Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 198

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.

I'm coming from the

I disagree with completely discarding comicbookmovie.com per the site not having had any issues with its reliability noted in WP:Reliable sources, per it not appearing to have fabricated any of its interviews, and per the aforementioned "exclusive interviews from a poor source" aspect.

Internet Movie Database (IMDB), CBDB.com, content farms, collaboratively created websites such as wikis, and so forth, with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users." Comicbookmovie.com does not employ "credentialed members", so it's "exclusive" content should not be treated any differently. Per their website: "We are the #1 comic book movie fansite on the web, and completely user-generated by the FANS! Join our 6 million PLUS community and start contributing!"--TriiipleThreat (talk

) 07:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

TriiipleThreat is one of the editors I was referring to above. In that aforementioned discussion, I noted that WP:USERGENERATED does not state that such sources are never reliable and/or can never be used on Wikipedia. I also noted that it's a guideline, not a policy. There is not a lot more that I have to state on this matter. I will point out, though, that comicbookmovie.com includes the following disclaimer: "This article was submitted by a volunteer contributor who has agreed to our code of conduct. ComicBookMovie.com is protected from liability under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) and 'safe harbor' provisions. CBM will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement. Please contact us for expeditious removal of copyrighted/trademarked content. You may also learn more about our copyright and trademark policies HERE." So they clearly take their reliability seriously in some regard.

talk

) 07:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Eh, taking care in removing plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement is by no means the same as making sure that the remainder of the material is factually correct - it does not mean that they take reliability serious, at all. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

For this case, I disagree on that; I stated "in some regard" because I don't know for certain how far their "code of conduct" goes. But it seems like it includes making sure all of the content is reliable. Again, their interviews, for example, seem legit. And the non-interview content they report on can be easily found in more reliable sources. But, again, I await other opinions regarding the use of this source for exclusive interviews, per what I and others have stated about this case.

talk

) 08:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

If normally unreliable sources have an exclusive interview, I think it's OK to use. Treat as if it's a self-published statement by the interviewee, and don't source it for contentious facts. If the interviewee states their full name, age, place of birth, and gender, then I don't see any reason why we can't source those details from an interview, no matter where it's hosted. If the interview looks like a hoax, then obviously don't cite it. But just because it's not at a reliable source doesn't mean that it's completely unusable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

My initial thought is very similar to

WP:INTEXT attribution. (Would you cite Wikinews? This is very similar.) WhatamIdoing (talk

) 16:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

There's absolutely no issue in using interviews from otherwise unreliable sources. WP:USERGENERATED is not policy and even the essay guideline includes the caveat "are largely not acceptable". Unless there is concern that a source is literally making up the interview there should be no issue in using it. Such sources are used often in articles about subjects that are fairly fringe or not immensely notable as they simply don't get interviews in larger, more reliable publications. Capeo (talk) 17:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Minor point of clarification: WP:USERGENERATED is a guideline, not an essay as stated by Capeo.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:03, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, TriiipleThreat, you are quite right. I've corrected above. Capeo (talk) 12:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Unbuttered Parsnip deleted this reliable source the Population of Poland by U.S. Census Bureau 1954 from the Demographic history of Poland twice [1] - [2] I reverted the first edit here [3] User:Unbuttered Parsnip did not leave an edit summary for these two edits.

I maintain that this publication is a reliable source based on that fact that it received a favorable review by the peer reviewed academic journal The Professional Geographer . [4] I believe that this reliable source should be restored at Demographic history of Poland --Woogie10w (talk) 14:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Strike my remarks, User:Unbuttered Parsnip edits were correct but he should have left an edit summary to explain the deletion.--Woogie10w (talk) 15:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, i would like to know if this source is reliable for the Internet Horror Movie Database page. It has a staff and seems to be a Google News editor. Here the link: http://www.gossipday.it/internet-horror-movie-database-online-il-colosso-horror/ (Pizzole (talk) 11:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC))

IMDB is not accepted as a "reliable source" itself. I suspect "GossipDay" is also quite unusable for much of anything ... see

WP:RS. Collect (talk

) 13:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Seems to indicate that GossipDay provides no factchecking at all, and does not assert anything whatsoever about the nature of its content. Collect (talk) 14:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

An editor,

• here (17:57, 1 October 2015‎) and
• here 13:14, 30 September 2015‎

The multiple (6) sources are

• Yifa Yaakov, 'State funding archaeological dig in heart of Hebron,' The Times of Israel 9 January 2014.
• 'Israelis begin construction on new settlement in central Hebron,' Ma'an News Agency 5 January 2014.
• Haaretz Editorial, 'Hebron Dig: Annexation in the Guise of Archaeology,’ Haaretz 10 January 2014
• 'Losses continue to pile up for Abu Haikel family on Tel Rumeida,'
  Christian Peacemaker Teams
  January 17, 2015
• 'Settlers attempt construction of new access path at Tel Rumeida,'
  Christian Peacemakers Teams
  27 March 2014.
• 'Land grab in the name of archaeology,' EAPPI 24 March 2014.

As explained on the talk page

Could involved editors, other than of course Settleman, refrain from comment to allow external advice on this?Nishidani (talk) 21:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Nishidani - Thanks got pinging me.

Whoever invest the time to help here, please be aware of the smokescreen here. The text in question is mainly During the period of the British Mandate the area of Tel Rumeida was an Islamic waqf property rented out to a Jewish association and managed by a Jewish farming family. In 1948 the land came under the control of the Jordanian government. The family of Abu Haikel, who had given sanctuary to Jews during the 1929 Hebron massacre, which was added in this edit. Sources 6,7 (on this diff) are an editorial or don't mention this info at all and source 8 (from it the info is actually copied) is a blog ran by activists. I can't see how it can be reliable for anything, not to mention be reliable for historical facts from ~85 years ago.

The touchy, feely implication the Human Right organization don't lie (or make mistakes) is a no-brainer. People have lied for worse reasons (Nishidani and me had similar interaction over similar issue where I proved an HR NGO spread lied). Settleman (talk) 22:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Your incompetence is such that you erased all of the nuanced information in that edit, and rewrote according to the one Ma'an report, ignoring the fact that further down the page, your material had already been conveyed, there in correct English. You rewrote as follows:

According to Abu Haikel, he rented the land from Jordanian government's Custodian of Enemy Property. After 1967, a new lease was signed with Israeli government's Custodian of Absentee Property. In 1981 the Custodian refused to charge the lease fees but later accepted the payment. Such incident reoccured in 2001 and 2002.

