Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 204

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.

"United States Social Security Death Index," database, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:JGGT-JZQ : accessed 17 February 2016), Henry Gibson, 14 Sep 2009; citing U.S. Social Security Administration, Death Master File, database (Alexandria, Virginia: National Technical Information Service, ongoing

Is proffered as a reliable source for the particular claim that "Henry Gibson" was the legal name in United States Social Security records of a person who died on 14 Sep 2009, born 21 Sep 1935, with a residence in Malibu. One editor says this is not a ".gov" address and thus can not be the SSA.

I suggest it is the SSA database clearly being used, and that the editor is using a weak cavil at best. Discussion at Talk:Henry_Gibson#name_per_Social_Security_System and note that the land records for Malibu indicate the person was Henry Gibson as well. The dates on this record precisely match those for Henry Gibson, the place of residence matches Henry Gibson and, more to the point, no record for James Bateman matching any known facts whatsoever about the person Henry Gibson in that database. I am getting tired of an editor warring that his only "real name" is James Bateman. Pinging EauZenCashHaveIt, Mlpearc.., Thanks. Collect (talk) 13:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

This is a fine example of original research. You have no idea how reliable that website is. It could be rife with errors. You have no idea if this is the same person in the article or somebody else. Go find a reliable secondary source (not a primary source). If no book or newspaper has reported the death, why should we be the first? That's the heart of no original research: Wikipedia is never going to be the first to report some fact. (A database dump or scrape isn't reporting.) As for the name, just tell that editor to find a source that supports his argument. No source, no argument. Jehochman ^Talk 13:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

It is an official United States Government database. I think prior discussions on this noticeboard, as linked above, agreed already that it is "reliable" in fact. All of the dates are the same, the places are the same. There is no "James Bateman" matching any of the facts known about the person, period. Unless "James Bateman" is still alive, the death index should reasonably have him in it <g>. The land records for his house in Malibu (on Latigo Shore Drive) (also official database) show his name as Henry Gibson. The death has been quite widely reported (i.e. hundreds of newspapers published his obit) - and the obits (including LAT etc.) are already cited in the BDP - stating his birth name was "James Bateman" but that his name was "Henry Gibson." And since the editor rejected every source which did not say what he wants it to say, I suggest an official government source is damn near as good as one could ask for <g>. And note that primary sources are allowed for statements of fact other than (in some cases) for living persons. The man is dead, Jim. <g>. Collect (talk) 13:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with @

open channel

) 16:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Mlpearc, aren't official governmental databases always .gov domains? That has always been my understanding. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 20:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

User:EauZenCashHaveIt, no, official government data sources don't always have a top level domain (TLD) of .gov. For example, the U.S. Postal Service uses .com (though they have an alias at .gov). Many states have websites of the form state.XX.us, where XX is the two letter abbreviation of the state. Many government agencies use the .org TLD. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The website familysearch.org is not a direct link to the SSN database; it is a user-contributed site like Wikipedia. The entry specifies that it was cited from that database, but that claim is not verifiable by us. Wikipedia should not use this information, any more than we would link to our own articles as a source. Scr★pIron^IV 20:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Right on. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 20:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but we shouldn't be using primary sources in this manner. Gamaliel (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

• IF we can confirm that the SSN database uses "Gibson", THEN we can cite it for the claim. That means a Wikipedian needs to actually access the database itself and confirm what it says (as opposed to accessing some other site that, in turn, cites it). Blueboar (talk) 23:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Would you be able to slide a playing card between that suggestion and "Original Research"
    WP:RS. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk
    ) 23:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
• The real original research problem in this is the assumption that, since some obituaries noted that his birth name was "Bateman", this means that his legal name (whatever that means anyway) was still Bateman years later. There's no evidence for or against that. Mangoe (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

No obits state that his legal name remained "James Bateman", No "James Bateman" with same dates is found in any Social Security source, nor found in the Malibu real estate records as owner of his specific property, at least five separate news articles about the property identify the owner as "Henry Gibson" and now "Henry Gibson (Trust)". Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

After his death, his best friend still called him "Jim": "He was the kind of guy at that time, nothing could stop him," Voight said. "He was very talented. I just thought the world of Jim and was so glad for his success." However, when his wife Lois died in 2007, the obituaries called her Lois Bateman. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 22:11, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Official US government records would seem to be an eensy bit more reliable about names than an anecdote about Jon Voight. And try to be accurate [1] is the cite you give:

Longtime Malibu resident Lois Gibson died Sunday at her home after a long illness. She was 77. is what your source states in simple English. It continues:

Gibson is survived by her husband, actor Henry Gibson, sons Jonathan, Charles and James and two grandchildren.

Did you think your absolutely dead wrong assertion that the cite you gave said "Lois Bateman" was in any way not an abust of Wikipedia here?

And your LA Times Obit is titled: Henry Gibson dies at 73; original cast member of 'Laugh-In'

Henry Gibson, a veteran character actor who came to fame in the late 1960s as the flower-holding poet on TV's landmark satirical comedy show "Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In," has died. He was 73.

Gibson was still known as Jim Bateman in the early '60s when he was living in New York City, where his roommate was another struggling young actor -- Jon Voight, whom he had met when they were both students at Catholic University.

Your LA Times cite says he was known as "Jim Bateman" in the early 1960's - not that his name was always Jim Bateman at all.

In short - using a cite for a claim it does not make, or actually lying about what a website says, is less than proper here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:31, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

• You are rude without cause. Everyone else can read what I wrote about Voight. My statement about Lois Gibson was a typo left over from researching both sides of the question as shown by my word "however" and the supporting link. We do not use government records -- they are called "primary source". The quote from Voight shows that until his death, Gibson was known to his friends by his birth name. Voight's statement to the LA Times report is not an "anecdote". Do you know of any sources that show Bateman legally changed his name? That is the purpose of this research. Can you find anything that refers to "Jonathan David Gibson", a Universal Studios director? Such is said to be the son of Gibson, and sources may mention a usable fact. That son JDG retains the "Gibson" name strongly suggests Bateman went through legal name change, but again it is not definitive or usable. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 00:10, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry GLH, but you are wrong here. We certainly can use primary government records, provided that they are accessible by the general public (which does not mean easily accessible). Primary sources are explicitly allowed by

• Government records of persons are often ambiguous when dealing with names so common. Unless a secondary source can be found that indicates a legal name change, we cannot state or imply that such occurred. Obituaries do not mention a name change. The Gale Group Encyclopedia states he was "Also known as Olsen Gibson." Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 00:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

The records of the US Social Security Administration would not be ambiguous, as there is a unique identifying number attached. Blueboar (talk) 02:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• Doesn't help. That identifying number is called the "Social Security Number", and no ordinary Joe (or Wikipedia editor) would recognize Gibson's SSN if it fell out of the sky onto the keyboard. SSA likely does not publish addresses, and certainly does not publish SSN. I doubt they publish death dates. So all you know is "Henry Gibson" -- and Whitepages.com lists 231 exact matches for that name in the US. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 04:56, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually - look at the record given. Then make statements about what is and is not included in the death index database <g>. It includes state of birth, place of death, and dates of birth and death. Note also that it includes precisely zero "James Bateman" records remotely corresponding to the known data points. Collect (talk) 02:02, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

The implication may be enough for an amateur genealogist, but it is not the kind of evidence we need to make the statement that Bateman legally changed his name. Rather, since no one has found any statement that his name was legally changed, this rather impeaches the SSA death index as evidence of anything. The only support for its veracity was the same presumption we had in the beginning, and is now incidentally shown to be prone to error. The SSA itself admits it is an incomplete collection of rumors and hearsay: "We receive death reports from many sources, including family members, funeral homes, financial institutions, postal authorities, States and other Federal agencies. It is important to note our records are not a comprehensive record of all deaths in the country. ... includes, if available, the deceased individual’s SSN, first name, middle name, surname, date of birth, and date of death"[2] In this case, we don't know whether the "Gibson" entry has an SSN, or if it has one, that it is the same as the one assigned to Bateman way back when. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 09:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

"Implication"? The index is regularly used by .'professional genealogists.'. It indicates names and locations of birth and death, and date the social security number was obtained. And I note the local obituary for his wife specifically uses the Gibson name contrary to the claim made by one editor here. As there exist "missing persons" in this world, it is a "Captain Obvious" point that their death records might be wrong <g>, but that is not a rational argument against using this well-established resource, used by professionals in genealogy here. Nor are we using it for parentage or children - just the government record concerning a single person. Cheers. And you did note the Malibu obit for "Lois Gibson", I assume. Collect (talk) 13:28, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• • You can buy a partial expurgated version of the SSA database from Dept. of Commerce: "The public file contains death records extracted from our NUMIDENT database, but does not include death data received from the States. We provide this version to the Department of Commerce’s National Technical Information Service, a clearinghouse for government information, which sells it to the public (other agencies and private organizations such as banks and credit companies)."[3] Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 08:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• No, for various reasons given above. Doug Weller talk 12:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• Statistical validation [4] SSDI is an accurate measure of death outcomes and appears to have the advantage of finding deaths among patients lost to follow-up.
• [5] Because studies showed that the Information obtained from family members and funeral homes is 99% accurate, SSA does not verify it. the other material is "verified" and there is well under a 1% chance that 300 newspapers made a mistake here <g>. Many "reliable sources" do not have a statistically verified 99% correct ratio, in my judgement.
• [6] The New York Times The list is updated weekly, and although it is neither comprehensive nor 100 percent accurate, it is considered the most current record of deaths nationwide, making it a rich trove for researchers. "Cause of death" from state records (which is one source) is now omitted from the data released. but is still retained by the government.
• In short - it may not be "perfect" but it is the single best site available for professional genealogists to find deaths of people who had received Social Security benefits who have died in the US. Period. Collect (talk) 13:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
  • But not good enough to support the original question, i.e., whether the lack of mention of a Bateman death on that date indicates Bateman changed his name legally. Heck, that database doesn't even include my grandmother's death, neither by her maiden nor her married name. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 17:34, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

1. Sources: Times of Israel, Guardian 1, DW, Guardian 2, Maz, RTE.

2. Article: Pegida.

3. Content: Lead sentence of the Pegida article.

Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamisation of the West (

neo-nazi

movement...

