Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 211

• This seems quite ridiculous and seems like a fertile ground for POV pushing based on opinions on Clinton to paint her positively or negatively. If you can't find substantial mainstream sources for either statement on such a hugely high-profile person, then any statement about that would be
  undue. If the literally thousands of sources on Clinton don't pay much attention to her criminal history or lack thereof, neither should the article on her. EvergreenFir (talk)
  03:17, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Here's what our 'comparison' encyclopedia has to say about Clinton

"Some of Hillary’s financial dealings ... led to major investigations after she became first lady. Her investment in Whitewater ... and her commodities trading in 1978–79 — through which she reportedly turned a $1,000 investment into $100,000 in a few months — came under close scrutiny."

Hillary Clinton: United States senator, first lady, and secretary of state, Britannica.com

Two controversies mentioned, not one. Nothing about whether any charges were ever brought. --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:53, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Reliable only for opinions of notable persons cited as opinion. Collect (talk) 14:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd say it could be used for basic, uncontroversial statements of facts. For instance, this article starts by quoting the

Wall Street Journal

, then says;

"Cotton and other lawmakers, including Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, have long accused the administration of paying a “ransom” to the regime, contravening long-standing U.S. practice since the days of Thomas Jefferson and the Barbary Wars."

I wouldn't be opposed to using it to support the text "Paul Ryan has been critical of the White House's dealings with Iran." That being said, there are undoubtedly better sources for that claim, so unless you're specifically trying to trim excess references, I'd still avoid using it.

Also remember that Wikipedians have political views: while it may be okay to cite Breitbart for claim X, if that's going to cause a shitstorm of editors complaining about how unreliable Breitbart is it'd be better to cite a less controversial source. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

It's unreliable and, in general, not even notable. It's very loud in a very small echo chamber, but not widely known nor noticed. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

It's worth a look through the archives of this noticeboard. There've been a lot of discussions on Breitbart. clpo13_(talk) 16:16, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I've personally seen it pop up at least a half dozen times. In my experience, there's never been a group of editors who came to the consensus that it was a good source for anything but the opinions of those few notable figures who've written for it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:11, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Collect. No evidence or notice of editorial processes or fact-checking. A cursory library search produces no sources citing them as authoritative (or at all, really). --Laser brain (talk) 17:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

• Breitbart is probably best known for defaming and essentially ruining the life of a private citizen by posting politically motivated falsehoods about her. So I would suggest that this site should not be used for anything remotely contentious, or touching on living people. If something is notable, it should be covered by better sources and we should cite those. If something is covered only by Breitbart, then we should seriously question whether it's notable (or, for that matter, true, based on the website's track record). MastCell ^Talk 17:34, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
• No, it's not at all reliable and should not be cited. It's known for publishing fringe or conspiracy theories (see here, here). It lacks all the hallmarks of reliability, i.e., strong editorial control, separation between news and opinion, a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and a willingness to issue retractions. MastCell is correct: "if something is notable, it should be covered by better sources and we should cite those. If something is covered only by Breitbart, then we should seriously question whether it's notable (or, for that matter, true)..." Neutrality^talk 19:44, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

• It can be cited in support of attributed statements of opinion... But not for unattributed facts.

Whether the opinion merits inclusion or not a factor of Due/Undue weight, not a matter of reliability or Verifiability. Blueboar (talk) 21:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

True, but given the fact that the source is widely noted for publishing scandalous falsehoods, extremist viewpoints and sensationalistic, unsupportable attacks on those it politically opposes, the opinions of its writers about living people are not likely to pass

WP:DUE. For example, I'm sure a Breitbart writer has published the "opinion" that they think Barack Obama is a secret Kenyan Muslim ISIS agent in league with Iran and Venezuela, but that opinion has absolutely no place in any article about Barack Obama other than those specifically about conspiracy theories. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk

) 00:59, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• For potentially controversial matters (especially in a BLP), absolutely not. It isn't reliably known for fact checking, reasonable editorial control, separation of fact and opinion, etc. It might in some instances be attributable when the Breitbart coverage in and of itself has come to be at issue, but if it's the only source saying something, that's really not good enough. And if there's a better source, why not use that one instead? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:14, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

The editor Calcoform added material to Harry's Place, a blog on a controversial subject (Middle East politics). He sourced these from two other minor blogs from the other side of the debate, Socialist Unity and Islamophobia Watch, to, in his own words, "correctly describe a much-criticised hate blog that is regularly used by anonymous contributors to defame named individuals". The material he added included that this blog "spread this virulent racism and Islamophobia" and "It is often used by anonymous contributors to circulate personal smears, defamatory attacks and Islamophobia". However good or bad this Harry's Place is, it does not strike me that the user is honestly attempting to be neutral on this subject. His comment on the talk page does not fill me with confidence either. These sources are only blogs, and blogs battle each other all the time. I want admins or reliable users to watch over this page and make sure that the sources are better. Calcoform's talk page shows that he has been spoken to and warned about his editing earlier this year and his contributions seem less than neutral and rather bellicose.

No, blogs are not reliable even when they are commenting on blog sites. If a blog post is written by a reputable scholar, I would use it the same way as op-eds (

WP:NEWSORG). -- Kautilya3 (talk

) 15:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• http://net-worths.org/al-pacino-net-worth/
• http://www.therichest.com/celebnetworth/celeb/actors/al-pacino-net-worth/
• http://richestnetworth.org/al-pacino-net-worth/

They all say the same thing, always. I think they are all the same owner. They are clearly lousy sources and used all over the place at Wikipedia. Isn't this a BLP vio issue? Can we find out who owns these and if there are more? Should we remove them from this project?

See also Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 210#therichest.com

Cheers. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

They're all registered in WHOIS to big domain registrar companies, so that's no help. I'm not sure how else to tell if they're run by the same owner. They sound sketchy even if they have different owners. Is that part important to figure out? —PermStrump(talk) 01:22, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi PermStrump. Thanks for checking. Well, maybe it isn't important to figure out. It is pretty obvious that, as sources, they are not reliable. I guess knowing they are all the same owner would just reinforce that.

So, what do you think about the BLP vio issue and some sort of effort to get them out of Wikipedia?

Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• It might be that they all draw information from one another. The dodgier sites do it all the time and there was mention
  (｡◕‿◕｡)
  10:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Each and every one of them is, IMO, wertlos as a source. It is "Wikischaden" that they are used in any articles whatsoever. Collect (talk) 15:27, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

On a positive note, the etymology section of our article on Schadenfreude helped me figure out what you were saying. :) —PermStrump(talk) 20:10, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I know Jalopnik is owned by Gawker Media. Gawker is not generally considered a reliable source, but may be used for opinions at times.

That said, I came across this article today: Orlove, Raphael (4 August 2016). "The Living Apostle Who Sold The Media On The Myth Of 'Ghana's First Car'". Jalopnik. Retrieved 4 August 2016.. It's written by Raphael Orlove, who is described as "staff editor for Jalopnik."

This article appears to be a work of investigative journalism the likes of which CNN and Al Jazera are unwilling to do. In it

As soon as you come up with a standard legal definition for 'made'. In most countries putting together a product from component parts created elsewhere would still qualify as 'made'. But to answer your question, has any reliable source commented on this at all? Otherwise this would likely be an undue matter. We wouldnt say 'doubt has been cast' reference it to one opinion piece from a company who specialise in gossip, clickbait and controversy. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

There's a debate over whether The Daily Dot is a reliable source in this DRV of MonteCristo. Any outside opinions on the matter would be welcome.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

It depends on what you're using it to support. I would consider it fine for internet culture and associated topics. I've cited it a few times in articles about YouTube celebrities. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Do you think their coverage on

eSports [2] is reliable judged on the content and staff [3]?--Prisencolin (talk

) 05:45, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Again, it depends on the specific statement and source. This article says the following at the bottom: This article is sponsored by Ethos. Want to get involved and help shape the future of Ethos? Head to www.ethos.gg and join the discussion, and back the Ethos Indiegogo campaign. I would be highly skeptical of sponsored articles like that. But this article would probably help to establish notability for the player. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Vision Forum is a religious organization that closed after its leader resigned in a scandal. The Vision Forum website used to host a lot of information, but it's now just a single web page with a few posts about the resignation. When it was up and functioning, one page on the site explained the basic tenets of something called Biblical patriarchy. That info is no longer on the page. But a Christian blog has posted a .pdf of the page, obtained through the Internet Archive's Way Back Machine. One editor replaced the no-longer-useful link with a link to the .pdf. Another deleted it, saying "blog sourced is the same as unsourced". So now we're back to using the old link, tagged as unverified. Here's the diff.

In my view, the .pdf source, as an archive of the original page, is reliable source for the tenets of Vision Forum. But I'm not sure enough of the matter to revert. Other opinions would be welcome. There's a thread on the Vision Forum talk page. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 16:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

If it was indexed by archive.org, why don't we use that? Am I missing something here? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:39, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm embarrassed to say that I do not know how to link directly to archive.org. I was pretty impressed that my colleague found the .pdf on the 3rd party site. If you know how to link directly to the archive.org page that backs this up, I'd be much obliged if you'd insert it. I promise to review it and, the next time I go this route, I'll follow your model. David in DC (talk) 16:56, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I tried it, and I ran into ye old robots.txt problem (apparently, if a sites robots.txt says that the information is not to be duplicated, archive.org will assume that archiving it is illegal, and retroactively apply that to older versions of the page, as well). Sorry. I tried google's cache, too, but all I could get was a cached version of that same blog-post pdf. Honestly, if you can convince the other editors to permit it, then it would be fine (WP is ruled by consensus), because there's no real reason to believe the blog would have altered the original before making the pdf. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it's always a drag when you get that. Well, I did a search on Google Books, and there was a surprising amount of coverage. I couldn't find one that explicitly listed all the principles, but there were a few that briefly summarized them. If the consensus is to reject the blog source, maybe one of those books could be used. The search string I used was "The Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Some of the articles in Encyclopedia Britannica do not have specific authors (such as this one) and instead we see "Written by: The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica" under the title. Are those articles

• In general, yes. See here. That does not mean they are perfect, and Britannica is a tertiary source, but they should be better than most contemporary popular books. If there is more modern scholarship, I'd go with that. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
• With exceptions. Note the EB online edition includes edits suggested by readers, and does not use the same standards for verifiability that Wikipedia uses, and that they have accepted Wikipedia as a source for some of the suggestions (personal experience). If there is any doubt at all, find a better/stronger source. That said, a lot of "popular books" now get produced with no vetting of comments about deceased persons as the dead can not be libeled (legal status). IMO, the standards of
  WP:RS have fallen short of their clear intent. Collect (talk
  ) 15:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
• Indeed, I would use Britannica only as a source of last resort. On the other hand, it is quite valuable to determine where NPOV lies in contentious areas. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:37, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
• Frankly, I'd avoid using the EB except for signed articles. Signed articles are the work of acknowledged experts in their fields, & can be safely assumed to be a reliable (although often out-of-date) source. Unsigned articles are created by freelancers who may have no expertise in the subject they are writing, & which after a first editorial review are routinely republished without regard for developments in the relevant field of research. (The EB makes money based on the amount of text it does not revise, so there is an incentive not to revise articles.) Before the 15th edition, many articles were reprinted with few revisions (except to abridge the article in order to make room for new articles on more popular subjects) from either the 11th edition -- or in some cases the 9th, which isn't a problem if you don't mind relying on state-of-the-art research from the 19th century. The overhaul the new format of the 15th edition required a lot of articles to be updated, which did help some, but to say the current version of any unsigned article in the EB reflects the contemporary consensus on its subject cannot withstand serious scrutiny. And sheesh, in this day & age it's not that hard to find a better source than EB on any topic, as long as one has access to a decent library & the Internet. Wikipedia would help itself a lot by systematically replacing every cite to EB with one to other reliable sources. -- llywrch (talk) 19:11, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
• Tertiary sources are best avoided except for the most basic information. They do not provide sources and sometimes oversimplify subjects. If there are content disputes where secondary sources provide different accounts, we can resolve them by looking a at the sources they used, determining whether they were correctly cited and seeing whether subsequent scholarship has revised accounts. But we cannot do that with tertiary sources, and could avoid a lot of edit disputes by not using them. TFD (talk) 06:00, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm with llywrch. Avoid wherever possible. Likely to be out-of-date and to present only one pov, almost always easy to find a better source. Doug Weller talk 11:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Is this article from ESPN considered a reliable source or an op-ed?--Prisencolin (talk) 23:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