Had your eye studied the section, this ungrammatical and obliquely vague rewrite would have been understood to be utterly purposeless. For below it we have,

The Israeli Custodian of Absentee Property refused to accept the Abu Haikal's rent payments in 1981, but, after an agreement was renegotiated in 2000, the back rent for 1981-2000 was reportedly paid up by the family, and fees were regularly accepted for the following 2 years, after which the land was declared a closed military zone, rent payments were rejected and the family was refused further access,

The Haaretz editorial was evidently not appropriate, I'll concede that. As for the rest it is just

WP:IDONTLIKEIT and disattentiveness. Now let us wait for external third party input.Nishidani (talk

) 15:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

What 'sources' gave information about 1929 'sanctuary' beyond EAPPI blog? Answer the question and stop your elaborating sidetracking! Settleman (talk) 16:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@Nishidani: Are we done here? Settleman (talk) 08:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

That is up to the RS experts who so far (it is a tradition now that even they are reluctant to touch the I/P field with anything short of a 10-foot pole) have withheld comment (if they have noticed at all). If no one comments either way, it means the RS-status is undetermined, and therefore I will use those sources with attribution, and you may tag them.Nishidani (talk) 11:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Can you answer to the point instead for inventing new policies? You can't use a blog for this and there is no consensus for that. Like I showed, your 'six' sources do not support what I removed, only the blog. Alternatively, you can try to represent this again in a neutral way and ask if EAPPI blog can be used for that one statement. Hopefully that won't scare the experts. Settleman (talk) 15:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

You are new, and don't understand Wikipedia practice and policy.

You have removed information regarding 'protected tenancy' which is independently confirmed by a right-leaning RS (The Times of Israel) in the Yifa Yaakov article linked above, which, against all the rules, you cancelled.

Though the Tel Rumeida site is Jewish-owned, a Palestinian family used to live on the site and till the land as protected tenants up until the Second Intifada in the early 2000s, when they were prohibited from farming

The Christian Peacemaker Teams link gives again the same information with more detail:

On 31 December 2014, the Abu Haikel family had their case protesting Israel’s takeover of the land on which they held a protected tenancy contract for more than sixty years heard in the Israeli High Court, only to find that the State of Israel, in a secret deal, had given the land to Hebron settlers in 2012. , , In the High Court hearing, the three judges glossed over why Israel took over the tenancy from the Abu Haikels in the first place and said they had done nothing to establish tenancy despite the fact they have faithfully paid rent on it for decades (See link to timeline below). However one judge still expressed her shock over the behavior of the State. She asked what criteria Israel had used for giving the land to the Jewish settlers of Hebron instead of putting the land on the market.

It would be quite extraordinary for an organ of this kind to invent, or falsify what an Israeli High Court proceeding established, particularly when the Times of Israel which no one doubts is RS reports the same essential fact. EAPPI's version is similar.

Originally being Islamic Waqf property, the land was rented to a Jewish association during the British Mandate of Palestine. A Jewish Palestinian family, who the Abu Haikal family sheltered and protected during the massacre against the Jewish minority in Hebron in 1929, had taken care of the land. Following the establishment of Israel in 1948 the land was placed under the care of the Jordanian government, and eventually fell under the Israeli Absentee Property Law with the Israeli occupation of the West Bank in 1967. Throughout all of this, the Abu Haikel’s rented the land from the Jewish association, granting them the status of protected tenants.

The rare independent input we have had on several of these sources notes that 'blogs' (personal divagation sites) are not what they were, and that numerous news outlets have grow out of that format to host journalists, investigative or otherwise, of stature. If no one chips in, I will take this as indeterminate, and use the sources with attribution. We are not here to bicker, but to ask others to independently review the evidence for the status of evidence for events presented on sites run by

Christian Peacemaker Teams and the Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel, who have decades long experience with on-site observers in this area. The fact is, you do not want any of this reported detail in. Nishidani (talk

) 13:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Good God. After all that, I do not even remember the question. This entire business would have been much better off if both of the involved parties had said so much less than they have so far done. I understand this issue is highly contentious. I understand that there are incentives to deceive on both sides of it. I understand that truth can sometimes be hard to come by. I also understand that Wikipedia's policy with regard to the reliability of sources is a fundamentally conservative one, in which not only must a source be reliable, but it should also be secondary. In this sense, anything that is being reported "first hand" by journalists in the field is to be considered of lesser quality and can often be justifiably removed without much recourse (I say this generally— the exceptions are legion). I hesitate to comment on the specific news sources mentioned here as I do not personally know anything of their histories and I can see that looking it up is likely to get me dragged in to what looks like quite a morass. Best of luck to you on this. [End communication] KDS4444^Talk 08:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The source Gulf News Journal does not seem to meet the reliability standards, per

"Reliable sources must be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people."

The website, "Gulf News Journal", was created only a few months ago (April 2, 2015) according to a Whois search. The site lists no physical address or telephone number, lists no editors, and shows no names of authors on any of its posts. It doesn't include any human names on its bylines, about page, or contact us page (or any page on the website that I can see).

Source: Gulf News Journal - http://gulfnewsjournal.com

Articles and Content found in:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_policy_of_Bahrain

However, travelers from approved countries can now get their visas online or when they arrive in the country. Bahrain has issued more visas since the policy was implemented than it did before

. Citation goes to: http://gulfnewsjournal.com/stories/510545844-new-visa-policy-in-bahrain-leads-to-sharp-rise-in-business-and-leisure-travelers

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_rankings_of_Qatar

Waste generation: Per capita, the waste generation rate in Qatar is one of the highest in the world. Each person in Qatar generates an average of four pounds of trash every day. Qatar’s population generates 2.5 million tons of solid waste every year

. Citation goes to http://gulfnewsjournal.com/stories/510634043-qatar-deploys-strategies-to-cope-with-huge-amounts-of-waste

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBQ

In July 2015, Fitch Ratings gave IBQ a long-term issuer default rating of A+. Fitch also gave the bank a “stable outlook and short-term issuer default rating” of F1

. Citation goes to http://gulfnewsjournal.com/stories/510626547-ibq-earns-a-rating-from-fitch

4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar_Charity

In July 2015, Vodafone Qatar and Qatar Charity created a partnership. Employees of Vodafone helped feed workers at camps in the Ras Laffan Industrial City with Iftar meals during Ramadan. Vodafone promised to donate $275 per hour that each employee volunteers. The donations will go to Qatar Charity’s Family Sponsorship program. The program helps low-income families throughout the Gulf area

. Citation goes to http://gulfnewsjournal.com/stories/510625796-vodafone-and-charity-qatar-team-to-deliver-ramadan-meals

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Saedattaman (talk • contribs) 14:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I saw your post in