My take on it: except for the Maz article, none of the sources refer to Pegida as "neo-nazi". While many of them discuss neo-nazis at Pegida events (which obviously should be covered in the Wikipedia article), none of them refer to Pegida itself as neo-nazi.

1. Times of Israel: "the Islamophobic Pegida movement"..."Anti-Islamic group Pegida"
2. Guardian 1: "Far-right group Pegida"..."a nascent anti-foreigner campaign group"
3. DW: "the anti-Islamization PEGIDA movement"..."the anti-Islamic PEGIDA movement"
4. Guardian 2: "far-right Pegida group"..."a far-right group based in Germany"
5. RTE: "Anti-Islamisation group Pegida"...

The Maz article is an interview with an activist for an anti-right wing group, and really isn't suitable at all for stating these things in Wikipedia's voice.

I would also argue that the sources don't even support the "far right"

Guardian and ToI are generally reliable. I think this might really be an original research or NPOV issue.

Guardian 1 quotes other parties that refer to these people as Nazis: Pegida supporters, seen here in Dresden, include neo-Nazi elements as well as ordinary Germans with concerns about immigration. Photograph: Jens Meyer/AP and Its members have been dubbed the “pinstriped Nazis” and Pegida’s growing presence has presented politicians with a dilemma over how to uncouple the strong neo-Nazi element Corroboration: [7]

Guardian 2: Étienne Desplanques, from the Calais public prosecutor’s office, justified the arrests saying the demonstrators were “ultra right, of a neo-Nazi type”.

Times of Israel actually says they're neo-Nazis in the title of that article. It also quotes Desplanques: “Some groups began to circulate in the city center, mainly far-right, neo-Nazi types,” regional official Etienne Desplanques told AFP.

If your question here was whether the content has to be excluded on verifiability grounds the answer is that it doesn't. The claim is reasonably solid with these three sources alone, though if you want to tighten it up the lede so it says they are "right-wing organization allied with the neo-Nazi movement" or "right-wing organization that has been characterized as a neo-Nazi movement," that would probably be fine. If you want me to look into DQ and Mez for reliability I guess I can, but if your question was "Was the editor who added this reading too much into things?" or "Is this biased?" you might find a more direct answer at

WP:NPOVN. Darkfrog24 (talk

) 02:30, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

But neither the Guardian nor the Times of Israel refer to Pegida as neo-nazis in the voice of their respective papers. Faceless Enemy (talk) 02:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Good question. Wrong noticeboard. You need to go here:

WP:ORN

Your question is not about whether the sources are reliable but about whether they are being interpreted properly.

For my part, I'd say that "Pegida’s growing presence has presented politicians with a dilemma over how to uncouple the strong neo-Nazi element" (G) and "Neo-Nazi anti-Islam protesters arrested at Calais rally" (ToI) support the claim to the point where, if I didn't want it in the article, I'd either show a source actively stating that they are not Nazis or show enough other sources to prove that the majority of articles that mention Pegida do not call them Nazis. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

You're right, thank you - I'll take it to ORN. However, what about the "Maz" activist interview? That one does explicitly say "Pegida is a neo-Nazi event". Or is that a NPOVN (undue weight) question? Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:12, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't speak German, but Maz, or

WP:NONENG being in German does not disqualify it for use in the English Wikipedia. Darkfrog24 (talk

) 04:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not doubting that this activist said these things, I just think she's an extremely biased source with not nearly enough authority on the subject to take her at her word. Or is that yet another thing that doesn't belong at RSN? Faceless Enemy (talk) 14:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I can't tell what she's saying myself, but this is covered under

WP:BIASED. It is sometimes okay to use biased sources. If the activist is relevant enough, it might be appropriate to say, "So-and-so has described Pegida as a neo-Nazi movement," but probably not in the lede. Darkfrog24 (talk

) 15:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

News media are a poor source for determining the political orientation of groups. Their main value is that they tell us what happened this morning. It is inadvisable to use their descriptions unless better sources are not available. Having said that, the sources do not say they are neo-nazi, just that they tolerate open neo-nazis. But they are clearly part of the "far right," the political family that includes the BNP, EDL, English Democrats, National Front, neo-nazis and other groups. It is characteristic of the British far right that groups are constantly being formed and dissolved and try to re-invent themselves as moderate. The EDL denounced the BNP, the BNP denounced the National Front. But they are the same people and articles should reflect that. Islamophobic is accurate too but it goes far into the mainstream. Donald Trump for example expresses views that could be seen as Islamophobic. TFD (talk) 03:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The description of the AFD as (far) right-wing as in right of the center right fairly common in the German press and a common assessment by scholars in sociology and politics (in interviews). I understand the skepticism towards quick superficial labeling in the press. Maybe a better a approach is having the lead without any such label and moving that information in separate section dealing with the political placement of the movement, where the assessments of reputable news publications can be given but possible augmented by German publications of which there are plenty and more important scholarly sources (which do exist in German at least). Note that the German article uses currently "right wing populist" ("Rechtpopulismus") as label and it has a section with scholarly assessments, that could be utilized for the English article.--Kmhkmh (talk) 05:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Sources appear to support "right-wing anti-Islamization group" but the "neo-Nazi" epithet appears to be in the nature of "editorial opinion" rather than a statement of fact. The pejorative term is "contentious" thus the fact one source states it as an opinion is insufficient for Wikipedia to state it as a fact. Collect (talk) 14:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

They should still be included in some form per

WP:NOTCENSORED. ParkH.Davis (talk

) 21:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The more I think about this, the more I come to feel that the article should have a sub-section specifically discussing allegations of Naziism where all these statements can be attributed rather than addressing the matter in the lede. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

This makes sense, especially as it is clear that at least some, including law enforcement officials, believe that Pegida has at least some element which is neo-Nazi. Also, the sources (which have now been removed) which were added by an IP user, use "far right" and not "right wing populist". ParkH.Davis (talk) 21:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

And "far right wing" is both redundant and ungrammatical. It's "far-right" (which is PoV, unless multiple RS independent of the dispute use that label; see

WP:UNDUE.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢

 ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:39, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Collect and others: even "far-right" is questionable (per SMcCandlish), but "neo-Nazi" definitely should not appear in introduction. My very best wishes (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think Pegida is 'far right'. I am not aware of a single political position the movement holds which can be described as 'far right'. I think the article should stick to describing its anti-Islamisation stance which is germane, and avoid labels which its opponents use to try and discredit it.Flexdream (talk) 14:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

What you think about the group is not really important for our description - what reliable sources say is. Reliable sources call it "far right", but don't, as a rule, call it "neo-Nazi". As far as I'm concerned, that means "far right" is in and "neo-Nazi" is out, unless, of course, the weight of sources changes. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:10, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Is there any source which cites an example of why Pegida can be considered 'far right'? Or is it just a label?Flexdream (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, many. And yes, right/left has been a label ever since the

Estates-General of 1789. There is no political position connected to a relative direction by natural law or mathematical necessity (and the ones that have been connected otherwise have shifted over time). But that's a bit irrelevant - while I personally find it satisfactory to be able to follow the reasoning of a RS, it's not required. --Stephan Schulz (talk

) 09:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

The German establishment Deutsche Welle writes that Pegida is one of a number of "far-right movements" throughout Europe. [8] They also write, "Germany's well-organized neo-Nazi scene is merging with the anti-Islamization PEGIDA movement... an integral part of the group's weekly marches... appear to be tolerated by organizers." [9]

Germany's flagship magazine news source Der Spiegel describes Pegida as "a xenophobic grassroots movement," whose growth is fueled by hate and threatens to make far-right politics mainstream. Pegida has close ties with Björn Höcke, Götz Kubitschek, Jürgen Elsässer, and Michael Stürzenberger. The article describes debate among German officials about whether Pegida is "far-right," but even the Saxon official who is more sympathetic to Pegida describes it as a "populist far-right movement." [10], [11], [12]

The International Business Times describes "regular marches by the far-right group Pegida," [13] and labels them "far-right." [14]. So does MSN. [15]

The Guardian describes Pegida as "a far-right group." [16], [17] The Telegraph and many in the German political establishment describe Pegida as a part of the "far-right." [18] So does Public Radio International. [19]

The Independent describes Pegida as a "xenophobic group," that has surprised main parties by including "known neo-Nazis and far-right hooligans" in addition to middle and lower class Germans worried about immigration. [20] The BBC writes that Pegida "has attracted a variety of right-wing and far-right groups", some ordinary citizens worried about Islam, far-right hooligans, and praise from neo-Nazi groups. [21] Newsweek writes that Pegida is "a far-right German group whose name is an acronym for Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamization of the West." [22]

