posting above, clearly demonstrating the book's fraudulent documentation, were posted just so "outsiders" can see for themselves that the book is grossly untrustworthy, no matter the author. But in this case the author is a 7th Cavalry Regiment veteran and regimental association member and booster who is trying to blow a smokescreen over a 7th Cavalry Regiment war crime. That glaring conflict alone (even aside from the book's outrageous falsehoods, self-contradictions etc.) disqualifies the book as anything close to reliable. The "outsiders" don't have the book on their shelves, and so must be informed in this way. Thanks. Charles J. Hanley 12:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

As an outside observer who had not even heard of the No Gun Ri Massacre before this moment, i just spent half an hour reading this section, some of the reviews, and much of the talk page at the article itself. I see that this is a very contentious issue about interpretation and representation of reality on Wikipedia, where the reality itself is contested. There are passionate voices on both "sides" so we have a polarized conflict here. I think it is very important to listen carefully to the different voices, and to work to depolarize as much as possible among the editors, and to use sources that are not essentially aligned with one side or the other of the contested reality. When a source that is clearly on one "side" is used, then it should be framed as a controversial and contested source, and not used on the same level as another source that is not so contested. The article itself should describe the controversy about the incident as clearly and neutrally as possible, instead of pretending that there is no controversy over what occurred, with a behind-the-scenes tug-of-war constantly going on over the content. I think it's better to admit and describe a controversy in an article, than to engage in it within Wikipedia itself, when possible. My reading on Bateman's book is that it seems to have been written with an agenda, a desired outcome, and to have the smell of a cherry-picking biased piece of work, rather than someone coming to the incident and controversy with an open mind. Mind you, this is all based on reading several reviews and googling the book and author for 10 minutes. It's my outsider's bird's-eye-view. If any specific claim must be sourced to Bateman's book, i'd assume it's because it's not reported by any other source. I'd prefer that other sources be used in the article's claims, and that anything sourced solely to Bateman's book, if anything, be clearly attributed with a note on the controversial nature of the book and the apparent conflict of interest of the author of the book in relation to the subject matter. There's definitely serious contention about what happened in reality, here, and i think it's very important for the article to embody that, so that readers get the sense of the controversy. It's important for the article not to buy into one "side" of the controversy, and also for the relative weight of differing versions to be accurately represented, so that a fringe theory does not become central to the article if that is indeed the case, but so that valid critiques are not omitted either. I know, that's a tall order from an outside observer, and maybe it won't help much. I have been in a couple of heated debates about what to include in a congtroversial article, and from this, i know the importance of good dialogue, and having fair-minded outsiders providing some help or commentary, and i hope i may have helped. SageRad (talk) 14:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I came across the draft

03:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I share the concern, Tokyo. But don't our rules require us to AgF on such sources saying what they are purported to say? Epeefleche (talk) 18:39, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

There is no requirement that sources be on-line (see:

WP:SOURCEACCESS). I assume the sources that are cited in the draft are old newspaper articles? If so, they can be verified by going to any major city library (where they will be available either on micro-film, or in paper hard copy). Blueboar (talk

) 19:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

See

WP:OFFLINE on this. We should assume good faith, but I don't think it's unreasonable to ask the editor who adds them to provide more details, such as quoting relevant parts of the text. However, I don't think there's any requirement for editors to oblige such requests (especially if there are concerns about copyright). If the particular editor in this case is happy to e-mail the sources to anyone querying them, I don't see that there is a problem here. Cordless Larry (talk

) 19:11, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Added links to one article available at newspapers.com, and another available through ProQuest (subscription required). Worldbruce (talk) 17:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• That's good to know- I didn't think that we could verify a source just be getting them via an email.
  (｡◕‿◕｡)
  06:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Just to reiterate my point above, I don't think the person who adds the source is in any way obliged to help you verify it by e-mail. Unless I've misunderstood the policy, it's up to anyone questioning what the sources say to verify them for themselves. For newspapers, Nexis is a very good resource, and your local library may well have a subscription to it. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
• My understanding is the same as that of Cordless and Blueboar, above. Epeefleche (talk) 21:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Can I use this (archive) source for supporting the claim that he was nominated for an award on the page List of roles and awards of Arshad Warsi, currently at FLC. Regards, --Skr15081997 (talk) 14:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, it is a good general rule to follow that if there is no independent comment about an award nomination, then it isn't worth mentioning in an article. --_nonsense ferret 17:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

The Revisionismo (Revisionism) was the historiographical wing of Argentine Nacionalismo, which a political movement that appeared in Argentina in the 1920s. It was the Argentine equivalent of the authoritarian ideologies that arose during the same period, such as Nazism, Fascism and Integralism. Argentine Nationalism was an authoritarian, anti-Semitic, racist and misogynistic political movement.