Location (talk

) 20:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I am leaning more towards "not reliable" as well on this one. Cheers, Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

GNJ published this completely bogus article about Yale and Harvard establishing branches in Qatar teaching Sharia law, in which the author also conjures up and quotes incoherent fringe theories related to terrorism. Definitely going with not reliable. Elspamo4 (talk) 01:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I have had a look at this website, and what I see there is not encouraging. Not only are most of the articles written by "Gulf News Journal Reports", but the remainder are written personally by a Sarah Wali, who must be extremely productive. On a web site which considers its write-up of the price of a 2-room apartment to be a kind of "news story", I smell a web-rat of some kind or other. Not a reliable source. KDS4444^Talk 08:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I was editing the article on the Kensington Runestone, and I found a couple links to websites that, if true, would have staggering implications in terms of what people know about the subjects. The sources are as follows:

Source #1: The Kensington Runestone - An Ancient Mystery Solved Source #2: Kensington Rune Stone

What do you guys think? I would love to find out. Mizzou1993 (talk) 21:24, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Both urls are not acceptable as sources for WP. For any claims/conclusion about that stone, that go beyond a simple description or stating its existence/discovery you would need a scholarly publication.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Looking at the article I'm seeing that it is already quite extensive and well sourced. If you want to content there you should use only source of similar reputation to those scholarly ones already used in the article. Your 2 websites above are a clearly not suited to source any content that article.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

The only reason I added those links in the first place is that if the info contained in them were true, it would contradict much of the current body of knowledge regarding the subject of the article. Mizzou1993 (talk) 23:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

The "if" is exactly the problem. WP is not a place to publish "new" theories, speculations or fringe stuff, but WP compiles established, reliably and reputable information. I.e. some new theory needs to published elsewhere with a reputable publisher or at least by a reputable author, after that that has happened it can be integrated into WP but not before. So only after the material from the websites has been published in a scholarly publication and has been reviewed and accepted by other scholars, it could be incorporated into the WP article.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree fully with KKmhkmh. The sources do not seem reliable enough to support the content of the article. Hope this helps. Cheers, Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 23:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree that both sources are completely unreliable. One source is simply a blogpost of one person's personal feelings about the runestone. The other is largely based on the work of Scott Wolter, who claims to be a geologist despite having no actual training or expertise in the field, and whose books appear to be self-published. I would consider the content at both sites to be

1. Source. Robert Anton Wilson's Everything Is Under Control: Conspiracies, Cults and Cover-ups (pdf)
2. Article. Mary Pinchot Meyer
3. Content:

a. Mary Eno Pinchot Meyer (October 14, 1920 – October 12, 1964) was an American socialite, painter, former wife of Central Intelligence Agency official Cord Meyer and mistress of United States president John F. Kennedy who was often noted for her desirable physique and social skills.

b. Mary may also have done some work for the CIA during this time but her tendency towards spur-of-the-moment love affairs reportedly made the agency wary of her.

c. Mary Pinchot Meyer and John F. Kennedy reportedly had "about 30 trysts" and at least one author has claimed she brought marijuana or LSD to almost all of these meetings.

RAW's book is definitely not a reliable source for anything. It's an enormous piece of tale-spinning and bizarre pseudo-reporting, as Wilson himself will admit. Wilson is most famous for his bizarre, almost psychedelic fiction (e.g. The Illuminatus! Trilology); he has written some serious stuff but this is definitely not one of them. Softlavender (talk) 07:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

It could possibly be used for RAW's opinions, with in-line citation making it clear that this is just his opinion. It definitely can't be used for statements of fact the way it's currently being cited in two places in the article. Even if it's cited for his opinions, it'd work best combined with another source to indicate that this opinion is noteworthy, and any cite to it should make it clear what sort of book it is (although its title generally conveys that, provided it's mentioned in-text.) I think it could sometimes be used, carefully, with the above caveats, to illustrate that a conspiracy theory exists about something, but I'm not sure whether that's appropriate or

WP:UNDUE here. --Aquillion (talk

) 21:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The comment seems to be about Alan Reed. --Dweller (talk) 10:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Vega Strike is an article for deletion, and its nominator won't accept

"Vega Strike". Abandonia Reloaded. Abovo Media Group.

as a valid source for it, and deleted it first as a reference, then after a compromise attempt as an external link on the grounds that after discussion (where I can't see a consensus declaration), it was somehow listed on the video games project list of unacceptable sources.

However, it contains a detailed review of the game, which is what the nominator seems to find lacking from the article in his deletion request, and I can't see a problem of non-neutrality or anything since it's just describing aspects of the game. I believe the source should be accepted to at least help asserting the notability of the game, or at the very least, be an acceptable external link per

LjL (talk) 14:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

It definitely fails

WP:ELNO point 11 on the same lines -- it's a personal fan website for abandoned games. The external link usage is a bit more tricky; I could see it being used as an external link, maybe (though I'd be opposed), but it definitely cannot be used as a source, given the lack of editorial controls. --Aquillion (talk

) 21:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

They do have some degree of editorial control, in the form of content submission guidelines with the two "admins" ultimately deciding whether reviews are accepted or not. Relevant quotations:

The content on Abandonia: Reloaded will be exclusively controlled by the admins, updaters, and game producers.

We will still accept member-submitted content, but we cannot guarantee it will be used.

You can submit reviews for games, but we may choose to use our own. Contact either Frodo or Doubler via PM if you are interested in submitting a review for a particular game.

LjL (talk) 21:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Definitely Fails

WP:RS. Two guys moderating a blog using the names Frodo and Doubler? It would be funny if it were not so sad. Lipsquid (talk

) 13:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be in the best interests of this discussion to stick to things that aren't their nicknames or their perceived sadness. LjL (talk) 13:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I only wanted to point out that the fact that they do not use their real names is an even stronger indicator that they are not

WP:RS. What are you going to do say "According to Frodo ......" with a straight face as if that could possibly be a reliable source to anyone sane? Next will we have someone who calls themselves "Harry Potter" as a reliable source on chemical reactions? Lipsquid (talk

) 13:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I've had a dispute with another editor lately regarding the reliability of Infectious Magazine. I've been under the impression that magazine sources are generally considered reliable on Wikipedia. Here's their "About Us" page. Any thoughts?

Nope. It is apparently on "wordpress" using a "free wordpress theme" - a self-publishing site specializing in glorified blogs. No sign of an actual "editorial staff" nor of any fact-checking at all. While some "real sources" do use wordpress, there is no sign that this is one of them. Collect (talk) 13:59, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I was hoping for some advice on whether the

I have had this edit [6] reverted on the basis that SANA isn't a reliable source.