The French press regularly describe either Pegida or their supporters as extreme right. [23], [24], [25], [26]

Anyone who thinks that Pegida isn't far-right doesn't know what the term means and isn't reading the news. -Darouet (talk) 22:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Pegida shouldn't be descibed as a neo-Nazi group, but their close ties with neo-Nazis, described routinely in sources, needs mention in the article. -Darouet (talk) 22:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

It's not about what the sources already cited say. It's about what reliable sources say. Googling for news articles with the terms "Pegida" and "neo-Nazi" brought up some interesting results. Deutsche Welle explicitly contrasts the group with the "neo-Nazi scene" (not saying they are not similar, just saying they are two distinct entities). The Times of Israel explicitly calls the group's members neo-Nazis. Breitbart.com says they totally aren't neo-Nazis and it's only pinko commie liberals who confuse the two, which makes me really think that there are probably a very large number of more reliable sources that call the group a neo-Nazi group. The Irish Independent refers to them as "the neo-Nazi movement". Exactly how many reliable sources do we need to find? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Breitbart.com is not quite unreliable enough to assume that everything they write is wrong - they have, for example, the name of the website right, and if you click on the "Search button", there really is a search box underneath. Moreover, there are many different ways of being wrong, so simply assuming a position different from Breitbart is not a sound approach (unless we are in a strictly classical logic and only have a binary choice). As far as I can make out, many sources acknowledge that neo-Nazis have become part of the Pegida movement, and try to exploit its popularity, but not that it is, in its entirety, part of or controlled by neo-Nazis. It's a different brand of assholes, most of which lack any theoretical framework for their assholyness. They certainly can't even recognise the enlightenment values they claim to defend... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: It is true that Pegida has many links to neo-Nazis, who speak at their events, make up some of their membership, and have some similar ideological positions. Those are links that Pegida cultivates in order to broaden their support, and also deny in order to win legitimacy in the mainstream German political scene. However, most of the mainsteam press that I cited above 1) describe those links, but also 2) note some of the differences between Pegida and neo-Nazis. For instance many, many members of Pegida are people who would traditionally never have been in such a movement and might even be hostile to neo-Nazi politics. It's important to note the distinction between a semi-mainstream party linked to neo-Nazis via far-right, xenophobic and hate politics, and a traditional neo-Nazi movement. -Darouet (talk) 17:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

BLP and WEIGHT concerns about the subject himself aside, this edit looks more like personal opinion than any objective measure of whether a source is generally reliable and should be cited in a Wikipedia article. Thoughts? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:20, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely the comments are "opinion" and should be weighed and cited as such. In the case at hand, I rather think the material is undue, and makes contentious claims by direct statement and by the inference that Kamm acted at the behest of a group in order to attach Chomsky. And the specific claim made that Chomsky has been "misreported" on by The Guardian. As such, and as a catenation of claims which are contentious, the material is improperly in the BLP. What might be of due weight would be on the order of

Edward S. Herman and David Peterson have opined that Kamm is obsessed with Chomsky.

Period. Collect (talk) 13:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Do the scarequotes imply you are joking, or did you genuinely misinterpret what I meant by "personal opinion"? What I meant was that while I'm inclined to agree with you on the WEIGHT problem, that wasn't the rationale provided for removing it. The rationale in the edit summary was "this is not a reliable source", which as rationales go is pretty ridiculous when the statements are directly attributed to the authors inline. The source being "unreliable" in general is just the opinion of a Wikipedia editor, is what I meant. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

As I noted - the short mention of an opinion cited as such is not a problem. The rest of the paragraph which asserts matters of fact ("misreported" for example) is where the problem lies - thus the short sentence I gave above. And, in the long run, all opinions by named individuals are "personal opinion" - I used the normal quotation marks to indicate I was dealing with a defined word as a defined word, not that I was saying the word was inapt. As for my rationale differing from that of another editor - that is the "way of the world." In general, if a person in notable in a field, their opinions are also usable regarding that field. Collect (talk) 17:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Merriam Webster does not have that definition or usage for quotation marks.[27] Do you have a source? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 19:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps if we could agree on what the word "word" means, you would notice that I use quotation marks when dealing with the word as a word. "Quotation marks can be used when referring to a specific word or letter." [28], etc. etc. Is this clear? Is the nit still enormous? Collect (talk) 00:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Also read M-W before asserting it says something it does not say - it says "...to show that a word or phrase is being used in a special way, etc." In short if one is referring to a word as a word, then this clearly is apt per M-W. With exceptional cheerfulness, Collect (talk) 00:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Would this website be reliable for anime/manga related content? The website is in Chinese so I would need someone fluent in the language to check on this one. Here is the page in question [29]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Per

WP:NONENG

not being in English does not disqualify this or any source. I have to wonder, though, if you aren't fluent in Chinese, how do you expect to use the source?

If you do read Chinese and just need some help, we might be able to talk you through it. To start, who writes this website? A company? A person? What text is it being used/do you plan to use it to support? Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24: I can translate the website using google and go from there but okay thanks for the info. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I was wondering can anyone guide me how to source a content from a valid email response? For the song "Living for Love", the Australian chart regulatory board, ARIA, replied to an inquiry email with the chart peak position. So how can I source it in the article? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 09:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Email is not a type of reliable source, so you can't, unless it's published by a reputable organization. See

WP:USERG.- MrX

13:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

But its an email from the governing body themselves? I don't think

WP:USERG falls within that when we have established that the source from where the info is coming is reliable anyways. —IB ^{[ Poke}

] 09:07, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

@IndianBio: An email is a type of correspondence, not a citable source. Who's word would we trusting that it actually came from the governing body and is unaltered? This is why we use book publishers, universities, journal publishers, and reputable news organizations. If they publish something, they are backing its authenticity and reliability with their own reputation. - MrX 01:41, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I've found that engaging in

"truth", which can then be verified by finding reliable sources that back it up. However, the reliable sources need to back it up to the letter, otherwise Wikipedia should not be stating the "truth", but rather what appears in the reliable sources as it appears there. Hijiri 88 (聖やや

) 07:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I've had the same experience. Contacting an author directly may supply useful information for a talk page discussion but it is not itself RS for articles. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. It's OK to conduct original research. It's not OK to use it directly in an article, or to cite it as a source.- MrX 12:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Where do the sort of sites which essentially allow "letters to the editor" to be published fit on Wiki's spectrum of "reliability?"

I'm thinking about the online version of "Counterpunch", which posts unsolicited, uncompensated articles, with a degree of editorial oversight. Some of the stuff, leaving aside questions of POV, is pretty good, some not so much.

Would writing for this sort of website a couple of times qualify someone as a "journalist" by wikiish standards? Anmccaff (talk) 21:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

It would be an acceptable source for the attributed opinion of a noted authority on something, but only that I think. Guy (Help!) 23:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

It depends. If the site has a reputation for fact checking the unsolicited articles, or if reputable sources cite the articles, then it's probably usable. If the site simply hosts user contributed content without clear editorial oversight, we should look elsewhere for better sources regardless of who authors (or claims to author) the content. - MrX 01:28, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

But are the people posting "journalists," in a wikipedian sense? I'd say not, but am open to argument. As you say, the closer the editorial oversight -or peer review; there are some usenet newsgroups that skinned bad scholarship alive, and then rolled the writer in salt for good measure- but on the whole I don't see this as "journalism," although a self-published website occasionally can be. Anmccaff (talk) 05:41, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I concur; writers of letters to the editor are not therefore journalists. The rules for this are at

WP:SPS. Darkfrog24 (talk

) 03:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Factual claims: No. Never. It may be adequate to use such a source for an easily-verifiable

WP:BLUE

claim, but IMO no source at all would be better than a self-published one. Even reputable authorities can have crack-pot theories from time to time, and we should always ask ourselves why they chose to self-publish.

Opinions, cited as such inline: Of course, but preferably with the venue of publication (blog, etc.) mentioned inline as well.

Anything else: Umm... no...? Maybe...?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

The source would be reliable if there was proof of fact checking, or if the site was sourced in other reliable articles. I would say that it is not reliable though, due to a lack of editorial oversight and fact-checking. I would look for other sources to use as well. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 23:09, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Guys, we have problem here[30], can you help a little bit? Some ukranian according to profile (seems not objective) moderator doesn't want to fix a mistake (propaganda) in article. DPR Poll Support discussion.

Does this have to do with whether or not a source is reliable? Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, for some reason in article used reprint from so called "reliable source" (UNIAN) which took it with mistakes (or distorted it on purporse) from "not reliable" source (DPR site).

Up from archive, cause nobody answered and bot got rid of it. :s User:bazik210 18:22, 01 Match 2016 (UTC+3)

Guys, we have problem here[31], can you help a little bit? Some ukranian according to profile (seems not objective) moderator doesn't want to fix a mistake (propaganda) in article. DPR Poll Support discussion.

Does this have to do with whether or not a source is reliable? Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, for some reason in article used reprint from so called "reliable source" (UNIAN) which took it with mistakes (or distorted it on purporse) from "not reliable" source (DPR site).