"Sports columns" are an area where fact and opinion meld, and have been so since before Bat Masterson was a sportswriter. As far as I know, no one has ever been able to divorce the two pieces. Best to take anything which remotely looks like opinion and to treat it as such even in an ostensible "news" article. Collect (talk) 12:45, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Dear editors: I am working on a draft,

At first glance, 24hueres seems reliable but 20mn does not however, I don't speak French so additional feedback is needed. Meatsgains (talk) 17:34, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I would agree with your assessment of 24 heures. It is an established newspaper with a long history and the highest (paid) circulation in the French-speaking part of Switzerland. See

talk

) 17:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Meatsgains and Mduvekot. Assured that the draft has some reliable sources, I've moved it to mainspace.—Anne Delong (talk) 13:35, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

In Suicide of Vince Foster#Allegations_of_cover-up_by_lead_investigator there are two sources to support a claim that concern me:

• wnd.com - known not to be a
  WP:RS
• citizenwells.net - first time I recall this site being used as a source. Looking at the article used as a source, it quotes wnd.com, which makes me doubt its' reliability and a few clicks led to this piece questioning President Obamas' birth cert.

There appear to be no discussions of citizenwells.net in the noticeboard yet, but I presume I'm OK to assume it's not a reliable source? Autarch (talk) 21:37, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

They are both terrible, plainly unreliable sources that should be removed on sight. Neutrality^talk 01:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming my suspicion - I've removed the whole section as it mostly relied on them - the only

WP:RS was used to confirm that the person quoted had held a position - all quotes attributed to him were based on unreliable sources. Autarch (talk

) 17:06, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

That publisher appears to have published a total of two books [5] both by the same author. Is such a book (which I rather think is self-published, as most actual publishers do not issue a total of two books, each of them by the same author), a "reliable source" for the biography where it is used?

The prose in that biography appears a tad florid, but use of an SPS seems, to me, to be a problem here. Collect (talk) 18:05, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

There's almost nothing on Worldcat.org for Newman-Hemisphere, but Google Books has some hits. Seweryn Chomet has a Wikipedia article, but it's mostly unsourced. According to our biography, Chomet mostly translated Russian scientific journals to English, which might explain why it's difficult to dig up information on the publisher. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I would appreciate input on a discussion at Talk:Blink of an Eye (Tori Kelly song).

One editor says PopCrush is not reliable. The other says it's the author, not the website, to whom reliability applies.

Thanks in advance. —ATS 🖖 Talk 18:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

This topic was brushed upon in the arrived section Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_175#Judgepedia

This recent edit by user:Aldebaran69 (at 22:04, 7 August 2016) introduced a retrospective inline citation to http://genealogy.euweb.cz/stuart/stuart8.html to replace {{citation needed|date=August 2016|reason=ODNB does not list any of the children}}, in James FitzJames, 1st Duke of Berwick.

I do not think http://genealogy.euweb.cz/ is a reliable source. Does anyone think that it is and if so how does it meet the requirements of

The edit also introduced a second retrospective citation to http://geneall.net/en/name/4480/james-fitzjames-1st-duke-of-berwick/ I don not think that http://geneall.net/en/ is reliable website. Does anyone think it is, and if so how does it meet the requirements of

-- PBS (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Concerning the page David Packouz (tied with the War Dogs movie). There have been some recent edits to Mr Packouz's page that are extremely disturbing, and the page is becoming very self-promotional. The page for this individual is also poorly written, as general. The sources also do not claim what they say they do - for instance, see source [1], which does not mention "entrepreneur" nor "inventor". Source [9] does not mention music technology. The entire article reads like an advertisement. Please read through the page which is not very long and discuss as to the best course of action. Specifically the first parageaph and the Beat Buddy section. I have also posted in Neutral noticeboard, as the page is not neutral at all. Thank you kindly. --Asenathson (talk) 16:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I was wondering if this site would be considered a reliable source that could help establish notability. The source in question is an interview, which I know some consider to be a primary source. However my main question is whether or not the site itself would be considered reliable. It gives off strong blog overtones and I don't see anything about an editorial process offhand. Their parent company, Mediavine doesn't outright say that it'll sell articles as part of a marketing package, but at times it gives off the impression that they might. This was previously brought up here, but there was never anything concretely said about the page.

My gut reaction is that it's like Perez Hilton, meaning that it's a tabloid type of blog site that we can't use as a RS. It's one of several questionable sources used in an AfC submission that I'm in the process of declining, so I thought that it'd be good to at least ask about this here in case it can be used. I do see where it's used elsewhere on Wikipedia, but then that's not automatically a guarantee that it's a reliable source.

Your gut reaction is quite right; this is a Perez Hilton-like gossip rag and in no way reliable. We shouldn't use it in any articles. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the site, but as far as an interview, do you think it would be reliable for the interviewees statements about him/herself kind of like

WP:BLPSELFPUB? Like, do they have a reputation for being so unreliable that they're fabricating interviews? Even if it could sometimes be used for a BLP's claims about him/herself, I guess it doesn't count towards notability because I can't imagine a scenario where that site could contribute to writing a neutral article based primarily on reliable, third-party sources, even if it could be used as a supplemental source in very limited cases once notability was already established. —PermStrump(talk)

17:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Walter Koenig includes an odd/ambiguous/confusing/probably-ungrammatical statement that "Koenig's parents were Russian Jewish immigrants from the Soviet Union; his family lived in Lithuania when they emigrated" ("emigrated" to the United States? Koenig himself was apparently born in the US in 1936, before Lithuania was incorporated into the Soviet Union; were they originally from Russia and then moved to Lithuania and then moved to the US?).

I checked the source to see if it was clearer, and it led to an "Under construction. Coming soon." page. It seems just about every page of that "official" website is currently empty. It also looks ... well, not very official. It looks like a fan site, and the URL made me want to find out what was on WalterKoenig.com, which looks equally dodgy. Does the subject even have an official website?