A number of academics have examined Argentine revisionism and there are a number of peer reviewed works in the literature. See [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31] for example.

I would like to ask, as a generic discussion, whether these works are generically suitable as a

for the purposes of Wikipedia. They pose a particular problem for wikipedia, since they are published in the print media, which is normally something that we would consider reliable. We therefore have to rely upon what is published about their reliability. In general I would say they are not considered a wholly reliable source for material for Wikipedia. Below I set out why, with reference to views in academia.

Monica Rein (11 March 1998). Politics and Education in Argentina, 1946-1962. M.E. Sharpe. pp. 72–.

. Notes that revisionism is associated with Far Right groups, was essentially about rewriting historical accounts to reflect a wholly positive view of the Spanish conquest of South America and to rehabilitate Caudillos (Spanish for dictator) as true heroes, whilst denouncing Liberals as traitors who had betrayed the nation. The movement is heavily linked to Peronism and its content driven by political considerations.

Michael Goebel (2011). Argentina's Partisan Past: Nationalism and the Politics of History. Liverpool University Press. pp. 6–.

. Goebel expresses a similar view and is particularly damning of the way in which revisionist historians have asserted that traditional historical works were the work of "traitors" using history as an "ideological weapon to prolong Argentina's ignominious debasement". Goebel is critical of the movement's lack of interest in scholarly standards.

Luis Alberto Romero (31 October 2013). A History of Argentina in the Twentieth Century: Updated and Revised Edition. Penn State Press. pp. 88–.

. Romero notes its origins in the authoritarian and antiliberal right wing ideologies such as that of Mussolini, its growth as an anti-British and anti-establishment movement and its attempts to vindicate the reputation of the Caudillos such as Rosas. Romero also demonstrates how its origins in far right groups became accepted in left wing groups and its association with Peronism which incorporates both left and right wing elements.

Jill Hedges (15 August 2011). Argentina: A Modern History. I.B.Tauris. pp. 85–.

. Hedges notes the role of rehabilitating the reputation of Rosas, is linked to the promotion of political authoritarianism and the role played by right wing groups absorbed into Peronism.

David Rock (1993). Authoritarian Argentina: The Nationalist Movement, Its History, and Its Impact. University of California Press. pp. 167–.

. Rock notes that the Revisionist movement roots in anti-semitism and anti-Protestantism, with Rosas being promoted as the ideal of an authoritarian figures and the promotion of authoritarianism over liberal democracy. Quoting Palacios, one of the early figures "The primary obligation of the Argentine intelligentsia is to glorify ... the great caudillo who decided our destiny".

Nicolas Shumway (26 May 1991). The Invention of Argentina. University of California Press. pp. 220–.

. Shumway notes that the movement calls for an "alternate history" and that revisionist history has become a chief rallying cry for Argentine nationalism in the 20th Century.

The Argentine revisionist movement is not a reliable source for content in general, since as Goebel notes scholastic standards are lacking and it has rejected historical orthodoxy to promote political ideologies. The main role of the revisionist movement is to rehabilitate the reputation of authoritarian leaders from Argentina's past, with the aim of promoting strong and authoritarian leadership in modern Argentina. It is not accepted as reliable in academia, since their purpose is to promote a wholly positive view of authoritarianism.

As they lack scholastic standards, their use for content is a problem for wikipedia. As they promote a political orthodoxy, their views depart radically from the mainstream academic view and in that respect they could be very much classified as

19:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that they may be carefully used, with qualification (e.g., "revisionist historian x claimed"), only as a source for revisionist thought and claims. One would have to take care to avoid synthesis, and sourcing from mainstream historiography would be needed where interpretation or establishing significance is needed. • Astynax ^talk 21:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a noobie here and I have a question about primary vs secondary sources. I've read the guidelines at

.