Up from archive, cause nobody answered and bot got rid of it. :s User:bazik210 18:22, 01 Match 2016 (UTC+3)

I didn't get back to the recent discussion Roger Tolces before it was archived. I have been in email contact with him. He confirms what is popularly believed, that he coined the term. He says he called it that in 1973 and was at the time testing people for electronic implants. He has a very detailed definition of what he means by the term on his website, which does coincide with popular use. What else would be needed to put both in the article? To me it seems it should be the starting point, if he was the start of it, no matter how anyone sees the issue.Jed Stuart (talk) 00:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

What kind of source? Has he given this statement in a published interview? Has he written a book? Does he have his own website (per

WP:ABOUTSELF, it would be RS for his own words)? However, given the evidence shown in the previous thread, at most, the article would say that he's claimed to have coined it or that he's one of the term's possible originators. That can be construed as self-serving, which would render it unusable under ABOUTSELF. A third-party source would be best. Darkfrog24 (talk

) 02:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

He must have made the statement in the Coast to Coast AM interviews, as he says that those interviews starting in 2003 popularized the term. I am not a subscriber though so I can't check that. He has his own website: bugsweeps.com where his definition is. So far I have not found anyone else claiming to be the one to coin the term or anyone defining it in the way he does.It is no big deal to him, he said. I am thinking it is though as the term has been used in the mainstream media.'claimed to have coined the term and defined it as... etc' would seem to be appropriate.I suppose I could try and get him interviewed by the print media, if it is too thin a case for inclusion. He prefers radio which is not so easily verifiable.Jed Stuart (talk) 05:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

So far it seems that he is not actively claiming that he coined the term, so perhaps it would be more accurate to say "Roger Tolces acknowledges that he coined the term" or "Roger Tolces takes responsibility for coining the term"? At this point this still comes down to my having had email confirmation of that. Could I get him to sign some form of legal statement that he did? In Australia that would be a Statutory Declaration. Jed Stuart (talk) 04:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Please read our policies about

original research, thanks. - LuckyLouie (talk

) 14:05, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

A recent blog post from

122 are in mainspace. --Izno (talk) 13:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of SCIRP, can anybody make heads or tails of what [file.scirp.org/Html/23065.html^{[predatory publisher]} this] is supposed to mean? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

After careful analysis, I think the core message of the author is "Look! I can do equations in LaTeX! Shiny!" --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi all, I have a question that arose from an

It looks like you're asking if a Guinness World Record is enough to guarantee WP:Notability. Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't. A quick search shows that Chandran Superman doesn't show up much of anywhere outside his Ice Bucket Challenge video and facebook page. Has he written any books? Have any books been written about him? Did he perform at a famous event? Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I would say not notable if the subject isn't showing up anywhere. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 23:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I believe that does not fully address the question asked. Suppose X were already notable. If X were ALSO awarded a Guinness World Record, should WP mention it? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 23:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Xender is posting here because the article on Chandran Superman is up for deletion, but yes, if a person is in the GBoWR, that merits a mention in the article. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

talk

) 16:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

No problem! Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 18:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Same thing happened with me in my early days. This place has a huge learning curve. You're very welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Background:

Now, popcorntime.sh has appeared, and it stands out because some of the original project's resources (site, repositories and even the Twitter account) now direct to it. This is being used by some editors at Talk:Popcorn Time#popcorntime.sh to justify treating this new website as the "official successor" of the original popcorntime.io.

However, some sources were presented by one of these very editors that seem to strongly contradict this claim:

• TheNextWeb states that "nobody seems to know who is behind the updated app" and that "the original team [...] claimed to have nothing to do with the revived app" and even that "It’s entirely possible (though unlikely) that the MPAA could be trying to use the app as a honeypot to track movie pirates."
• TorrentFreak, just dryly states that "the official GitHub repository was updated with a new working version and now points to PopcornTime.sh as the new home, as does the official Twitter account", but without affirming that this means the new site is official. In addition, it notes that "The code used to update the old application [...] uses four nameservers [...] which are all controlled and owned by the MPAA"

(emphasis mine)

The other editors seem to argue that because the sources do not rule out it may be official, it might be treated as official: they say "Not Knowing who is behind the new website do not say it is not official" and "Torrentfreak not knowing who the developers are (since they chose to stay anon) doesn't imply a negative, either. "Evidence of absence" and all that stuff.".

Teemome in particular also states "Since other third party references (separate from the new website) state that it is the successor (the statuspage.io, the old popcorntime.io facebook and twitter, etc), then we can use those as a reference and consider it true." as if implying that websites and accounts previously run by project members are "third-party references".

So I have some questions:

1. Can
   TheNextWeb and TorrentFreak
   be used as a source to state that the people behind the new site/software are unknown, and the original team actually disclaims any connection?
2. Should things like "the statuspage.io, the old popcorntime.io facebook and twitter, etc" be used as
   reliable references
   for anything, and in particular to claim that it's true that popcorntime.sh is an official successor of popcorntime.io?
3. Can the fact that we clearly don't know for sure if people behind popcorntime.sh are the same as the ones behind popcorntime.io be discounted when deciding whether to state (to simplify) "we don't know" or "chances are they are official"?
4. Should we, based on the sources, indicate popcorntime.sh as the official site of Popcorn Time in the infobox and everywhere else in the article, as is the case now?

LjL (talk) 17:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

1. TheNextWeb is RS. TorrentFreak is a blog but may or may not meet SPS.
2. I do not think that, given the RS that suggest otherwise, the sites themselves are RS for that piece of information in this case.
3. Both those conclusions sound OR to me. They're also not necessary. You have the facts: Say that it reemerged under a new URL and that Owen Williams of The Next Web has speculated X, Y and Z. Speculation is acceptable when it is the sources who are doing the speculating. However, I think it would be best to find more independent sources that agree with Williams.
4. Given the sources that you have listed, no we should not. However, if more sources should emerge—this feels like a situation that could change in the next few months—it wouldn't be that hard to put it all back. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

The biggest problem I have with this, is that it's incredibly difficult to base it on secondary sources as wikipedia requires (to be a tertiary source) and avoid primary sources (I'm trying hard, but there's a severe lack of them). When I say "primary sources", I mean things like known accounts of old popcorntime.io developers posting comments "yeah, we know who it is/yeah i'm working on it". However, nobody is willing to give an official answer to the press (Torrentfreak, in this case), since doing so would open them to legal problems.

Ok, let's talk about actual referenced stuff. In the TNW article, it says "the project still uses private keys that match the original team’s for distribution". Because the application updates are signed, so due to cryptographic encryption, only the people working on the original project can push out this update. This is a very strong indicator that popcorntime.sh is actually the successor of popcorntime.io- a non successor fork would not have access to the signing key.

The only other alternative is (warning, I confess that this paragraph is my own thought process, and can be considered "original research") that the MPAA also got the update signing key, and released the new Popcorntime, but wild conjecture and conspiracy theories aside, their lawyers would never allow this in a million years: the MPAA doesn't have the rights to all the movies on Popcorntime, so they would be legally liable; in addition, they can't persecute users, since it would be entrapment for them to provide this service that is easier than regular torrenting. (end "original research").

The problem with everything I've said, of course, is that I can't find secondary sources for all of these. I do confess that most of the content I have here are sourced from primary sources. I'm not really into linking reddit comments by the developers or stuff like that on wp... so I'm not sure what the best way to present this information would be.

As a last note, one argument I can make is that "since the keys, the facebook page, the twitter account, the website code, etc are the same between popcorntime.io and popcorntime.sh, you can consider the latter the successor of the former". The Torrentfreak and TNW article do corroborate this, and state that the only thing that's changed between the two is the website domain, and the fact that the programmers' identities are now hidden. Therefore, just the articles from Torrentfreak and TNW may perhaps be considered enough to call the .sh website the successor. This would be based on just a reading of the facts from these articles, and skipping over their guesses and speculations on who the developers are. Teemome (talk) 04:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I find that your conclusion, not just your process, falls under

WP:OR. It sounds like you're saying that you're taking raw facts from TNW and TF, skipping their own conclusions, and using those facts to draw your own. That fits Wikipedia's definition of original research. You've got to find the conclusion itself published somewhere. Darkfrog24 (talk

) 13:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

It's a lot less WP:OR-y when you go through the primary source comments and stuff ex-popcorntime.io developers wrote, they basically lay it out as such. Oh well, no big deal.

Conveniently Torrentfreak just published a new article today which does outright state that Popcorntime.sh is the successor, (https://torrentfreak.com/popcorn-time-fork-claims-official-relaunch-after-mpaa-shutdown-160225/) so I guess that settles that. Would that count as a good source? Teemome (talk) 00:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

No, mainly because it doesn't state what you make it seem it states. It says there are two things, Butter and popcorntime.sh, and that most of the original team is now working on Butter (not on popcorntime.sh). It also states that "no one is really able to say absolutely definitively which forks are totally trustworthy and which ones aren’t, since everyone is keen to hide their identities and remain unaccountable" and that "it’s no longer possible to publicly point to a set of trustworthy developers and use their credentials to give credibility to a project", which runs directly contrary to the concept of naming an official successor.