More to the point, is there a way of verifying or falsifying my suspicion that these are both just fan-sites/domain-squatters posing as officially-endorsed sites?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

... and then I saw that the home page looks like this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Walter Koenig has an official twitter account, maybe an editor with a twitter account (not me, nope nope nope) could ask him if that's his official site, as it claims to be. If so, then that would make it a primary source (one would assume that he's not maintaining it himself, but that he still maintains editorial control over its contents). MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Can't help with twitter, anyone else? This is totally anecdotal, but in my personal experience, people in the US with relatives from countries that were part of the former USSR or Austro-Hungary Empire, etc. might get the historical names of places wrong when talking about their own family (myself included), so I don't think that (or the misuse of immigrate/emigrate) necessarily mean anything about who's running the site. I think it should be verified in any case if it's going to be used as a source, but even if it's his site, it might be a good idea to look for that information elsewhere since regardless of who wrote it, that person probably isn't a reliable source for that particular information. FWIW according to the Lithuania article, it was part of the Russian Empire until WWI, after which it was briefly independent until WWII when it was occupied by the USSR (and Nazi Germany then USSR again). The borders and country names in that region changed so many times in a short time period, so it's understandable that people have a hard time describing their own ancestry. —PermStrump(talk) 17:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I've noticed that there are [several pages] here that use TV Tropes for citations and as external links on a couple of pages (such as Chewbacca defense and space pirate).

I find that a bit worrying, seeing that it's a site that's mainly edited by non-experts. I've been editing there for years, and I've never heard of any notable writers or media experts editing there, meaning that there's likely a lot of misinformation on the site, especially with the light moderation (I spot errors on pretty much every page I visit on the site). There's also the problem that the content changes regularly, right down to pages being deleted outright. I was also under the impression that wikis shouldn't be used as sources anyway, unless the info is official in some way or related to the wiki itself. I know that user-edited sites like

I'm wondering if such links should be removed, even if there are no other linked sources supporting a statement (the

It can be fine as an external link if the articles cover the same thing, but

WP:USERG disqualifies it as a source from the beginning. Ian.thomson (talk

) 01:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I've seen similar sources removed as external links, and the Wikipedia:External links page says that "sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources" can be considered (emphasis mine). I'm not sure I'd say TV Tropes is full of knowledgeable contributors, though I guess it's a bit subjective, so if people say the external links can stay, I won't argue.
But, what about as a citation source for statements. For example, on the Somebody_to_Love_(Queen_song) page, it's used as a source for this: "Serious consideration was even given to having George Michael take over as full-time lead singer of Queen." My first instinct is to replace links where it's used as a source with "^{[citation needed]}" (or find better links for topics I care about). SonOfPlisskin (talk) 01:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it technically doesn't meet WP:EL, but trying to keep it off the site

doesn't seem to be a battle worth fighting (to me at least). Ian.thomson (talk

) 16:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• I love tvtropes.com. I have been known to waste hours browsing through, reading examples of different tropes. That being said, it should NEVER be used as a source. The vast majority of the tropes listed there were named and defined by the site, the moderation is hit-or-miss at best, and many of the examples either barely qualify as examples of the given trope, or descend into one of that site's ubiquitous arguments over whether a trope was played straight, subverted, deconstructed or had a lampshade hung on it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: I'm with Ian.thomson on policing the site as an EL: It's not worth the effort to keep it off wiki. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• I had to cut myself off cold turkey because if I click on TV tropes in my google search results, I was wasting more time there reading related tropes than I do clicking internal links in WP articles. We should try to protect WP readers from additional rabbitholes. But seriously, it's not RS and it's not ok for external links. In reference to
  WP:ELNO: Not a reliable source", as I think other editors should when they come across it. —PermStrump(talk)
  17:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I'd immediately revert any attempt I saw to add TVTropes as a source, wouldn't even bother with the user generated tag, regardless of what it's being sourced for. Article content matters more than external links, that is worth fighting over. "TVTropes is written by a thousand monkeys on typewriters and therefore isn't reliable" is also easier to explain to people who don't know anything about the site than explaining why it fails our external link policies. If someone else does want to go through that hassle, fine, but letting it slide as an EL won't especially hurt the site (citing it would) and not letting it slide can result in unnecessary stress and work. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:54, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I spend a lot of time editing TVTropes, which is why I notice a lot of problems that more casual users may not notice at a glance. I think the majority of my time there is spent fixing bad or badly written examples, and they never seem to end. I'm probably not going to go and delete every TVTropes link on the site unless I'm really bored, but there are a couple I specifically want to get rid of for now, like the one on the aforementioned Queen song. I'll probably do the same as

Rational Wiki would never be allowed in articles not specifically talking about the websites themselves, so I figured it shouldn't be different here. SonOfPlisskin (talk

) 23:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd probably only tag it as a citation if I knew whatever it said was true and didn't have time/didn't feel like finding a better source, but yeah, generally I'd just delete it. I hate junk in the EL section though, so I'd delete those too. On the other hand, I almost never edit articles about TV shows. :) —PermStrump(talk) 23:53, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The Template:Age of consent pages discussion header states (after clicking on "show"):

In the interest of accuracy and quality it was decided by consensus to hold these pages to a high standard of verification and to avoid ambiguity through the use of prose (not dot points) discussing the relevant statutes, case law or other authorities.

My concern is specifically with case law, which is in the form of the actual judicial opinions (ordinarily rendered by an appellate court), serving to clarify how specific statutes are to be interpreted.