1. Would you consider the link directly to University of Auckland's results to be a primary or secondary source? To my thinking, the primary source is the raw survey data and this interpretation of the data is a secondary source. Would anyone care to comment on this.

2. To cite a reference in Wikipedia, would you prefer a link to the University page (which reads more like a press release that an academic journal to me) or to a national newspaper which has largely copy/pasted what the University wrote.

Thanks for your time. 101.98.220.113 (talk) 04:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

1. It's primary, both raw data and original interpretation of raw data. Primary sources, however, do still have value, like when they are reliably published as in peer review.

2. I'd use both links. Secondary sources establish topic WP:notability and are useful to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. OnlyInYourMindT 18:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much, I appreciate your guidance. 101.98.220.113 (talk) 00:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

It is a primary source, particularly for the article about itself. My approach is to avoid using primary sources except for basic information or to directly quote material that is normally quoted in secondary sources. So information about the authors and publishers, publication date, dates of the survey etc. can be sourced to the paper. The advantage of secondary sources is that they establish what is important about the study and how its results were received. Also, since this is a collection of surveys, later surveys become secondary sources for earlier ones. For example, a 2015 report could describe what was reported in earlier reports and how it was received. TFD (talk) 02:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

A self-published website, http://tsort.info, is being used in 54 of our music articles.[32] The website compiles statistics about songs, albums and artists. Is it reliable?

A typical appearance of this reference is at "Creole Love Call". The article text says that the song "entered the Billboard USA song charts in 1928 at No. 19."[33] The named source is Billboard magazine, so this should be verifiable, if someone had the 1928 back issues. They are not scanned and hosted online yet.

Another typical appearance is at Sheryl Crow's "All I Wanna Do" where the website is used to say that the song peaked at number 5 in Japan and number 15 in Poland.[34] No sources are cited.

The website owner is Steve Hawtin, who describes himself as an obsessive "computer person" with experience in information architecture. No professional connection to the music industry. Binksternet (talk) 17:38, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I think you can safely remove them without doubting the good faith of those who added them. If there is a campaign to re-insert, then the spam blacklist is the next stop. Guy (Help!) 18:05, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is not a

WP:RS. Spumuq (talq

) 09:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Sources' reliability questioned

• Flyte35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I was looking at old discussion on the College_tuition_in_the_United_States talk page, and noticed this discussion, in which 3 editors, ElKevbo, 71.101.54.88, and Flyte35 all agreed that if credible sources could be found to support a claim that college loan forgiveness was not inflationary, it could be included in the article. However, one of the prior editors decided to refuse to abide by the community consensus, and it has created an edit war. The other 2 editors can not be reached: One is unregistered and the other is taking time off due to vandalism and ill will. The 3rd, remaining editor, Flyte35, decided to violate community consensus (with edits, such as this one), and thus when I arrived on the scene to edit, in accordance with the consensus previously reached, and when he (or she?) deleted the post, I marked it as vandalism, but tried to talk about it in the talk page. That did not work, so we are in need of your intervention.96.59.137.142 (talk) 15:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Procedural note. This IP has only made two edits: here and to

WP:NPOVN. On top of other issues, this looks like forum-shopping. —C.Fred (talk

) 15:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

For the record, Fred, My IP address is dynamic: I am not a newbie: I have made a few more than 2 edits. But, why is the number of edits an issue? Should not the merits of the complaints be the main issue?96.59.137.142 (talk) 15:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

With regard to the forum-shopping concern, was I not told by more experienced editors to come here? See the links above. Moreover, when consensus can not be reached, what do you suggest? Is this not the proper protocol to resolve disputes and get consensus when none exists?96.59.137.142 (talk) 15:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

My apologies, Fred: The link where I was asked to come to this page was not mentioned above. My bad - here it is: Per this suggestion, I am asking for help settling our dispute with regard both to the sources as well as the view, in general. OK, I've done what I was asked, and, moreover, what else would you suggest?96.59.137.142 (talk) 15:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

1. Source: http://www.cuny.tv/highlight/sp2000039 (12 min segment covering zeitgeist)

2. Article: Zeitgeist (film series)

3. Content: Factual claims from the reporter/graduate student, Andrew Falzon.

At first I only saw the vimeo linked segment and although it was well done, I thought this piece was a spoof. Upon further digging, I found the CUNY TV link hosting the full 1 hour special and stating:

• "BROOKLYN COLLEGE 60 MINUTES is a production of Brooklyn College and CBS News."
• "The special is produced by Stephanie Palewski, a veteran 60 MINUTES editor, who was invited to teach a graduate course"
• The episode aired multiple times on CUNY TV.