Also today I had the

Please let me know if anyone has any constructive guidance? Thanks. Guru Noel (talk) 22:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem with news agencies like these is that they frequently carry propaganda. And propaganda is not reliable by default. All these countries either have a reputation for spreading falsehoods (the Russian media, for example) or are parties in the war (the Syrian government media, for example) and this reduces their reliability.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:25, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply but I am still a bit flabbergasted that Wikipedia's reliability standards depend on an editor's opinion of them as propaganda. Only using Western news agency propaganda seems to directly contravene

WP:NPOV? I still don't quite get what is the difference between Western (US/European/AUS/NZ) and Eastern (Russian/Syrian/Iranian/Iraqi/Lebanese) propaganda? Most countries are parties to the war in one way or another. The Russians have shown everyone quite blatantly in the last week that the Western media has been spreading falsehoods about the phantom Free Syrian Army for months, arming and equipping terrorists to the point where the Russians are having to go in to blow up the weapons stockpiles that our taxpayer's dollars have been spent on giving to "moderates" who simply, and obviously now just passed them on to terrorists one way or another. If anything it is the Western media that should be seen as propaganda in many areas and not reliable by default. They had us believing there were WMDs in Iraq a few years back, remember? The only solution to this sad state of affairs would seem to be to set up national Wikipedia's where only your own country's news sources can be used as reliable. Guru Noel (talk

) 09:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

When more new countries join the

Al-Quaeda affiliates, when is proper to label their media and news sources as propaganda? And when does it become noticeable and a bit abhorrent that Wikipedia is de-facto supporting terrorists via this policy? Guru Noel (talk

) 10:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

There's a difference between a news agency located in a nation, and a news agency that is operated by that nation's government. That difference is editorial independence. A state-run news agency will generally be treated by Wikipedia the same as the government's official spokesperson, regardless of the topic being covered. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that clarifies that state-run news agencies can be used as a reliable sources as governments' official spokespeople are not

attributed in-text I feel fine proceeding back to the propaganda battlefield better armed with your information. Thanks. Guru Noel (talk

) 13:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Um, no, that's not what he said. He said both things would be treated the same by Wikipedia— which is to say, both would be considered unreliable sources motivated by those who control them politically rather than by the intention to disseminate accurate and practical news-related truths. Unless I myself have misread. KDS4444^Talk 08:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The intention to disseminate accurate and practical news-related truths is inevitably biased and controlled by the national government of the country where the news agency is based, to a greater or lesser degree. SANA is public-owned and "linked" to the Ministry of Information in a fledgling

WP:NPOV standards. To not do so takes us to a very dark area of censorship. That's how I read it anyhow. Guru Noel (talk

) 00:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I would agree with Guru Noel as it has to be viable at the very least when attributed. If any government funded news agency is unreliable, then we would end up removing references to the BBC, PBS (including Frontline), Xinhua and many other credible news sources from Wikipedia which would be a gargantuan effort and leave gaping holes in articles. To allow, the BBC or Xinhua, but exclude SANA would show extreme bias. The articles at the root of this discussion already have a very large US-centric slant as is. Lipsquid (talk) 14:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, here is mine edit removed. The Contrail editors consider it 'unreferenced meaningless bullshit'. However, it is basically a reference to the articles which add some missing material. The Contrails explains how contrails are formed from engine-exhausted vapour but my referenced articles say that primary source of cloud formation are pollution particles, soot from the airplane engines and that the effect is so strong that it even causes global dimming. I summarize those ideas and reference them. Yet, Contrail authors remove everything, demanding support for my references. What the hell? How can I reference the references? It is difficult to find anything more stupid. If you cannot click and open a reference and see details at the main article, then, what is the point of copy-pasting the sources, reproducing the whole referenced articles in referencing one? This defeats the whole purpose of referencing. Some guys in irc.freenode told me that this is necessary to avoid WP:CIRC. Yet, the whole purpose of references is defeated anyway. I guess that you should not demand any supporting references when it is clear that main WP article is referenced and anybody can see that your summary is correct. --Javalenok (talk) 19:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

no original research, i.e. if you can't find a secondary source that says what you want (specifically that Cloud condensation nuclei are responsible for Contrail formation), then it shouldn't be in the article. Note that the Cloud condensation nuclei article doesn't even mention contrails. So the editor was correct to remove it. Bromley86 (talk

) 20:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

THank you for playing a shit. The article on global dimming is clear is precise on soot (from ariplain engines) causing the clouds, the way described in the Clound condensation nuclei. It even has a photo of airplane contrails, for absolute idiots who read the articles and cannot relate the material, cannot understand that soot is an example of condensation nuclei. What is the point of articles if you cannot tie 1+1? The article Cloud condensation nuclei itself is meaningless if you do not understand that what is the nuclei and tie it to the soot and soot-contrail to the cloud formation, described in the nuclei cloud formation article. On the other hand, your response is a big progress. It is at least something, a starting point that may let to find out a way for that soot-induced material to appear in the article. --Javalenok (talk) 20:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Play nice. Bromley86 (talk) 20:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Soot from aircraft does have an effect on contrails. The climate effects are complex: although one might expect dimming due to contrails blocking sunlight, contrails reduce natural cloudiness by consuming water vapor that would otherwise be used to produce naturally formed cirrus. See e.g., Burkhardt and Kärcher (2011), Nature Climate Change. Complexities like this are why we need references. And calling other editors "ass-heads" isn't generally considered a suitable method for evaluating microphysical interactions with climate. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't think the problem is one of RS, including that text at that location makes little sense imo, but if one wants a source for the soot as condensation nuclei: http://www.aeronautics.nasa.gov/pdf/contrails_k-12.pdf "Contrails are a type of ice cloud, formed by aircraft as water vapor condenses around small dust particles, which provide the vapor with sufficient energy to freeze. The water vapor is already in the air surrounding the aircraft while the dust, or condensation nuclei, is comprised primarily of soot particles produced during the combustion process." Ssscienccce (talk) 19:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

the problem is that nobody will make a blanket statement about a publication in this way. The Telegraph, in common with all UK newspapers, is suffering a very serious decline in journalistic standards. However we can't exclude that it might report some facts for a change. --ℕ ℱ 09:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The issue is not the article but its headline. IMO, headlines (which are generally written by a "headline writer" with the intent of getting readers to notice the article) frequently are not the same as the actual article at all. The word "snub" in the headline is not in the Telegraph article, nor is it implied in the actual article. Thus the article is perfectly usable IMO. The headline is not a proper source for anything here. Collect (talk) 13:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

There is, however, an element of opinion that cannot be separated easily from facts in those type of one-sided articles. Namely, the opinion of the journalist that the facts he presents are worth reporting or relevant to the biography of the subject. Often the trivia is brought to the fore by those seeking to push a particular political angle. Therefore I think we should be careful to underline that coverage of a 'fact' by the Telegraph may not be a sufficient condition for inclusion in a wikipedia article. Of course these things, as always, must be addressed in the particular on a case by case basis. --ℕ ℱ 16:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree, however imho that has little to do with a slipping of journalistic standard or a lack oj journalistic standard. It is in general true, that not every detail mentioned in the news media is necessarily of encyclopedic relevance and needs to be included into an WP article.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

A proposal has been made at

Please focus your attention on the reliability of a source. This is not the place to discuss other issues, such as editor conduct. Please see dispute resolution for issues other than reliability.