I will also add that when you said, above, "the project still uses private keys that match the original team’s for distribution". Because the application updates are signed, so due to cryptographic encryption, only the people working on the original project can push out this update, I'm afraid that makes very little sense, because if the MPAA seized these people's assets, then it's perfectly plausible that they seized their private keys as well, and encryption doesn't magically stop that. LjL (talk) 00:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

You're arguing different points than me:

1. Whether popcorntime.sh is trustworthy or not
2. Whether the MPAA is involved or not

I'm just talking about:

1. If popcorntime.sh is the successor to popcorntime.io or not

I'm not talking about if it's "trustworthy", it might contain 1000 viruses (I'm being facetious when I say this, it's an open source project, which tends to not contain malware... but let's assume it's not trustworthy right now). I'm also not talking about if the MPAA, which only received an injunction in a Canadian court for the popcorntime.io and some other domains- the rest of the assets are not known to be taken.

Torrentfreak and other sources are basically stating "the popcorntime.io project shut down, and the popcorntime.sh project replaced it, although we don't know who is running it now or if it's trustworthy". I'm focusing on the second part of that sentence "the popcorntime.sh project replaced it", while you're focusing on the third part "although we don't know who is running it or if it's trustworthy". The Torrentfreak article is pretty clear on this: from the sources, quotes include: "The variant of Popcorn Time most closely linked with the edition shut down by the MPAA last year has announced its official return"" and "we now have the first official statement from the people behind the reincarnation"" and "Noting that an explanation is long overdue, the team (located at popcorntime.sh)".

From these quotes, we have legit WP:SRS sources that state that popcorntime.sh is a "reincarnation" of popcorntime.io, which is all I'm trying to argue for right now.

Teemome (talk) 03:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

There are a number of Popcorn Time forks, which all in some way "replaced" or were "reincarnations" of the original. None of them could be labelled "official successors", because they weren't necessarily run by the same people. This is not necessarily run by the same people, either, and that's what your source states: it never states it's an official successor, and in fact suggests it may not be (by stating we don't know who's running it), so we can't call it an official successor. It's that simple.

To address your individual quotes:

• "The variant of Popcorn Time most closely linked with the edition shut down by the MPAA last year has announced its official return"" ← "most closely linked" doesn't mean "official successor"
• "we now have the first official statement from the people behind the reincarnation"" ← yes, the people behind the reincarnation, which may or may not be the same people who were behind the original thing
• "Noting that an explanation is long overdue, the team (located at popcorntime.sh)" ← this refers to the reincarnation's team (see the paragraph that comes before this one), and it's not saying it's the same team as the original one

"Official successor" is a strong statement to make; one that is not backed by the sources at all. LjL (talk) 03:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

It's already been stated that the people behind the .sh version are staying anon, so talking about the people is useless. You're being too hung up now on the "same team" idea: nobody is stating that everyone from the popcorntime.io team is on the .sh team, even the statement the .sh team put out states "Most of our old teammates have left the ship to focus on a new technology", so clearly it's not the exact same team and yet successors can be determined.

If I may make an (imperfect) analogy to basketball, you can look at, say, the Los Angeles Clippers, between 2011 to 2015. The team was forced to change owners after the NBA basically sued Donald Sterling over racism, changed coaches, changed a lot of players, but it's still considered the same team.

For this, you state "None of them could be labelled "official successors", because they weren't necessarily run by the same people." which implies that successors can only be considered such, if it's run by the same people. That's not the case, however; this has already happened before in August 2015: https://torrentfreak.com/original-popcorn-time-team-backs-popular-fork-150812/ Where some members of the old project declared the .io fork the "official" successor to the 2014 Argentine Popcorntime. The old team clearly has the right to do this, as history has shown, so even though we don't know which programmers are working on the new project doesn't affect the succession status. Software projects hardly need to have the same people working on it for it to be considered successors, that shouldn't be considered a requirement.

Lastly, I disagree with your interpretation of "reincarnation" as referring to "any fork", which doesn't make sense from the definition of the word, which stems from a classical religious context- one person can't be reincarnated into multiple animals. There is a clear 1 to 1 connection when you are talking about reincarnation. When Torrentfreak uses the word "reincarnated", it clearly implies a 1 to 1 connection from the old popcorntime.io to the popcorntime.sh project. Teemome (talk) 04:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

From the Verge article "Popcorntime.io, probably the most popular iteration of slippery movie piracy app Popcorn Time, is back — sort of. Earlier this week, part of the team apparently behind popcorntime.io announced a comeback" source http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/26/11119290/popcorn-time-io-movie-streaming-piracy-back-online This is about as clearly stated for a secondary reference source as you can get. Is there any more discussion needed? Teemome (talk) 00:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Because the New York Times and other newspapers use TorrentFreak as a source, I'd guess it fits

WP:SPS expert criteria. The question seems to be whether its content is being interpreted correctly. Teem, can you post a link to the exact page you're citing? Darkfrog24 (talk

) 01:49, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Clarification, did you mean a Torrentfreak source or a direct primary source?

The Torrentfreak article is here: https://torrentfreak.com/popcorn-time-fork-claims-official-relaunch-after-mpaa-shutdown-160225/ Teemome (talk) 03:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

There is a new article from the Verge, here: http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/26/11119290/popcorn-time-io-movie-streaming-piracy-back-online Teemome (talk) 00:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

This site is already considered to be unreliable on Wikipedia, but I thought that it would be a good idea to have an official RS/N thread to refer to when it comes to this site. There was mention of this in this thread, but an overall thread about the site would be helpful for future reference.

Goodreads is a social media/networking site that allows users to post reviews of work. Users can also edit entries on books and submit updates to material or even create new entries entirely, which makes it popular with self-published and indie authors whose work might not be collected in libraries and end up in WorldCat. While the site says that only "librarians" can edit entries, it really isn't difficult to become one. I used to visit the site and became a librarian after a fairly short period of time.

An example of why the site can't be seen as reliable even for primary details would be things like Scott Sigler's book Nocturnal, where two versions of the book exist - a podcast "rough draft" and the final version, which was released in print. The two works share some basic similarities with the plot (detective discovers that he's part of a race of monsters that prey on San Fran), but they're otherwise completely different stories with some fairly major changes that would make any reviews for one version irrelevant to the other. Various librarians repeatedly merged the two together thinking that they were essentially the same thing, which led to user confusion with reviews and it eventually became necessary for some of the site's mods to fix the mistake. Material like rumors and hoaxes have also made its way into records as well, mostly because of good intentioned people believing the material to be fact. It's usually fixed, but this makes the website similar to Wikipedia in terms of reliability - you can't use Wikipedia to back up claims in anything except the most rare situations.

Now I am aware that there are places that list Goodreads, mostly because people add it thinking that it's the equivalent of WorldCat or even Google Books. There are some of us that have made a concentrated effort to remove the links as we see them, but there's always someone trying to add it for various details, ranging from basic information to review claims. I'd like to have some sort of basic thread to pull back on when trying to explain that it's not reliable because it's ultimately a self-published source. Amazon did buy the site, but they did not take away users' ability to edit data, so it's still a SPS at best because of its social media site nature.

Happy to endorse everything you've said here. We shouldn't be using it. Doug Weller talk 12:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Does that opinion invalidate Wikipedia's Goodreads template? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:57, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I would think so, @

Tokyogirl79: thank you for this I will mention it on Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources. - Knowledgekid87 (talk

) 23:06, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• I wasn't even aware that we had that template. My argument is really only about using Goodreads as a source in an article, so I think that its merits as an external link should be a separate discussion. Offhand I'll say that I don't link it, partially because it's become so synonymous with people trying to promote their works on here. I do still use the site (albeit rarely) and if all you're looking for is a place to socialize, it's good for that reason. In any case, I think that what we need to consider is whether or not it's in heavy enough use to where it would be comparable to sites like IMDb. For example, IMDb is not a reliable source for the same reason Goodreads wouldn't be, but it's so heavily mentioned in various media and sources on the Internet that it's reasonable for it to be found in the EL section. I'm just not sure that Goodreads is really at that level as a whole, but again - that's kind of a different conversation since that essentially revolves around popularity rather than reliability.
  (｡◕‿◕｡)
  06:59, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I completely agree with your reasoning

Tokyogirl79. It's not a reliable source.- MrX

01:36, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• I disagree but not entirely, if the subject of the article is a book, Goodreads is a weak source. Conversely, when the article topic is not a book, Goodreads can be a decent source for simply documenting that a book exist(ed).
  WP:SELFSOURCE Like many websites, portions of Goodreads is user generated, as is metacritic.com, rottentomatoes.com. Musicbrainz.org is completely user generated and is integrated into the WikiData project. The key is that we are not using the unmoderated portions. So referencing a user generated review would be wrong, but providing a citation with the basic properties (title,author,etc.) is reasonable, even if the author provided this data because, there is no reason to believe it would be falsified and end readers would eventually expose fraud. Finally, I don't know about the past, but Goodreads is publishing evidence of its editorial control, and entering/changing primary information in the database requires an internal review before the user is elevated to Author status.See: Join the Author Program

Why not make everyone a librarian?

"Initially, we allowed everyone to be a librarian. Anyone could edit book and author data, add cover images, or combine books. However, we found that while 99% of the people did a good job, occasionally we had someone who messed things up. So we created a new status that we bestow on those interested in helping keep things nice and tidy, which has worked out well."