It's a very unique situation produced by graduate students with apparent professional editorial oversight and jointly produced by CBS News. I want to use it for the 12 min segment covering the zeitgeist movement and films. I'm leaning toward it being reliable now, but it is such an unusual situation. What does the community think? Thanks. OnlyInYourMindT 03:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC) Updated OnlyInYourMindT 19:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

These two websites have recently been used to source information about

) 20:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• Thebestschools: no way. The ACR: All it's doing is posting starts from the DoE and making ad money for doing it. Why not just use the DoE as source? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! --

talk

) 21:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Mary Cawkell (2001). The History of the Falkland Islands. Anthony Nelson.

.

Mary Cawkell (1983). The Falkland Story, 1592-1982. A. Nelson.

.

M. B. R. Cawkell (1960). The Falkland Islands: By M.B.R. Cawkell, D. H. Maling and E. M. Cawkell. Macmillan.

Mary Cawkell is a British historian who has written a number of books about the Falkland Islands.

Her first book, published in 1960 by Macmillan, [35], a publishing house noted for producing science and education texts.

Her later works, were published by Anthony Nelson, as a publisher they appear to be now defunct. However, [36] a search on AbeBooks shows mainly academic works.

Mary Cawkell died in 2001, whilst her last book was being published. Her obituary[37] noted:

“

Mary Cawkell was born in Wigtown, Scotland in 1907. She remained there until her early 20s when she moved to Africa, travelling extensively in both South Africa and Zimbabwe. During the war she worked in the Lebanon where she met her husband. After the war her husband joined the Colonial Service and was posted to the Falklands as Superintendent of Education. She and her family first went to the Falklands at the beginning of the 1950s and lived there for seven years. This was a start of a lifelong interest in, and affection for, the Islands. Mary became a respected author on the Falklands which provided her with endless material for many articles and broadcasts covering all aspects of life there, from past to present and from peat to penguins. The extensive research she had done led her to writing the authoritative standard history of the Islands, The Falkland Islands, published in 1960. Later a shorter book The Falklands Story 1592-1982 based on additional material, concisely covered the story of the Falklands until the Argentinean invasion. From the Falklands the family moved to West Africa, to The Gambia where Mary continued with her journalism. After she returned to England she carried on with travelling and writing, spending time in eastern communist countries then little visited. In her later years she lived in Sussex and worked on updating her history of the Falklands.

”

She is quoted in the Bibliography of virtually every book that has been written on the Falkland Islands [38] of all nationalities. Its widely used on wikipedia Falkland Islands, History of the Falkland Islands, Luis Vernet, Matthew Brisbane, Antonina Roxa to name but a few.

As an author and published works, I have not seen any secondary source criticise her work for inaccuracy.

I now have an Argentine editor, asserting this work is unreliable. His reasons include:

1. "Her book was published with the support of the British Government, in fact

wrote its foreword."

This is untrue, it had no support from the British Government, Sir Rex Hunt wrote the foreword as a private individual following his retirement.

2. "I realized Mary Cawkell was an amateur local historian, an therefore to be used with care."

In fact, a professional journalist, who happened to specialise on Falklands history due to a personal connection.

3. Talk:History of the Falkland Islands#Recent Revert a long and tortuous comment but basically alleging differences between her 1960 work and 2001 edition mean her work is "amateurish" and "unreliable".

The facts in both works are consistent, but whilst the 1960 edition focused on Luis Vernet the 2001 edition focused more on Lt Smith (a work in progress in my sandpit). However, it would not be unusual for a later work to included updated information based on later research and even if there were a conflict (there isn't) that is not reason to infer those conclusions.