This isn't actually relevant to RSN, except for the reliability of he sources on the opening statement and the "Google searches results". Happy to comment later but this isn't the right board for this. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 06:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Apologies. I will do better next time. Now that discussion has closed, it's easier for me to explain why I thought it might be of interest here without violating canvassing guidelines by inadvertently offering an invitation that favored one side or the other. This was a discussion where

WP:RSN or only the highest quality or do you weight them somehow? (2) If you know what you're trying to count (estimate), how do you propose to do it? But again, sorry for spamming you. Best regards, Msnicki (talk

) 18:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Understandable, and I'd probably drop a note here as well if I was in your position, but it would be better to post something like this on the talk page though there is less traffic there. If there are specific sources that you and/or the other editors want to be checked, then by all means post the sources themselves here with some context.

I'll post my reply about how I would approach a titling dispute on your talk page since the discussion has ended. Hope this helps at least a bit and it's never spam when it's good-faith and/or constructive. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 23:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC); amended 23:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Any views on whether The Tab is reliable or not? I bumped into it in the Bullingdon Club article, where it's used to support a statement about the existence of a photograph and who's in it.[8] Obviously, in this particular case, it's more a question of whether or not The Mail is a RS when it comes to identifying those in the picture (as it was the source), but I was curious as to whether The Tab would be a RS if they hadn't been churning The Mail. Bromley86 (talk) 02:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Definitely published, mostly 3rd party. Anything else you'd want in a source...not so much. I'd say no. Dailymail equivalent. 78.144.221.190 (talk) 19:03, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The tone of the about-us page suggests that its content is going to be all primary-source kind of stuff. It may have editorial oversight, which would mean the basic facts it presents will have at least been looked at by someone other than the person who wrote it, but the cutting-edge-ness of the site overall means I'd want to see a better and preferably secondary source for any claims it is being used to support. KDS4444^Talk 08:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Like the above user said, essentially it should have all the basic facts correct, however the sources it uses should be checked thoroughly. I would look into citing other, more reliable and well-known, sources. Cheers, Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 01:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Is this magazine reliable? Also the page http://www.rhodesia.nl, which is hosting the material, is full of material supporting the apartheid and, in my opinion, doesn't seem appropriate to having it in pages about africa, or in Wikipedia in general. See [9]. Rupert Loup (talk) 18:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

1. Source: Substances Portal - Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
2. Article: Monsanto legal cases
3. Content:

   in 1979, the US Congress banned PCB manufacture

   (Sample extract from paragraph in this version.)

Discussion is here. My concerns are that:

1. Linking to the
   PCBs
   page (as per the current version) is all that a reader needs for context.
2. The source is a primary source - a US government listing of toxic substances.
3. The source does not support the content. Go to the link, search for "1979". No results. How is a reader supposed to find the cite for the content in Wikipedia? Download every PDF listed on the page?
4. The Wikipedia article is a battleground, with anti-Monsanto activists doing their best to slant the material to their preferred view. An Arbcom case is underway on a related topic. In this sensitive area, we should take care to comply precisely with wikipolicy. --Pete (talk) 18:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi,

Could somebody tell me if the following is suitable for a biography of a living person:

• Source: http://islamqa.info/
• Article: Muhammad al-Munajjid
• Content: Views and Controversial Statements

I am concerned as the article makes a number of controversial claims using the the IslamQA.info website and this seems to fail

This book makes contentious allegations about dead people (that they specifically had unusual sexual orientations, etc.) sourced only to one person - the book's author. On its own, the book appears to be a wonderfully salacious exercise in dropping names of as many Hollywood stars - and libel-proof by them being dead. The book ranks in Amazon's top 110,000 best-sellers.

My query is whether the use of as many names as possible (over thirty separate names) in the Wikipedia article serves readers, or simply serves salacious spreading of allegations to which the people have no recourse beyond the grave? Given that there is a sole source for all of the allegations, would we be more accurate in eliding individual names as being gratuitous tabloidism? Or by listing a large number of "noted persons", are we simply accurately stating what is in the book?

And is the book qua book "notable" in itself? Collect (talk) 16:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

As to reliability... I would say the book is very unreliable for statements of blunt fact (ie the unattributed statement: "Joe Movie Star liked to have sex with llamas") and reliable (but seriously UNDUE) for stating opinion (ie the attributed statement: "According to author Scotty Bowers, Joe Movie Star liked to have sex with llamas").

As for Notability... the book does seem to be notable, but I would not call it "note worthy". In other words, it probably merits its own article, but does not merit being mentioned in other articles (especially bio articles). Blueboar (talk) 17:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I wish to know if the following can be included in this article based on these sources.

www.albawaba.com

www.middleeasteye.net

The relevant material is However other sources stated that eyewitnesses at the scene claimed that the Palestinian woman was unarmed and was defending herself after being physically attacked by two Israeli settlers.^[1]

</ref>^[2]

Thanks Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 09:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Middle East Eye is a small outfit that employs political activists-turned-journalists and has no regular staff anywhere outside London; it employs freelancers. the history of its Wikiepdia page shows that the page itself is a battleground. A source [10] on the page as it stands asserts that Middle East Eye employs Muslim Brotherhood activists. But the main points appear to be lack of recognition as a serous news outfit, and failure to employ journalists in the Middle East - except for freelancers. So, no, its not a reliable source.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I generally avoid using Middle East Eye, though there is nothing wrong with employing freelancers as journalists. A better source for the same assertion is this: "Witness accounts to Ma'an claim that an Israeli man opened fire at the teenager while she was near a pharmacy in the al-Wad Street in the Old City, a few meters away from the Council Gate leading to Al-Aqsa Mosque. They said she was assaulted by the Israeli man and did not have any sharp objects on her person." Kingsindian ♝♚ 18:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't use Middle East Eye myself much, but I see no reason to exclude it. The editor there is David Hearst who has a much stronger curriculum that numerous journalists we use from Ynet, Jerusalem Post, Haaretz, etc. He was chief foreign leader writer of The Guardian, former Associate Foreign Editor, European Editor, Moscow Bureau Chief, European Correspondent, and Ireland Correspondent. He joined The Guardian, from The Scotsman, where he was education correspondent. Since that's the man in the editor's chair, overseeing the news site, it is acceptable. Belen Fernandez is another regular contributor of notable quality. In general, as Kingsindian notes, one searches for more regular sources, but that rule is not exclusive, for the simple reason that mainstream sources are notoriously partisan, and predictable in their POV, in this area.