My question is whether the judicial opinion may be cited in preference to an article in a mass media publication, presuming that the judicial opinion (at least if read carefully) can be interpreted without any specialized training? Or is the judicial opinion itself to be avoided because it's a primary source? Fabrickator (talk) 14:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

In my experience, judgments require a degree of expertise to read, and we should instead use secondary sources, which explain what the judgments meant. In particular, readers need to distinguish between ratio decidendi and obiter dicta. In a case of breach of contract for example, a judge could say that a minor could not be sued because the age of consent was 18 and then say that applies to any form of consent. But the case would only be a precedent for contract law. Also, a court could decide that there was more than one decisive issue. A minor could for example plead that a oontract was void because it was not properly witnessed and he was too young to enter into a contract. If the court believed both, it would not set a precedent because if it had not been properly witnessed, the plaintiff could not win on appeal, regardless of whether the court was right on the age of majority. TFD (talk) 19:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Make sure also to distinguish between age of majority and age of consent as they generally are not the same thing or number.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:43, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

It looks like Template:Age of consent pages discussion header only applies to articles about the Age of consent for sexual activity, so I'm not sure these responses are getting at OP's question. The purpose of the template is to remind editors to only use the highest quality sources since these articles involve laws related to child sexual abuse and this is how it defines high quality sources: "Where writing about legislation or other law, the appropriate statutes and similar must be cited." (my emphasis). But as Fabrickator said, citing the actual legal code can be misleading, either because the wording might be ambiguous or because it differs in important ways from the case law, the actual authority for how the law is interpreted in the US (and plenty of other places, but I can't speak to them). I can think of a lot of potential issues with regularly citing the judicial opinion too though, like it might be hard for editors to determine the most recent, relevant case, especially when there's been more than one ruling about different aspects of the same legislation. Also, some precedents are still on the books that were set in the 1800s, which comes with its own host of problems.

Are there usually academic sources covering the judicial opinion in precedential cases? Because if it's reasonable to expect the majority of these laws will have been covered by academic sources, IMO, those would be the highest quality sources, not the actual statutes or court records. —PermStrump(talk) 21:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

TFD ... you say that secondary sources should be used because reading judicial opinions may require expertise, though the same may be said about the statutes themselves, yet the "age of consent" pages (e.g. for United States) liberally cite and quote from statutes. The difficulty of interpreting statutes is at least one reason that appellate courts wind up overturning decisions of lower courts. Requiring secondary sources instead of the statutes themselves is seemingly problematic ... because even if one finds a "reliable" mass media publication that covers this (and attempting to use sources other than mass media has its own problems), the articles in mass media publications simply are unlikely to meet the necessary quality requirements. Now the advantage of judicial opinions (at least in some cases) is that the judge has the opportunity to elaborate, and elaborate they do, because they are not limited to a certain number of column-inches. Fabrickator (talk) 15:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

The best sources are legal text books, which meet the test of reliable secondary sources. While it may seem paradoxical, generally statutes do not need expertise, or very much expertise, to be read, since legislators generally do not deliberately write ambiguity into them. But legal precedents become necessary when there is ambiguity in statutes or conflicts between them. If for example the age of consent is one age for males and another for females but it conflicts with a sex equality law, and there is a precedent, then we would want to consult a legal textbook to explain the degree to which the precedent effects interpretationn of the law. Sometimes a series of precedents are required before full clarity is obtained. In a similar situation, the case of D.C. v Heller invalidated a D.C. law on gun ownership. But the degree to which it restricts gun control laws is unknown. On the other hand, we would be fairly safe in most cases in using D.C. statutes as a source for the laws of D.C. If legislation says for example that people cannot keep pet lions without a permit, we can assume that is the law. TFD (talk) 16:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I wonder if the template (specifically the age of consent template, not all legal templates) should be reworded then to say that academic sources should be sought for interpretation of legislation in addition to citing the actual legal code? —PermStrump(talk) 19:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

While citing the statutes may work fine for the easy cases, these tend not to be subject to interesting legal appeals. Proposing the use of legal textbooks or academic journals is problematic, IMO, because of the limited access to such sources, assuming that such sources may be presumed to comprehensively cover such things (not having such access, I can't really say whether this is the case). OTOH, states frequently have multiple statutes (or at least multiple sections of the same statute) which interact in ways that may not be apparent to a casual reader. I suppose that what I'm really saying is that quoting statutes within the body of the article is actually counter-productive, because someone attempting to educate themselves on how the law applies is essentially left to use their own wits to figure it out. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, which implies the use of sources to provide usable articles, but it by no means implies that the "ideal" article would be comprised largely of a bunch of quotes from cited sources. Fabrickator (talk) 02:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Would anybody care to argue (or support) the point that a judicial opinion which has been "approved for publication" (meaning the court has authorized its use for citation in other cases) is not only a reliable source, but unless understanding the pertinent parts of the opinion is beyond the ken of an educated person, a secondary source presuming to interpret the opinion should generally be treated as inferior?

To raise a different question, at least one editor has made statements to the effect that any verifiable source must actually refer to any age-based restrictions on sexual activity using the phrase "age of consent", in order for that to be a suitable source for this page. So a source describing the circumstances under which one may be subject to prosecution for consensual sex under the laws of a state may not be cited in the absence of the phrase "age of consent". I find this to be beyond the pale, that for the purpose of the "age of consent" pages, this phrase has a specialized meaning, and that is the meaning we are seeking on this page, regardless of the precise words used in statutes or other sources. So I'd appreciate any comments that may lead to a consensus on this point. Fabrickator (talk) 02:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

What article? Where is that discussion happening? I wanted to read the context before responding. —PermStrump(talk) 09:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

On Talk:Ages of consent in the United States, it is asserted that "the 'age of consent' is however the press and the media define it". This same page mentions an article by "Carter" that's in a mass market publication. This is the article I had in mind as being problematic. Specifically, the Carter article gives the impression that a prosecution under Texas statute 43.25 requires that a sexual performance be involved. But the pertinent judicial opinions make it clear that a person can be prosecuted for "inducment of sexual conduct" (of an underage person), thus serving as an example of the need for the "high standard of verification" called for in the template. Fabrickator (talk) 04:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the judicial opinions? With that info, I can look for a secondary, academic source that clearly articulates the legislation, which IMO, would be the best option. —PermStrump(talk) 02:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Here are the opinions on two particularly pertinent cases: Summers v. State: http://www.leagle.com/decision/19921285845SW2d440_11248/SUMMERS%20v.%20STATE, Dornbusch v. State: http://law.justia.com/cases/texas/thirteenth-court-of-appeals/2005/14000.html Fabrickator (talk) 06:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

@PermStrump: Do you have any more feedback on this?