I have to note that there is nationalist motive usually in these claims, since he is attempting to assert Mary Cawkell to be unreliable, remove cites and then declare the work to be uncited and on that basis remove certain information it seems he considers detrimental to Argentina's sovereignty claim. Example, he wishes to remove any mention of Luis Vernet's dealing with the British after 1833. See History of the Falkland Islands#British colonisation.

I am tired of this constant and endless argumentation based on criticism by speculation and the personal opinions of this editor. I would simply like to get on with the works in my sandpit. Whilst I have no wish to drag others into this but I would be grateful if any editors who feel able to comment, would confirm that by any standard applied to sources on wikipedia this is reliable. WCM_email 18:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

FYI I have not informed the other editor of this discussion. A) I have been asked not to post on their talk page and B) they have always found previous discussions by following my contribution history. WCM_email 19:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh boy, what a surprise.

If there is any interest in helping us in this situation (and I hope there is... because this is the only place I can think of where we can settle this: not even in ArbCom they comment about content) I'd like to re-focus this question: Is Mary Cawkell reliable to source that Luis Vernet obtained permission from the British in 1826?

Firstly, regarding Nelson Publishers Ltd., note that the link provided above (this one) yields mostly false positives, like Nelson Thornes, authors named Anthony Nelson, Russell Anthony, titles containing both "Nelson" and "Anthony", etc. Truth is that Anthony Nelson was/is a Falklander as can be seen on page 3 of the Falkland Islands Newsletter #13 (March 1983), perhaps a Member of the Legislative Assembly (judging by the capital "M"). This is an actual list of the 13 books published by this man, all of them revolving around the Falklands or Saint Helena.

As for Mary Cakwell herself, it is not clear to me that she was a professional journalist. Her obituary states she was a secretary in her youth, and that the first edition of the book was "the result of research whilst Honorary Secretary of the Broadcasting Committee". This is not professional journalism by any standard.

This summary of Cawkell's life is in the back cover of the 2001 rework:

Mary Cawkell was born in Wigtown, Scotland in 1907. She remained there until her early 20s when she moved to Africa, travelling extensively in both South Africa and Zimbabwe. During the war she worked in the Lebanon where she met her husband. After the war her husband joined the Colonial Service and was posted to the Falklands as Superintendent of Education.
She and her family first went to the Falklands at the beginning of the 1950s and lived there for seven years. This was a start of a lifelong interest in, and affection for, the Islands. Mary became a respected author on the Falklands which provided her with endless material for many articles and broadcasts covering all aspects of life there, from past to present and from peat to penguins. The extensive research she had done led her to writing the authoritative standard history of the Islands, The Falkland Islands, published in 1960. Later a shorter book The Falklands Story 1592-1982 based on additional material, concisely covered the story of the Falklands until the Argentinean invasion.
From the Falklands the family moved to West Africa, to The Gambia where Mary continued with her journalism. After she returned to England she carried on with travelling and writing, spending time in eastern communist countries then little visited. In her later years she lived in Sussex and worked on updating her history of the Falklands.

Relevant to note is that a) she never had any type of academic involvement in her life, b) she never traveled to Argentina, i.e. she worked on secondary sources when judging the alleged 1826 request for permission, c) she never published anything else apart from The History of the Falkland Islands.

WCM says he hasn't seen a reliable source criticize her work, but respected historian Lawrence Freedman (ostensibly, when invited by the Cabinet Office to hear the Falkander's objections on his book, which is part of the Government's Official History Series) refers to it as "a history of the Islands reflecting the views of the Falklanders".[39] Author Martin Abel Gonzalez refers to her as a "Falkland specialist/advocate".[40]

And the final irony in this story is that Cawkell doesn't explicitly state that there was a "British permission", at least not in the 2001 rework. It says:

"It would appear Vernet had become aware of Britain's interest in the islands as before sailing in January 1826 he took his grant to the British Consulate where it received their stamp. He might have done better to have sought an interview with the head of the Consulate, Woodbine Parish, but it is clear that at this stage he did not view his enterprise as one with political content."