The second point is that editors are required to be coherent in their policy interpretations, E. M. Gregory That means that one doesn't get much street cred if you construct a page and oversee its build-up using

JNS.org, CAMERA as you have recently done at Death of Adele Biton and then insist on a high bar for any source that does not, as the ones I cited, reflect the kind of one-eyed bias you get in those mediocre sources. Camera is not acceptable as a source for facts, as all wikipedians know from an old discussion of its devious behavior here. If you will accept any provincial or activist source that serves your POV, then you are not going to be heard if you complain of sources that provide a different perspective.Nishidani (talk

) 19:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Citing an uncontroversial public statement by Jody Rudoern of the NYTimes to a Camera publicatoin is very different than KingsIndian's project of citing an assertion that an attack did not happen to a website like Middle East Eye, when the article is sourced to reputable dailies like the BBC that say it did happen, and to police reports that cite both evidence and witnesses. A London-based News site citing facts to unnamed witnessed interviewed by unnamed journalists at an unspecified place and time cannot be cited to contradict the NYTimes, The Telegraph, and the BBC, and the police all agreeing on the basic facts. While all news organizations make mistakes, Ma'an is constrained to conform to a narrative, as editors are where they serve at the pleasure of oligarchs. Lack of press freedom constrains Ma'an to a narrow line of reporting often out of touch with fact and reality.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The Israeli police like the IDF are notoriously imprecise, vague and constantly alter or update their reports on these incidents. They work off a simpleton's verbal template. 'terrorist, identified, shot'. Everyone is automatically a 'terrorist' if said to be so, so that a boy or man running away from a scene (probably but not proven to be) a stabber perhaps, can be shot dead on the spot in the back by a passing policeman because people yelled out 'terrorist'. No stabbing event occurred yesterday: a man held a knife, and ran away: he was drilled with 14 bullets, amidst screams of 'terrorist, terrorist'. Nothing of this emerges in the usual mainstream reports. It comes out weeks later in Am nesty International, B'tselem, or Human Rights Reports, and on this Israeli mainstream journalism is a disgrace. In any event you can pick holes in most of these reports as the emerge in sequence. I've indicated that several times, documenting this, on articles you edit. These reports are summarily repeated in a variety of foreign sources, and one has always to check the time line, since much is copy and paste. The only foreign paper I have found exercising some scrupulous care in getting things right regularly in the Christian Science Monitor. As to Ma'an, it is less under the beck and call of oligarchs than most of the newspapers we cite as mainstream. The reports are pared down, names are given correctly, places identified, and both sides reported, unlike what is usually the case in The Times of Israel, Ynet, or the Jerusalem Post. Elide the Palestinian POV in a few repeated terms or notes, and it is basically factual. Any editor can confirm this by comparing a Ma'an report to the same news reported in The Times of Israel, for example. The latter is intensely emotive.Nishidani (talk) 12:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@

WP:RS for this assertion, you need to give evidence. Kingsindian ♝♚

13:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

To use an excellent Greek word culled from Sextus Empiricus, editors who work with newspapers must be 'ephectic,' that is 'suspensive in judgement' because the search for verifiable facts that would allow a judgement is still onhoing. This because reports are driven by frantic deadlines and fragmentary details. Those who mistake those breaking news reports for 'facts' are, according to the same analysis, 'dogmatists'. The problem is not only in the sources: it is in the editorial approach that would take at face value what scattered data coming in from several venues, police, eyewitnesses, and interested parties, appears within an hour or two to have determined to be the truth. In 4 cases of 'terrorism' over the past week or so, nearly all sources affirm what the video evidence of witnesses renders suggests is far more complicated.Nishidani (talk) 13:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Ma'an is a news source that reliably prefaces bits of information inimical to its cause with the modifier: "alleged". It limits quotes on fraught events to witnesses reinforcing approved narratives. I do not blame individual Palestinian witnesses for spouting politically acceptable versions of events (i.e., lying), but the fact that private justice is visited on Palestinians who voice inconvenient facts (such as: I saw that fellow stab the Israeli with a knife...) makes them tell the reporter what they know that they are supposed to say. Or perhaps even makes them afraid to see that the alleged attacked was wielding a bloody knife. the Palestinian territories are an impossible environment for locals who attempt to do the serious journalism on fraught issues. (Foreign journalists do not put their sister's lives at risk by fact-finding and truth-telling) And that is why Ma'an needs to be taken with an even larger grain of salt than partisan newspapers in countries where the penalty for voicing an unpopular opinion is not paid out by masked thugs at midnight.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

What kind of unadulterated bullshit is that? Completely and utterly made up nonsense. Maan is cited by the NYTimes and other serious sources, and they are usually cited as Palestinian news wire. You not liking giving Palestinians a voice does not make it an unreliable source, sorry. nableezy - 18:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Before I grew up, I loved goodguy/badguy stories. Then I grew up. ' Masked thugs at midnight'? Everything you say above can be said of either side. Israel is simply far more efficient. It will win of course, but won't come out with its dignity intact in historiography, which keeps complete records.Nishidani (talk) 21:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The NYT in this case did not do any "fact-finding", it simply quoted the Israeli police. If you believe that Israeli police always tell the truth while Palestinian witnesses always lie, I don't know what to say. Luckily your strange criteria to determine