There is a discussion, or rather close to an edit war, on

The discussion also takes place in a wider context, perhaps less relevant to this noticeboard, of existing teories on the etymology of the word maya (well, that's not a terribly wide context). Ms Sarah Welch keeps highlighting (not to say, promoting) original theories of religion by Jan Gonda (not a linguist, either - but in Hindu traditions, language and religion are strongly interconnected); whilst I try to present existing theories equally and list them in chronological order in the article.[8] Unfortunately, because anonther editor apparently totally unfanmiliar with the subject of Indian studies (RexxS) has joined in doing reverts and attacking me, I decided to ask for a third opinion on sourcing. Thanks for any remarks you may have. — kashmiri ^TALK 06:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

In the above submission on RSN, @Kashmiri has questioned the competence/behavior of @RexxS and me, but not provided the link to the source whose reliability apparently in question. Here it is: Pintchman's book (pages 3-4). It was published by State University of New York Press. This specific book has been reviewed by scholars in peer reviewed journals, such as:

[1] David Gordon White (1996), The Journal of the American Oriental Society, 116(2), pp. 356-358;

[2] Lou Ratté (1997), International Journal of Hindu Studies, 1(1), pp. 211-213.

David Gordon White in his review writes, "Tracy Pintchman (...) fills a long-standing gap in Western writing and research on the Goddess, (...) in special relation to the three cosmic principles of prakrti, maya, and sakti. This work will no doubt become the reference work on the subject, as well as a useful tool for teaching on undergraduate and graduate levels." Lou Ratté review is similarly positive, and mentions Pintchman's discussion of "prakrti, maya, and sakti". Pintchman is a professor in the subject, and she is respected in the field of Hinduism/Indian religions as these reviews suggest. Based on a combination of all this, I respectfully submit that the source is reliable, a secondary source on maya-related etymology/terminology context, as it is being used in the article (

Maya (illusion)

). I further submit that a read of the book amply show that @Kashmiri is falsely alleging the nature of the book, like much else.

This is not a new issue. In January 2016, @Kashmiri questioned, then attacked the "competence and speculations" of

WP:TE since January 2016 despite comments and cautions by editors and an admin, other than @RexxS and me on this (see edit history here and here). Ms Sarah Welch (talk

) 10:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

A couple of things - yes, generally you do need more than one source to establish a 'mainstream' view, otherwise it is just one (reliable or not no comment) person's opinion. If there are dissenting/different views, then again more sources are required to establish what the mainstream is. If there are no dissenting or no other sources, then it should be presented as the opinion of the expert rather than 'this is the definitive answer'. Secondly - I would not use a non-linguistics expert as a source to verify a words etymology - where other sources are available from linguistic experts. If there are no dissenting or better sources available, then you work with what you have. I would say from looking at the diffs back and forth, this does seem to be an area where there is disagreement. It is not great to have in an encyclopedia article 'Maya is probably...' when there are multiple theories RE the origin. (Saying the above, from looking at Jan Gonda's article, I cannot see why they would not be considered qualified enough to have an opinion and be referenced on the subject, but I can see the argument behind Pintchman) Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@Only in death does duty end: Jan Gonda is known for his linguistics work. Tracy Pintchman reviews and states the past scholarship on Maya-related etymology-terminology among other things, on pages 3-4 (her publication is an example that Gonda's study is accepted by other scholars). That section of the article has multiple sources. I agree, we should retain the multiple sources, not delete them. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@Only in death: Thanks for your balanced view. Let me point out that Ms Sarah Welch has shamelessly manipulated my words - where I asserted that "I can't even believe a scholar of Sanskrit would have published such a thing", I was absolutely correct - this was about a (linguistically absurd) idea that maya is a combination of two verbal roots ma + ya, which Ms Welch attributed to Gonda and defended fiercely but which, as it turned out, wasn't actually even mentioned in Gonda's book. Reluctantly and after lots of fighting, Ms Welch allowed the statement to be removed from the article, as you can see now. To be fair to her, as a former Sanskrit scholar, I am more than familiar with a belief among many newbies to ancient Indian literature that whatever is printed is holy, is sacred and should be revered much like the Vedas.

For a similar reason, I removed Zimmer's primary study that Ms Welch tried to add as a source to whatever, seemingly forgetting about

WP:BRD that she earlier kept repeating ad nauseam. I do not see any value that this work from the philosophy of language could add to the Etymology section (which should, or must, adopt linguistical approach and not a philosophical one); while of course it may be cited in other parts of the article. Hope this clarifies, although I admit I grew tired of Ms Welch's attacks. — kashmiri ^TALK

20:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

There is a notice at the top of this page: Please focus your attention on the reliability of a source. This is not the place to discuss other issues, such as editor conduct. Please see dispute resolution for issues other than reliability. If you have nothing to say about the reliability of the source, then please stfu. Take your attacks on other editors elsewhere; they don't belong here. --RexxS (talk) 21:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

The article

• Tracy Pintchman (1994), The Rise of the Goddess in the Hindu Tradition, State University of New York Press,
  ISBN 978-0791421123
  , pages 3-4;

• Jan Gonda, Four studies in the language of the Veda, Disputationes Rheno-Traiectinae (1959), pages 119-188
• Donald Braue (2006), Maya in Radhakrishnan's Thought: Six Meanings other than Illusion, Motilal Banarsidass,
  ISBN 978-8120822979
  , page 101, Quote: "Etymologically, the term māyā is derived from the Sanskrit verbal root mā (...) Whitney says the primary meaning of √mā is 'to measure'. L Thomas O'Neil agrees in his helpful exposition of the ways and contexts in which māyā is used in the Rigvedic tradition."
• ISBN 978-81-208-0781-5
  . Quote: The word māyā comes from the same root mā, "to measure", as does mātra, "measure", which in turn is etymologically linked to the Latin materia, from which our word "matter" derives. Materia not only relates to mater, "mother" and to matrix, but also to metiri, "to measure, to lay out (a place)", (...)

The way this issue has been brought here leaves much to be desired. @Kashmiri: you needed to read and follow the directions at the top. This is not a dispute resolution venue, but rather a venue to get opinions of uninvolved editors on sources. In particular, conduct issues do not concern us.

The only question that seems to concern this board is whether the Pintchman source should be included. I think there is no harm in including it, because it says that maya derives from ma (to measure) and so provides support for this derivation. This doesn't immediately clinch the issue, but it shows that this derivation has found favour among scholars. Whether Pintchman is a linguist or not doesn't matter much, because she is a secondary source here, and it is all the better if she is not a specialist.