If the subject is the author of a book or some such, then how do we use Goodreads to determine that they wrote such-and-such book? The example Tokyogirl179 gave above explicitly addressed this issue, as if we had used the source to verify that "a book existed" we would still be wrong, as there were two books that existed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I was under the impression that Goodreads did not sell books because the links are fairly subtle, in the middle of the page. Unlike Google Books, Goodreads provides a link to Worldcat so the reader has easy access to a library copy. If we are going to only allow book references to come from the NYT and sources that the mainstream media prescribe, we have lost the battle.

Beyond that, having a few editors decide this, out of

WP:CONLIMITED to me. 009o9 (talk

) 11:34, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

• Since it has been mentioned here, I also find the complete ban on IMDb to be specious and subjective. IMDb hosts complete awards sections.[32][33] These are obviously not self-sourced and in many cases the awarding bodies do not maintain the archives, or only maintain the winners and not the nominees. In fact, I found an error in a CV, that is correct on IMDb (verified with the awarding council), yet the NYT and every other MSM agency who has written about the subject, still presents the incorrect information on the presumtion that the NYT or other publication must have checked the background. The key here is the Wikipedia article's subject/topic, if the article is biography about an actor, then the IMDb bio and aggregate page should be avoided; however, an inline concerning a part in a film 15 year ago that doesn't go to WP:N should not bring out the AfD squad or a bot to remove all references. Citing awards would be much less cumbersome if there was not the prevailing opinion that all 100% of IMDb is unusable in all cases. BTW: over the years, I've only found one instance where IMDb was incorrect, my attempt to correct the entry was met with resistance, so it is likely that editorial control has improved since the WP opinion about IMDb was originally formed. I guess I should take this to
  WP:RS/IMDB 009o9 (talk
  ) 19:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
• Oops, just realized my disclosure signature was not turned on, I do take "paid work" in entertainment genre, I don't take work in the books genre because I've found that Wikiproject too opinionated and full of unwritten policies/guidelines. My interest here is mainly in biographies. 009o9 (talk) 19:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
• Sorry, this is going to be very long. Believe it or not, this is the summarized version. For the sake of making the section not so long, I've collapsed this:

The TL;DNR of this is that Goodreads hands out librarian privileges extremely easily and errors do happen on the site, either because of deliberate or accidental actions. The same goes for IMDb. As far as overall RS guidelines go, they're strict out of necessity and I do think that you need to be more careful not to be very lenient with sourcing, as you're a paid editor and there are a lot of editors that actively dislike paid editors. That there's been far too much rampant abuse from places like Wiki-PR has only served to convince many that the practice needs to be banned, so unfortunately you have to be more cautious than even a COI editor, another type of editor that is frequently the subject of bias on Wikipedia.

(｡◕‿◕｡)

12:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• Although as far as the guidelines go, this is typically how things are decided on Wikipedia. Now if we were arguing a complete and total standard, we'd need more of a consensus. Heck, it was tough getting enough people to agree to see bestseller lists like the NYT as a source to give notability and I had to fight for that. However in this case there are already policies in place that cover user-edited sources like Goodreads and IMDb, so this isn't deciding a new policy, but rather just confirming if something falls under a pre-existing one. To argue that IMDb would be usable as a RS would require that you re-write existing policies, which would be very, very difficult and require a lot of opinion.
  (｡◕‿◕｡)
  12:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@

Tokyogirl79 You are right, this is not the forum to debate it in. FYI, the data I'm interested in from IMDb is Awards and Events. Neither locations are user editable, submissions are reviewed by the editorial staff. Cheers! 009o9 (talk

) 11:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oh, I know - I wish that we could use it for that. Not all awards sites archive their past winners, which is frustrating when you have newspapers that don't publicly archive either. Out of everything this is usually one of the aspects of the site that's more dependable since the average user can't add these (I've tried in the past and couldn't), however the whole IMDb issue keeps it from being usable.
  (｡◕‿◕｡)
  06:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I can't quite get a handle on the nature of the nippon.com website. It clearly isn't a conventional news site nor is it merely a blog as it has an editorial board.[1] The website does not appear to be an online extension of a dead tree magazine or journal either.

The page/article/editorial (what is it?) that I'm using as a source^[2] is written by an apparently reputable academic, so it's reliability per se seems established. I'm trying to figure out how to properly cite it - none of "cite news/editorial/blog" appear to me to be a comfortable fit. Help! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:34, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

You could ask user:Hijiri88, who is in Japan and usually well informed on such things. Guy (Help!) 11:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Pinging Hijiri88... -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

@JzG: @Dodger67: Emailed both of you. That's all I'm gonna say on-wiki for the time being. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Was the character created for the TV show and loosely based on an obscure one-off comic villain, or created for the comic and renamed/popularized by the TV show?

The line between these two is extremely blurry, there is a dispute between me and

In my opinion, the only source already cited that explicitly states one way or the other is this Escapist video, which says the TV show created Mr. Freeze, loosely basing him on an obscure character with a different name. Darkknight2149 appears to be of the opinion that a source saying the character first appeared in 1959 under the name "Mr. Zero" is adequate to dismiss the assertion that the character was created for the TV show.

I proposed that we say the sources are divided on the issue, with some saying the character first appeared in the comics in 1959, and others saying the character who appeared in 1959 was a loose inspiration for the character who was largely created for the TV show. I am not yet sure what Darkknight2149's opinion on this proposal is.

Sorry to post this on RSN, but since the sources (or lack thereof) are the problem here, in that they can almost all be interpreted either way, I thought it reasonable. It's my opinion that taking a source that says "First appearance: 1959" to reject the claim in a reliable source that the character was created for the TV show is borderline OR, but posting this on ORN would have been a worse option.

Any thoughts?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Based solely on what you're saying here, saying that the sources are split on whether this is one character or two etc. seems like the way to go. However, if you need more direct options for help, why not post a request for more voices at the talk page for

Wikiproject Comics? That may be a good place to get editors with the expertise you need. Darkfrog24 (talk

) 13:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

EDIT: Okay, I took a closer look at your conversation and the sources that DK offered and I think I know something that might help. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Is the Daily Mail a suitable source for this addition to John Noakes? The detail is reputed to be a quote from Peter Purves. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

It is neither a contentious claim nor one remotely of "celebrity gossip", and the claim is sourced to a specific person. Fairly reliable in such a case. Not on the order of "person had sex with unicorns" or the like, and pretty much a "vanilla claim". Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Lightweight claim and the source supports it directly. I concur that this is acceptable. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

As far as I know, Noakes doesn't even like unicorns. So many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the source or how it is used, but the wording of the sentence should be changed. In the context of our article it looks like, if not outright claims that, Purves reported that Noakes "had refused to speak with Baxter" (my emphasis) over some extended period of time, whereas the source is actually talking about a very specific event (the 50th anniversary at Buckingham Palace) at which Purves and Baxter were civil to each other but Noakes refused to talk to Baxter. It may indeed be accurate to infer that Noakes had refused to speak to Baxter over an extended period of time, but

inferring is not allowed in Wikipedia articles. Hijiri 88 (聖やや

) 07:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, good point. I'd probably prefer, at this stage, to avoid seeing "remove wanker comments" in an edit summary again. But I may try and adjust it. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Every time the Daily Mail comes up as an RS question, there is a confusion between distaste for the style, content and ideology of the paper and its validity as a source. It is an RS.Martinlc (talk) 11:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Best we tell User:Hillbillyholiday. Personally I love chips. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:44, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

It may surprise y'all to learn that I have recently undergone something of a Damascene conversion on this subject and no longer regard those at the Mail as a gaggle of rebarbative maledicent misoneists given to plumeopicean stultiloquence and vilipensive honeyfuggling. I take it all back, it's clearly a trustworthy publication. Please, use it freely with my blessing. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 12:42, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah great. Thanks for telling me. I'll get in some bread and dripping to go with the chips. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:06, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

No worries, Mister

EotW. Please excuse my latest Mail-related meltdown. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 07:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC) ..and do go easy on the chips

Taking that story as an example, yes it's completely trivial. But it was a real event that has been reported and checked, subject to the IPSOS code of conduct, quoting real people, with editorial oversight. If there were a wikipedia page for images of faces seen in food this article would be usable as an RS. You seem to be confusing the desirability that the Mail didn't exist with the technical question of whether the stories it recounts carry greater weight as sources than random individuals on the internet.Martinlc (talk) 10:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Is

WP:RS black and white? Or is there some kind of hierarchy for the UK press? I tend to use the Daily Mail as a last resort, although it's photographs are often excellent. Martinevans123 (talk

) 10:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm late to the party, but I note the source supplied at the top of the thread includes the phrase "Peter Purves dishes Blue Peter dirt" in it's title - that's a "no" from me. John Noakes clearly loved Shep (that's obvious from anyone who's ever owned a pet) and doesn't like Biddy Baxter, we don't need the specifics. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

""Headlines" are not "articles." The headline is written by a headline writer - and very rarely by the article writer at all. They are designed to get people to read - not to be n accurate precis of the article. Thus, I suggest, and have suggested, that "headlines" are not, in themselves, reliable sources other than for the fact the headline existed. Collect (talk) 13:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Some questions for Collect. Obviously all sources need to be judged for accuracy, reliability, etc. -- sometimes good sources can get it wrong, sometimes poor sources get it right, and yes, standards are dropping across the board -- but does WP accept, say, the National Enquirer or RT as a source? Would you agree that there's some kind of cut-off point: that when a source has been caught falsifying stories time and again, it simply shouldn't be accepted as reliable anymore? Isn't it, in part, the function of this board to determine when the line has been crossed? Wouldn't you agree that the Mail has indeed crossed the line? Wouldn't banning the Mail for BLPs be a net-positive? Wouldn't it stop these interminable arguments? Have you read this? --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 17:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