From a document legalization to an official authorization there's a long way IMHO. Moreover, she doesn't explain what exactly does she mean by "his grant", since it was Jorge Pacheco the man who Buenos Aires owned money, and the first grants were given in his name: Vernet was just an associate (he accepted to join as a compensation because Pacheco owned him money). To my best of my knowledge, proper academic historians like Ricardo Caillet-Bois shed some light on the nature of these documents:

"On December 31, 1825, Vernet made an arrangement with Pacheco. By that time he had taken preemptive measures in light of the impending war between Brasil and Buenos Aires. In first place, Pacheco himself simulated, by a contract signed on October 10 of that year, to cede to Mr. Green & Hogdson "from the British trade in this city" all the grants given by the Government. Then, before sailing to the great adventure, he mortgaged all the lands that he would get to own, either as a result of being the first settler or by future grants that the Government may concede. With this act, characteristic of him, Vernet protected his children and creditors from any problem arising as a consequence of the war that would bleed Brasil and the United Provinces in the months to come, or from the dangerous sailing in the South seas."

Mary Cawkell may be a perfectly valid source for most article content, but this factual "detail" just doesn't fit with everything that has been written by the academic literature on the subject. --Langus ^TxT 19:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

FYI the previous occasion when the same subject was brought up is

WP:SYN

in what he is saying, since he is making a huge jump to claim it was a document legalisation, since no source he cited makes that claim; a case of joining two facts together and synthesising an argument. He is also being economical with the truth, since Shuttleworth corroborates Vernet's dealings with the British. Vernet historically has also been the subject of criticism in Argentina as an "unpatriotic merchantman" for his dealings with the British.

Freedman doesn't actually criticise Cawkell, he merely states in his Notes on Chapter 1, that in his opinion her book reflects the view of the Falkland Islanders. Freedman himself has actually accepted the first edition of the Official Histories included material that was incorrect, since he relied on Virginia Gamba-Stonehouse, who he collaborated with on earlier book for facts. He later accepted that some facts in his book were inaccurate.

I actually don't think there is much for

WP:RSN here, if he now accepts Cawkell is in WP terms reliable. I merely invited Langus to note the phenomenon of cognitive dissonance and that he seems to obsess over questioning facts that don't fit in with his own world view. WCM_email

20:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

IMHO, there are three issues here:

• Mary Cakwell had no academic background. She was not even a professional journalist.
• Permission is a free (and
  unsource
  ) interpretation of stamp
• A British permission is no mention whatsoever in academic literature:
  • Beck, Peter (1983) The anglo-argentine dispute over title to the Falkland Islands Millenium, Journal of International Studies, vol. 12 Nº1
  • Beck, Peter (1988) The Falklands Islands as an International Problem, Routledge
  • Calvert, Peter (1983) Sovereignty and the Falklands Crisis, International Afairs, vol. 59 Nº 3
  • Down, Wilfgred (1927) The occupation of the Falkland Islands and the question of sovereignty, Cambridge University
  • Freedman, Lawrence (2005) The Official History of the Falklands Campaing Whitehall Histories: Government Official History Series Volume I: The Origins of the Falklands War. Routledge.
  • Goebel, Julius (1927) The struggle for the Falklands Islands, Yale University Press
  • Gustafson, Lowell (1988) The Sovereignty Dispute over the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands Oxford University Press.
  • Myhre, Jeffrey (1983) Title to the Falklands under International Law Millenium, Journal of International Studies, vol. 12 Nº1
  • Metford J. (1983) Falklands or Malvinas? The Background to the Dispute International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs) Vol. 44, No. 3

And this is only English literature! There is no mention in Spanish literature either.

Last but not least, there is no mention to some "British permission" in:

• British Foreign Office documents (either those in public record or submitted to ONU)
• The complete "Falkland Islands: Report with Annexes Together with the Proceedings of the Committee, Minutes of Evidence and Appendices" Fifth Report from the Foreign Affairs Committee, House of Commons. Foreign Affairs Committee, H.M. Stationery Office, 1984

Yeah... you read that right Foreign Affairs Committee, House of Commons.

In sum, the absence of references to a permission in British Government documents and academic literature is the key element here. This is an obsession of British hardliner nationalists and is ignore by... well... the rest of the word, including all British academics and diplomats!

Evidence is overwhelming. This is not even

WP:FRINGE

.

Regards --

) 02:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)