WP:RS are not grounded in any wikipedia policy. Kingsindian ♝♚

21:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

There is an imposing academic literature dealing with media bias in the I/P conflict that shows profound inaccuracies in reportage from both sides. I won't give a list, but simply note for the curious that this is never, as E.M. Gregory's article creation and edits suggest, a nursery tale/Manichaean black and white world. The only significant structural fact is that one side is an occupying power, and the other is occupied. Any report that ignores this simple legal/historical reality is suspect, and that is why independent reportage is invaluable. There is no set list of intrinsically trustworthy newspaper sources for this area.Nishidani (talk) 21:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Drop the Straw man arguments. I have never argued for a Manichean world. What I have said is that in this world of imperfect news coverage, the situation in the Palestinian territories is worse than that in Britain or Israel where there is a free and lively press. If it is hard to get the story right for an Irish or Australian journalist, internal political and security issues within the Palestinian territories and political world make it almost impossible for Ma'an. Good journalism cannot survive where political struggles are conducted with guns. Arafat used to kneecap journalists and destroy presses (yeah, they had actual presses back then) It's far more dangerous nowadays. Impossible situation for even the best-trained, best-intentioned journalists.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

here is a previous discussion about Ma'an. It does not seem that there was any kind of consensus it's reliable. The fact it produces reports that nobody else does and attributes them to unnamed eyewitnesses is not a plus but a minus. Serious news organizations name the people they get information from unless there's a compelling reason not to. Add to that some of the ridiculous stuff they reported which is mentioned in the previous discussion, and the picture is not a good one. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

That is absurd. If Ma'an is unreliable in general, hundreds of Wikipedia pages that cite it would need to be changed. Your reasoning is also breathtaking. According to you, it is ok to do no reporting, and simply quote a government official press conference/govt. spokesman (as the NYT did), but if one actually does reporting and interviews witnesses, it is suspect, because they may be lying. And your assertion that the previous discussion did not result in a consensus is pretty misleading. I see exactly one section which makes sense: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_139#Question_reformulated_to_re-start_constructive_discussion. That simply asked whether Ma'an is reliable for a single sentence. It was unanimously accepted as reliable. The OP did not like it and brought up other things, and discussion got muddled as is usual in these cases. This is why RSN requires the format: sentence, source, article, so that discussion is focused. If you want to claim that Ma'an is unreliable for this, it is simple: open a discussion giving the exact quote and article, and let people comment. Kingsindian ♝♚ 04:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

By the way, why are we spending all this time on a question by an editor - Johnmcintyre1959 - who you have already accused on a separate board of being a disruptive partisan sockpuppet (an assessment with which I and others concur). And a source that Johnmsintyre1959 himself replaced on the page by sourcing this allegation to a report in Haaretz?E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

That's not at all what I said. I said "The fact it produces reports that nobody else does and attributes them to unnamed eyewitnesses is not a plus but a minus. Serious news organizations name the people they get information from unless there's a compelling reason not to". If you'd like to address that rather than a strawman of your creation, please feel free. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, Kingsindian should drop the straw man argument and address the fact that Ma'an's sourcing in this case is highly problematic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Let's get this straight. Are you claiming that Ma'an made the witness testimony up? Also, really, witnesses are always named in serious news reports? Bullshit. NYT source 1: "...according to witnesses and others briefed on the trip.". NYT source 2"...that witnesses and officials blame on Boko Haram Islamic extremists." NYT source 3 "...during and Israeli raid for suspected militants in the northern Gaza Strip, officials and witnesses said.". And please don't give me any BS about "name withheld". When names are withheld, it is explicitly stated. Kingsindian ♝♚ 18:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The attempt here is to cite a Ma'an story that contradicts the physical evidence (man hurt in stabbing attack; police found 2 knives in possession of this attacker) with the statements given by unnamed alleged witnesses. What I am saying is that people often see what they want to see, and witnesses often say what the public wants to hear. Happens the world over. But it especially happens in places like the Palestinian territories where people can be killed for expressing the wrong opinion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, witnesses can lie. And government officials can also lie (happens all the time, all over the world). For instance, see the Amnesty International investigation here for a similar but different incident. I don't see you arguing for removing the Israeli police account for that reason. One presents the Israeli version, and the Palestinian version, both attributed correctly. Kingsindian ♝♚ 21:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

A

Hadassah Hospital watching TV): "In a video report accusing Israel of faking evidence of other knife attacks, a reporter for the Palestinian news agency Maan described the clip as evidence of “murder” and claimed in her narration that the video showed the boy lying on the ground when “an Israeli occupation soldier shoots him in the head,” which it does not." Link: [11]. Ma'an is not merely a news source with a POV, it is an unreliable news source.E.M.Gregory (talk

) 18:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The relevant report here is this. Ma'an states that the boy was injured, not dead. There was a separate Palestinian who was killed. Maybe the other reporter confused the two people, happens all the time. You want to extrapolate from one thing to say that all Palestinians are liars, while Israel tells the gospel truth. Ma'an is routinely quoted by news organizations all over the world, including Israeli media: (Vox, Times of Israel, Jerusalem Post, Al Jazeera, IBTimes UK and many many more). Ridiculous to claim that Ma'an is unreliable in general. Kingsindian ♝♚ 20:48, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

An editor is insisting on sourcing information in Zion Square assault to one Alon Gratch.[12] Gratch is a psychologist. Not an expert in anything other than psychology as far as I can tell, and his book was published by a regular fiction publisher, not an academic press or anything that would indicate any degree of fact checking or endorsement by peers or any of the other criteria that would make him RS. Is this acceptable? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Both this and the preceding were amply explained on the Talk page, and the attempt to rid the page of two RS is in bad faith. Alon Gratch’s bio shows he has, both by background as an Israeli and with professional qualifications as a psychologist working with problems of violence in New York, eminently qualified to write about the conflict his country is involved in, as both insider, and a widely published author in his field. The book, after all, is a study of Israel by an Israeli with doctoral qualifications, and a distinguished career. What NMMGG is objecting to is the use of Gratch as a source for the following uncontroversial comment.

The Israeli Minister for Education requested that time be set aside in all junior and hugh schools throughout Israel for a lesson on the attempted lynching episode

There is nothing exceptional about Gratch reporting this. It was mentioned all over the local and international press, as any child could have confirmed in an instant googling.

• Omri Meniv, 'Israeli Schools to Address Attack On Arab Teenager in Jerusalem,'
  Al Monitor
  24 August 2012
• Jodi Rudoren, Isabel Kerschner, 'After Attacks, Israeli Schools Confront Hate,'
  New York Times
  27 August 2012

This arose because NMMGG challenged the article

WP:EVENT. What does NMMGG do? He removes the sources he otherwise implicitly denied existed. And now complains when they are restored with talk page and article consensus.Nishidani (talk

) 20:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Putting aside your ridiculous accusations of bad faith, and other irrelevant (and deliberately misleading) information, the question remains what are Gratch's qualifications as RS here? The answer is none. If you want to source to the NYT then by all means do so, but Gratch is not RS for this. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

If you have excellent sources like the NYT for this statement, why are you insisting on a very marginal source? Replaced it in the article, hopefully this settles it. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 20:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Please read the comment I made. NMMGG said the article lacked sources attesting to the fact that it was not merely a one-time event in the press, but reported in sources in successive years. Gratch is one such source, and I am perfectly correct in citing it for a commonplace, to show the Zion Square incident is still mentioned 3 years later. By the way, who are you?Nishidani (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