More broadly, looking at this edit, the difference between the old and the new versions seems rather slight. So, I think that, if you discuss with cooler heads, you should be able to find agreement quite easily. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Kautilya3, I also think that finding agreement ought not be difficult. As I see it, this noticeboard should be able to tell us whether the Pintchman source is reliable or not, and (if required) the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard can judge whether the source should be included in the article. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 21:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Thanks. (1) I can't agree with terming Pintchman's work as a secondary source. Pintchman's book is absolutely and undoubtedly a PRIMARY source as it consists nearly uniquely of her own research. The book is not just a summary of other people's work, it is not a compendium-type publication nor a Review type academic paper. Same to Zimmer's qouted work. (2) Because it is not a secondary source and Pintchman is NOT a linguist nor an authority on Sanskrit or the Protoindoeuropean language, she should not be referred to in the Etymology section. She lists her specialities in her CV linked above, please feel free to verify that "Sanskrit scholar" or "linguist" are not among them. So, Pintchman's book just happen to mention such an ethymology (without quoting a source btw) because it fits her philosophical idea and not because she studied extensively the origins of Sanskrit or PIE words. — kashmiri ^TALK 22:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@

WP:SECONDARY tells you: A source may be considered primary for one statement but secondary for a different one, and sources can contain both primary and secondary source material for the same statement. For the matter under discussion, the derivation of maya, it is a secondary source because Pintchman is not stating her own view, but rather the received view. -- Kautilya3 (talk

) 22:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

It's also important to realise that a book published by a major publisher carries the weight of editorial oversight and the peer-review process. Its reliability does not merely rest on the author. In this case, the publisher is

SUNY Press, which is one of the larger university presses, and publishes its Manuscript Review Process, including its peer-review process.--RexxS (talk

) 23:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Is this Brazilian social-science journal ([https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=pt-BR&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://revistas.unisinos.br/index.php/ciencias_sociais/about&usg=ALkJrhgncx5hg7VoxNdJmSnXJabkDD2mug en]) generally reliable? It looks good, but I'd appreciate the opinion of an experienced RS evaluator or a Lusophone academic. It is [https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=pt-BR&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Frevistas.unisinos.br%2Findex.php%2Fciencias_sociais%2Fabout indexed] in

I'd like to use this systematic review in rewriting

Source:

TeleSur English (Elliott Gabriel, Ways Jill Stein's VP Pick Will Shake US Politics Beyond 2016

, August 2, 2016)

Article: Ajamu Baraka

Content: TeleSur writer Elliot Gabriel said: "[H]e is an accomplished Black scholar, professor, and human rights advocate who has tirelessly fought for the rights of working people in the United States and throughout the world."

Given all this, I do not think it is a properly reliable source for this (laudatory) statement about an individual. I welcome input. Neutrality^talk 15:01, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

disagree, given that the article has been claimed to be OK for citation concerning "negative" elements.

TeleSUR page to understand the origin of the network as an attempt to counter the oligarchic concentration of Latin American media... also note that User talk:Neutrality has not objected to the original selective quotation from the Telesur article (3 words from a long sentence) to make Baraka look bad. My personal decision was to delete both articles, as neither contributes in a particularly useful manner to the article in question, but the complainant decided to revert his citation without reverting the counterbalancing one. SashiRolls (talk

) 15:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Politico is financially and editorially independent of the government. "Telesur" is not. There is no meaningful comparison between the two. You may dislike Politico, but it is not comparable to propaganda in thesense that TeleSur is.

As for the other use of Telsur (which is apparently no longer in the article, I haven't looked at it). It appears that the other use is a direct quote from the subject of the article, whereas this statement is an absolutely laudatory quote that serves no purpose other than to heap praise on the article's subject. I think you're clouding the issue somewhat here. Neutrality^talk 15:49, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

There was indeed an error in attribution, the Politico article was being cited for content coming from Telesur. Probably a cut and paste error due to the repeated deletions and reverts. It is corrected. I am merely exposing a contrary point of view to your own, I am not trying to cloud any issue, but would be fairly surprised should we suddenly decide that an innocuous statement such as the one above should be censored because someone doesn't agree with the politics of the source publication. If it is, as I've already pointed out, there are any number of similar citations which could be added (since Baraka is a highly respected individual, having received numerous honors for his human-rights work). However, it seems to me that there is a certain amount of bullying going on here to force acceptance of a free-lance writer's personal attack (from Politico) into the biography of a living person, despite the fact that 3 people have argued that it is not a particularly useful reference (two on the talk page, one by originally deleting it). Your objections to this user's deletion of your content are the source of this contention, as you know. SashiRolls (talk) 16:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• Exactly as User:Neutrality states, this is government propaganda arm, not an editorially independent news source. NYTimes: [9].E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

It should be noted that the reference was removed. Moreover E.M. Gregory has twice removed the NPOV template placed on the page in question by WikiLeon without achieving any consensus for doing so. This despite the fact that ad hominem attacks against the candidate remain on the page. The latest ad hominem attack comes from Tablet (magazine), which unlike TeleSUR is not financed by 6 governments, but by a single Jewish foundation whose funds come primarily from one donor. Cf. Nextbook SashiRolls (talk) 10:23, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I think I already know the answer here but wanted to get confirmation - is Inside Futures a reliable source? Specifically, this article, which I added as a reference on Larry Hite's page. Meatsgains (talk) 00:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

The "named chairs" link is broken. The working url is http://www.scholarrescuefund.org/donate/named-chairs. As for supporting the statement about Hite's involvement with Scholar Rescue Fund, they disclaim responsibility for it, maybe they read it on Wikipedia! The "Scholar Rescue Fund" citation can serve as an authoritative source for any actual facts about the organization itself, as well as for its stated purpose. Statements based on the Hite Foundation link ought to be particularly "qualified", e.g. they "claim" to be doing this and that (similar to the comment about "stated purpose" for the "Scholar Rescue Fund", only conisderably more so). I am new at posting my opinons on "reliable sources", so I will defer to others who disagree and who claim to have greater experience. Fabrickator (talk) 02:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

@Fabrickator: Thanks for looking into this. Where exactly did you see that that they "disclaim responsibility"? It very well could be that they pulled the information from Wikipedia. Meatsgains (talk) 17:19, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

@Meatsgains: When I say they "disclaim responsibility", I'm referring to their statement that begins "One source says ...", without revealing what the source is. Fabrickator (talk) 18:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I see, I think additional feedback from other users would be helpful. Thanks! Meatsgains (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I have cleaned up three or four articles using Prabook already but there are ca. 200 of them. Can I please have explicit confirmation that this is user-generated content and not reliable? If I get that then I may try to work out where to ask about a filter/blacklist for future attempted uses.