All of those are valid questions. See also

rule #21. MastCell ^Talk

18:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, RT is a valid reliable source for some items (see prior discussions thereon) - specifically such material official statements from those quoted as Russian officials. The Daily Mail is not a good source for contentious material in the "celebrity gossip" area, but neither are any newspapers good sources in that area. The claim that the source has routinely falsified stories is erroneous here - once one removes the "celebrity gossip" retractions, the DM has pretty much the same record as other popular newspapers (yes - I checked the formal records - and even The Guardian has been caught with their pants down). In short - the Mail has not "crossed the line" although some here seem to think anything other than "correct opinions" should be debarred. And if we start saying "some newspapers are more equal than others" we should recall the fact that a very large number of stories in all newspapers originate in press releases. [35] provides the sourcing for my claims. Collect (talk) 19:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

But of course some newspapers (and some sources) are better than others. The process of evaluating sources, and choosing the best ones, is called editing. Wikipedians who perform this function are called editors. The Daily Mail is not uniquely bad, but it is emblematic of a particular type of low-quality yellow journalism that editors with good judgement typically avoid. As I alluded to above, when Wikipedians take to these noticeboards to defend the Daily Mail, it says a lot about their understanding of our sourcing policies. MastCell ^Talk 22:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Even the "best" newspapers routinely use press releases, and not even The Guardian is immune to the "celebrity gossip" illness. And you are welcome to diss those who find the Daily Mail covers some topics better than The Times does, but I find your tone here to be disputatious for the sake of being disputatious. Is there a reason you wish to call into question the motives of those who use the Daily Mail? The big problem with all popular sources is the handling of "celebrity gossip" and I suggest that all "celebrity gossip" is the problem. Can you name a source you find to be very reliable for "celebrity gossip" for contentious claims? Collect (talk) 23:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't question the motives of editors who defend the Daily Mail as a source. I question their judgement.

It's not about "celebrity gossip". The Mail has a justifiably atrocious reputation for its scientific and medical coverage; its coverage of international affairs is sensationalist and often completely false; it fabricates human-interest stories and legal coverage (including fake quotes), and so on. Again, it's not the only terrible, tabloidy source out there, but it's emblematic. When you, as an experienced editor, defend this kind of thing, you discredit yourself, you set a bad example, and you call your judgement into question. MastCell ^Talk 00:52, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

"Celebrity gossip" is indeed the problem -- the victim of false gossip has no protections in the US under two prongs of tort practice. In the first place, the victim is a "public figure" and we hold public figures to be open season 12 months of the year; and in the second, periodicals ("news sources") are have court licenses almost equivalent to 007. In consequence, NOTHING said about a public figure in the popular press is reliable. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 01:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

No, the Daily Mail is not a good source for that material. That newspaper cannot be trusted in this context. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Please read the relevant policy

WP:RS. Are you doubting that the interview took place? That the journalist didn't record the works?Martinlc (talk

) 09:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

and also see

WP:UNDUE.Martinlc (talk

) 10:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

This isn't the place for discussions of UNDUE. And it's been quite a while since I've seen someone say "verifiability not truth"... I repeat that the Daily Mail is not sufficiently trustworthy for this sort of thing. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree- UNDUE is a content dispute that should be resolved on the page. But I don't see why you see this source as untrustworthy. Are you implying that the paper din't speak to the person, or that they didn't say what was reported? I mentioned TRUTH because it appears that editors are taking the line that because they don't believe material as reported it must be false.Martinlc (talk) 10:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Because they have a long and sordid history of getting things wrong. I don't have a view about the "truth" of this particular episode, but I'm skeptical enough about the source in general that I think in general we shouldn't use it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

If you don't have a negative view of the truth of this episode as reported then you would have to accept that it is an appropriate source for the edit. Like it or not the Mail is a mainstream newspaper with a corrections column and membership of IPSOS.Martinlc (talk) 14:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't have to accept anything of the sort. And in fact I don't. I'd advise not telling people what sort of input they "have to" contribute to a noticeboard. As before: the Daily Mail is not a good source for this material. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

What I meant was that since you have 'no view' either way on the accuracy of this specific story then it seemed that there no grounds to object to it, apart from a general view that the Mail should automatically be ruled out as an RS. Such a position would not be in accord with RS policy as I understand it where each case is decided on its own merits.Martinlc (talk) 23:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

This is rather in contrast to what is happening in science editing at the moment. Some editors are deleting sources on the sole basis of them being published in

predatory journals. There is no attempt to discuss or consider them on a case-by-case basis. DrChrissy ^(talk)

23:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Going right back to the OP, wouldn't a way around this be to make a direct attribution in the text (indicated in bold) so the sentence reads "with the Daily Mail reporting that co-presenter Peter Purves later said that Noakes refused to speak with Baxter. DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks. I had considered that, but took the advice of User:Hijiri88 to limit it to the single event. I also considered avoiding any paraphrasing at all, by using direct quote marks, but then thought the Daily Mail wasn't really worth that kind of care. I also thought it was a bit unfair on Noakes, using "hearsay" to put words in his mouth like that (or rather, take them away!) This whole discussion has been very enlightening. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Several editors have attempted to argue at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tuleap (project management) that http://www.dhbw-stuttgart.de/fileadmin/dateien/KOS/pub_kos.content_1.2015.band1.pdf confers notability on Tuleap. I don't believe it does. These editors appear to be active editors of open source software and I believe that they are grasping at straws here. By extension, if it is significant coverage, then every other product listed in the catalogue is inherently notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Obviously not, it is a directory listing. Guy (Help!) 14:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

It's a reasonable source to show that the software exists, but does nothing to show notability.- MrX 13:20, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but has somebody clicked on the link? It's not a catalogue at all. It's a collection of student group theses, published as a report by the Kompentenzzentrum Open Source (KOS) (a research center on open source by the department of Business Informatics at DHBW Stuttgart). The individual reports compare and evaluate open source tools for different purposes. People may be confused by the Word "Katalog", but the "Katalog" in question is just a scheme of evaluation criteria applied to the tools. This is certainly only gray literature, but it is an independent academic reference, and the fact that the KOS has published it as a report means that it has passed at least the scrutiny of the grading professor. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I did click the link and I read it, in German. It is just a catalogue. Knowing that it was only students makes it all the less notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:29, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

In that case, we may need go agree to disagree. Let it be on the record that this native German speaker does not think it's a catalogue, and is somewhat confused as to why other people would think that. Also note that the reports, while written by students, are ordered and paid for by industry, and go through quality control of the KOS and its professors. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

You're not the only one confused. I guess some people call Cochrane reviews catalogs of medical studies, history books catalogs of past events ... I also think the opinion of someone who claims to have read it but doesn't know who wrote it would not carry much weight. On the other hand, I don't think it's enough to make Tuleap notable. Prevalence 05:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

The Coast is a weekly publication in Halifax, Nova Scotia. Is this article suitable to support the following claim on the Frankie MacDonald page:

In 2016 CTV Atlantic meteorologist Cindy Day made online comments perceived by some to be insulting towards MacDonald and a Change.org petition was launched demanding that she be fired.

The source is reliable but the issue here seems to be giving

WP:UNDUE weight to an otherwise insignificant comment made by Cindy Day. Meatsgains (talk

) 04:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. Change.org petitions are not exactly a big deal. This is a teapot tempest. Guy (Help!) 10:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

How reliable is

I'd say ITV_News is reliable enough to use. It isn't user-generated, it's professionally written and it has editorial oversight. NYTimes and BBC are clearly better, but Wikipedia itself has many articles that are themselves celebrity-focused, so ITV News has its place here. If you just want a better or additional source for this particular fact, the matter is also covered in several other sources. I will add, though, that I don't usually work BLP. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:27, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Er, did you look at the search results you supplied? I got stereotypical

WP:BLPSOURCES violating tabloid fodder; I especially note the Irish Independent source claiming Lily Allen called her a "massive twat" - wholly unnecessary for a BLP I think. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)}

11:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I did. Considering that Hopkins gave The Sun a direct interview, I'd infer that she at least considers them worthwhile. The "massive" comment is a direct quote attributed to one of Hopkins' critics. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

ITV.com as a source for this seems perfectly cromulent, in the context of Hopkins' epilepsy (already covered in the article it seems) - it is a legitimate source and the information seems not to be contentious in the eyes of the subject. Wags will of course comment on the keen eyesight of the surgeon who was actually able to find the organ in question, but Hopkins does not seem to be shy of discussing the procedure. It is possible this is a play for sympathy or an attempt to excuse her numerous unforced errors and rampant bigotry, but I am inclined to assume good faith and simply accept that she is actually standing up for the epileptic community and speaking openly about something that is a source of substantial prejudice and misunderstanding, so, rarely for Hopkins, I say fair play, and given that she seems not to have a problem with it being discussed openly, let us include it.