No. I specifically asked another editor (not you) to evaluate this article based on criteria he used for other articles. You on the other hand never mentioned LASTING or EVENT and regularly argue for articles such as this one to be rolled into large lists. Stop trying to mislead other editors, not that it would have been relevant even if you weren't being deliberately misleading. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure. I am 'deliberately misleading'. Blumenthal is 'deliberately deceptive'. The world is just crawling with people deliberately disagreeing with you.Nishidani (talk) 20:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I gather you've run out of relevant policy based arguments. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Did he have any to begin with? I haven't seen any. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 21:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

We're here for independent, third party input, and this chat is not likely to interest anyone. So let's drop it and wait for third party wikipedians familiar with RS policy to comment.Nishidani (talk) 21:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I've seen several magazines backing sources for genres but they don't seem to be completly reliable. These are:

• http://lithiummagazine.com
• http://www.ghostcultmag.com
• http://www.musicmayhemmagazine.com

Thoughts? Thanks. Anonpediann (talk) 18:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Lithium Magazine looks unreliable. From the About page, they seem to chiefly use third and fourth year college students, and there is no editorial board listed. Ghost Cult looks reliable. Checking their About page, it's got an editor-in-chief listed. It looks a bit like a glorified blog, but I'd let it through. You might want to raise any issues you have at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. Music Mayhem Magazine also looks reliable. Their About page lists an editor. Again, it seems like a glorified blog, and I would raise specific issues at WikiProject Albums. For something like trivial like genre, I would think it would be uncontroversial to use Ghost Cult Magazine or Music Mayhem Magazine. I would not use Lithium Magazine, and I would probably strip out citations to this site as unreliable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I've been wondering if disposablemedia.co.uk could be considered a reliable source. Thanks. Anonpediann (talk) 18:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Reliability is contextual, so you'd have to indicate what you want to cite it for (eg. more controversial or exceptional claims require better sources.) But looking over it it does not look like a great source to me; in particular, there's no indication of editorial oversight I can see, which would make it basically useless for most purpose. How does one become a contributor there? What guidelines to they have? What sort of fact-checking do they do? They need a "reputation for fact checking and accuracy" to pass

WP:RS, essentially. --Aquillion (talk

) 09:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

This website was being used as a reference for the birth name of

You are correct. Genealogy websites and public records are not acceptable reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 02:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

There is an ongoing dispute regarding my use of the following source at

How many times can you find authors who cite a Communist Party historian as the basis for the same opinion? Eberhardt, the doctor of geography, wrote, "The focus of this book is on the geographic and demographic questions rather than on ethnology or ethnography." Thus not RS for purposes of ethnology or ethnography, what extrapolating ethnicity from a census which surveyed religion and mother tongue is. Also note pg. 499 which shows Polish Communist Party Historian Jerzy Tomaszewski interpolations of the census in the bibliography as the source for the numbers used in his charts. Jerzy Tomaszewski's contributions need to be identified as coming from him, and include the fact that he was a Communist Party member. Communist Party controlled history publications also need to note that relationship since they are RS of nothing. Without labeling the Communist Party POV as such, and we thus go from Wikipedia to Commipedia. Credibility laundering by using tertiary sources is completely unacceptable.Doctor Franklin (talk) 15:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Franklin you have misrepresented Piotr Eberhardt, on p. 3 he actually wrote "The focus of this book is on the geographic and demographic questions rather than on ethnology or ethnography. The book therefore contains broad statistical documentation of the ethnic changes within the various pertinent national boundaries and administrative subdivisions." Note well Dr. Franklin that ethnology and ethnography are branches of physical Anthroploogy--Woogie10w (talk) 15:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I quoted him very directly. This "broad statistical documentation of the ethnic changes" is based upon Jerzy Tomaszewski's opinions and theories, and Tomaszewski was very openly, a Communist Party historian. Eberhardt simply repeats and amplifies Tomaszewski's opinions and theories, and illustrates them in big charts corresponding to the geographical national boundaries, without providing his own interpretation of the census itself.Doctor Franklin (talk) 15:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

No,no. you have misrepresented Piotr Eberhardt, you cherrypicked part of his remarks and left out the the following relevant sentence. Eberhardt does not cite the 1985 study byTomaszewski as the source of his analysis. This discussion is not about Tomaszewski. --Woogie10w (talk) 15:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

See pg. 499 which shows Polish Communist Party Historian Jerzy Tomaszewski in the bibliography, which is the source for the numbers used in his charts.

You have misrepresented Eberhardt again, the population figures on p. 117 in Ethnic Groups and Population Changes in Twentieth Century Eastern Europe are not the same as Tomaszewski's which were cited in Piotrowski's Poland's Holocaust on p.294. The calculations are Eberhardt's which he detailed with footnotes.--Woogie10w (talk) 18:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Can you please advise on which page of his book, Eberhardt acknowledges the 1931 Census itself as a source for this book in the bibliography? Unless your book is different from what I can see online, he doesn't cite the census itself, only Tomaszewski, the Communist Party historian.Doctor Franklin (talk) 21:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

See p. 117 Source: Drugi Powszechny ....(1933-1938). Eberhardt does not cite Tomaszewski as the source of his data, his figures do not agree with Tomaszewski's. There is only one reference in the book to Tomaszewski on p. 499 in the bibliography, a 1991 publication. The 1985 study Tomaszewski is not listed in the bibliography. Tomaszewski is not the source of Eberhardt's data.

Thank you for confirming that Piotrowski also cites Tomaszewski. We don't need another non-social scientist repeating Tomaszewski's theories and opinions, giving them an appearance of greater acceptance than they have, and hiding their real author.Doctor Franklin (talk) 22:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Your rant about Communist Party POV and Commipedia has nothing at all to do with the source being discussed Ethnic Groups and Population Changes in Twentieth Century Eastern Europe which was first published in Poland in 1996--Woogie10w (talk) 16:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Eberhardt is a doctor of geography, and not sociology, history, ethnography, ethnology, or demography. He was educated in the Communist era and relies upon Tomaszewski's interpolations of census data to make his charts, which are the point of his book. The data used for the charts is not.Doctor Franklin (talk) 17:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Here is the CV of Piotr Eberhardt [16] --Woogie10w (talk) 18:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The issue is plain and simple. We are talking about known scholars, not some weekend geographer. Unless you have other scholars which criticize the scholars in question, there is nothing to discuss here.

re: He was educated in the Communist era: The whole