On the subject of Lily Allen's comment, while I think she is bang on the money we would not, of course, include that unless it was the subject of substantial detailed commentary in sources a bit more heavyweight than Hello. Guy (Help!) 11:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

There is an ongoing problem at

• as of 9 Feb 2015: does not publish circulation claim
• as of 16 May 2015 (Toronto Star article): claims circulation of "about 50,000"
• as of 30 May 2015: claims circulation of 48,000
• as of 16 Feb 2016: claims circulation of 77,000
• as of today: claims circulation of 300,000
• just as a note, there are 25,255 households in Toronto's ward 32, the paper's claimed circulation area, as of the 2011 Census: [39]

Based on all of this, what claims can be considered reliably sourced? In my opinion 50,000 is as accurate as we can be (the Toronto Star source) however I have a small army of IPs disagreeing with me. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

You're right, the newsletter is not a RS for its own circulation (or for anything, really). Even with the star article, emphasis should be placed on the fact that this is their claimed circulation - pretty much anything these guys say should be taken with a grain of salt. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh yes, I should have said that our text says "[t]he publication, which claims to have a circulation of 50,000, has been criticized ..." which is sourced to the Star piece. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

There is firmly established by the the totality of reliable sources that a certain military person was bestowed the nation's highest military honour 20 yrs after the war for the sum of the person's military achievements. According to the memoirs of the said person the reason for recognition to be so late was that in the recomendation for the award, written by the person's command during the war, the person in question had been cited as killed in action, but indeed the person had survived and had been captured by enemy (beeing POW untill the end of the war) and, without "heroic death" the sum of feats was considered lesser, so the person was bestowed a lesser award immediately after the war, but 20 yrs later the government changed it's mind. This explanation is confirmed by one (more or less) independent source. Now in the memoirs the person quots (directly) the excerpt from the original award recommendation, which enumerates the feats. At least one of them is confirmed by many independent sources. Some are, essentialy, trifling. One of achievements is, in my opinion, deserve to be mentioned in WP, but the only source known to me is the said quotation in the person's memoirs - thus a not independent source. On the other hand, false quotation of the award recomendation is quite a disgraceful thing, the one, that, in my opinion, should not be supposed for a decorated warrior without a due reason. The deed is, though, to some extent, outstanding, by no means extraordinary (actually, in comparison to other recipients of the award, even the sum of the feats of the person in question fits the award but barely, if at all). What are opinions on the matter? Эйхер (talk) 11:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I would like, please, feedback on whether or not these two sources are good:

• http://www.abeatingheart.ca/say-dog-meat-toronto-marching/
• http://www.pawsforthenews.tv/1news/1featured-news/it-is-legal-to-consume-dogs-and-cats-in-canada/

The content it supports is:

"...In Canada, it is legal to sell and serve cat meat if the animal is free of disease and an inspector of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency witnesses the killing of the cat..."

Many thanks.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Both sources are valid. This is the law in Canada...Anna does not know anything about Canada, so she is a little confused...please forgive her -:) IQ125 (talk) 12:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey, come on IQ125. A quick search produces many sources that say that Canada allows the consumption of dog meat, including CBC News and The Toronto Star. Cats are harder to corroborate. But if it is the law in Canada, laws are public knowledge. The law itself would be citable as a source.

However, A Beating Heart's About Us page shows that it is a personal site run by a non-expert. It's not RS. Paws for the News doesn't seem to have an About Us page, so I can't tell if it has editorial oversight. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Darkfrog24. I agree. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Both are correct citations, you can eat doggies and kitties in Canada...YUMMY -:) IQ125 (talk) 13:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

• Correct or not, both fail
  WP:RS. Guy (Help!
  ) 12:40, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Is the Journal of the American Nutraceutical Association a reliable source for medical information? Specifically, I came across this journal used as a reference in SierraSil, an article that appears to be promotional in nature, relying on authorative-sounding sources and celebrity endorsements to promote the effectiveness of this supplement. Journal of the American Nutraceutical Association is actually referenced three times to three separate articles by the same authors, who I would not be surprised to have a connection to the company making the product. Deli nk (talk) 13:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

No. [40] At best it gives "a good avenue for science-based, smaller sample studies of the “pilot” or “pre-mainstream variety.” " Which is less than we require for any use of sources making actual medical claims. The Journal has ads from "nutraceutical" manufacturers, which is also a problem. That said, if it runs studies by persons noted in the field, and such use is done conservatively, noting the limitations of small studies, I can imagine cases where such a study might be relevant to a Wikipedia article, but only on a specific case basis. Collect (talk) 19:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

• Quackmungous! No, we should not use this self-serving source. Guy (Help!) 12:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. For the record, the use of this source as a reference has already been removed from the article mentioned above. Deli nk (talk) 13:55, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

There is some difference of opinion regarding the reliability of sources for this article per

• DomainerIncome.com
  • From the About page of the website it appears to be the work of one person.[41] However they do accept advertising.[42]
  • At present the DomainerIncome.com site is used to ID the founder, founding date of the forum and to support this text:
    • "NamePros started to see success around June, 2003, four months after its launch. Ron James dismissed the idea of adopting a subscription business model, favoring free services."
• DomainGang.com
  • There is no indication on the About page that the site has any editorial staff [43]
  • This page [44] is being used to support this text:
    • "Bodis, a domain parking company, acquired NamePros in January, 2012. Speculation circulating around blogs and other communities point to a sale price in the range of $200,000 to $300,000 USD. Rumors of the sale began as early as January 11. By January 19, Matt Wegrzyn, owner of Bodis, had publicly confirmed the acquisition. Matt Wegrzyn hinted that improvements to the website and its services would follow and stated that Bodis continue to keep NamePros an open community. Former owner Ron James noted that Bodis had better resources and would be capable of supporting NamePros' continued growth."

Any comments or insights? Thanks!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Keithbob and I are currently in disagreement over the usability of these sources, so again, feedback/additional insight would be appreciated. My counter-argument is that they are reputable news sites within the relevant industry, and the authors are well-respected. Both have played key roles in the distribution of informational content within the domain name investing community. While there's no guarantee they're edited by a third party, articles written by specialists and experts are still reasonable sources of reliable information, provided discretion and common sense are used. The corollary to this is that an edited article is not guaranteed to be a reliable source of information, and the formal publishing of a claim does not make it an indisputable fact. —Zenexer [talk] 20:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Per

WP:VERIFY: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. ([in <ref> tag] Please do note that any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources.)" —Zenexer [talk

] 20:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

You are correct. A source that reports what actually did happen should be added, or the content should be revised. For example, "...filming was planned for the week of X".- MrX 13:15, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I would like some input here to help vet this so-called source. It looks questionable to me. An new IP user recently cited this article from the Mirror to add content to the

Low-end English tabloid newspaper. Not a great source and has had notorious low points. If something - other than the mundane - is being added to the encyclopedia and the Mirror is the only source, it's almost certainly not something we want. (This is a general comment made without looking at this specific case).

talk

) 12:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

A decent enough but Left-leaning tabloid, probably not the right source for this particular edit, due to potential ideological bias. Guy (Help!) 12:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

The actual "facts" are certainly usable - it is the "colourful commentary" on those facts which would be at issue. In the case at hand, the writer has generously used his large supply of paints to limn the facts to make the language used a tad too colourful for use in a Wikipedia article. The remaining fact claim would be "The ISA, sometimes called 'Grey Fox', is an American military and intelligence unit which currently has a mission to attack Al Qaeda, and has been used in the past for other operations, including anti-drug operations." It does not support any name for any project, as the attempted edit asserted. Collect (talk) 14:07, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

The article starts off with; "GREY Fox – an elite American Special Forces kill squad...". My understanding is that they are primarily a recon & SIGINT/HUMINT unit, used for deep infiltration/long-term undercover operations in hostile areas. It goes on to say; ISA members were among the Operation Geronimo squad of Navy commandos who killed bin Laden... That's the first I'm hearing of that. Apparently this is basis for the attempted edit. This article states their info comes from an "unnamed intelligence source". It all sounds a little to sketchy, hence the reason I reverted the edit, and requested the IP user propose it on the talk page. They haven't as of yet, but it were to, I would suggest finding another more established and confirmed reliable source to support the edit. To me, this article sounds like they took a real unit, but added a bunch of pulp-novel-esque fiction to amp it up to sell more papers. In short, not reliable. -

^theWOLFchild

23:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Note that the edit the article would support does not include the "interesting" claims which you have a problem with at all. And I suggest that headlines, as such, are not actually source material, as they are written with the sole aim of attracting readers. Thus, Mirror.co.uk is a reliable source for the claims of fact in the article which are not presented as anonymously sourced opinion. Collect (talk) 12:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Source: Kurowski, Franz (2007). Oberleutnant Otto Kittel—Der erfolgreichste Jagdflieger des Jagdgeschwaders 54 [First Lieutenant Otto Kittel—The most successful Fighter Pilot of Fighter Wing 54] (in German). Würzburg, Germany: Flechsig Verlag.

Article: Otto Kittel

Content: Two types of content (the article is largely cited to Franz Kurowski):

(1) non-notable details and potentially unverifiable statements, such as:

• Bf 109 suffered damage and Kittel returned to base, resisting the urge to chase more and risk his life. His motto was to get back in one piece and avoid risks: "Take the safe route and avoid ill-considered and wild offensive tactics".
• Kittel was frustrated. The ground crews kept up his spirits
• JG 54
  Wing Commander) Hannes Trautloft
  congratulated Kittel and said the following: "..."
• Many more