BTW, someone did raise this previously in relation to a specific article and, as on that occasion, I suspect Wikipedia scraping may have gone on in the examples that I have looked at so far. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 08:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, most of the content on Prabook seems to come from the scraping of various, sometimes decades-old Who's Who-type books. Usually a suitable Google Books search will find the original source of the data. Where such can't be found, the data should not be used. And Prabook should never be referenced. But it's just a drop in the bucket, as Wikipedians aren't going to stop citing (or using without even citing) random websites of no authority whatsoever. Mewulwe (talk) 14:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, yes to some degree but if we adopt that fatalist attitude then we might as well abandon pretty much every policy and guideline, not to mention the project. We either make a stand or we succumb to anarchy. - Sitush (talk) 02:55, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I have used this cite in some of the articles I created, but a closer look (after Sitush pinged me) tells me that it may not be reliable, though the content therein may be factually correct. However, it could be used to gather information for further research but that's where it should stop. I do not believe it will hold as a reliable reference, as the subject himself can add data and there seems to be no mechanism to check the veracity of the content.--jojo@nthony (talk) 06:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

An administrator User:VictoriaGrayson has said that a video of Jill Stein speaking is not a reliable source for what Jill Stein actually said. Do you agree? She also seems to be arguing that a video of Jill Stein already referenced on the site via the blog "The World According to Matthew" is a reliable source embedded on that site but is not a reliable source when accessed directly. What do you think? Thank you for your time looking into this question in an effort to guarantee the impartiality of Wikipedia. The relevant discussion is in this Request for CommentSashiRolls (talk) 22:47, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I am not an administrator.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 01:16, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

You need to provide the specific example. It is possible to inaccurately represent what people said on Youtube videos: "You didn't build that," "I short circuited," etc. Also, it is better to use secondary sources and if whatever Stein said was not picked up in those sources, it is probably too insignificant to include. TFD (talk) 01:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• Generally speaking, a video of someone speaking is going to be
  WP:DUE to include it anyway. --Aquillion (talk
  ) 02:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
• A video of Jill Stein is a reliable source for what Stein said. However we do not inclde stuff that Jill Stein said unless another source commented on it and thereby showed that Stein's comment was significant.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your responses snunɐɯ·, Aquillion, & TFD! In response to your call for more information, here is the sentence that was reverted:

Stein has made unequivocally clear that she does not believe that vaccines cause autism, comparing the media frenzy around the issue to the

birther issue used against Obama. ^[1]

I identified this as an independent source which is both a primary source regarding what Jill Stein said, and a secondary source given the comments of the interviewer (and Cenk Uygur at the end of the video), who both say that her statement is unequivocally clear. My use of her comment about the "birther" scandal seemed to fit the definition of appropriate use of a primary source given at Wikipedia... "Primary sources may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source." It was added to the page because as it stands the page only includes articles stating that she has been ambiguous on this issue. What do you think? SashiRolls (talk) 17:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I read over the section, which is Jill Stein#Science. Stein provided an interview with David Weigel, a reporter at the Washington Post. In the article he implies that Stein is anti-science without actually saying so. "Stein's warning about corporate influence in the vaccine approval process is often voiced by "anti-vaxxers." An article by Alan Yuhas in The Guardian does the same: "Stein seemed to echo such fears in her interview on Friday, though again as part of a broader argument about regulators." That is followed by text sourced to similar articles and blogs.

Our challenge in using reliable biased sources is to separate facts from opinions, which the article does not do well. Juxtaposing the fact that anti-vaxxers are suspicious of vaccine approval processes is an expression of opinion. For example, "Like Adolph Hitler, Clinton supports gun control" is a factual statement that presents an opinion. None of the articles say that Stein opposes vaccines, in fact they say she supports them. Nor is there any indication that she thinks vaccines cause autism (although ironically Clinton and Obama said they were not sure themselves.)

In this case, I think it is better to review the article text and ensure that it presents the facts without editorial comment. If we want to add opinons, then they need intext attribution. In reply to your original question, it is valid to provide a denial from someone against whom an accusation is made, provided it can be sourced. See the example in

WP:BLP

: "If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported."

Moving forward, it is probably better to post to the NPOVN, since it is really an issue of weight of opinions about Stein. That also applies to other sections of the article.

TFD (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLP example you've given me, though it would have much more force if someone else did. SashiRolls (talk

) 00:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Snopes has a good article about this,[10] which could serve as model for how we present the issue in a neutral manner. Ond way forward is to present Stein's actual position, the objections presented by Weigel et al. and the opinion expressed by the Snopes writer. Or perhaps it is better to leave it out altogether since there is nothing unusual about her position on vaccinations, just a few non-significant opinions expressed about it. I will post a thread and see how other editors react. TFD (talk) 00:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I read that article some time ago (before coming to the Jill Stein page) and thought the question had been settled, but I guess it hasn't. I'll check back later to see if you (or anyone else) had had a chance to add this to the article. For the moment, I'm doing my best to alert people to the issue on the talk page, because otherwise it will be just be reverted if I add it to the article. I've added the long list of evidence for

WP:OWN problems with the page here. Thank you again for your help. SashiRolls (talk

) 10:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Short: Is The Forbidden Knowledge a reliable source?

Long: There's an article on the

That's just from the home page; it gets worse when you open the site. I.e. it's about as fringe as it's possible to get. Therefore it's not a reliable source, and we simply can't rely on them to have accurately reproduced articles published elsewhere. Or that's what I think. You? Cheers, Bromley86 (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

No, The Forbidden Knowledge is not remotely a reliable source. The

Spaceship Moon Theory article basically just summarises the Sputnik article and adds some third-party criticism, so with respect to the Sputnik article, reliability is less a problem than notability. If the copy at http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/luna/esp_luna_6.htm is a true copy is not improbable, but not sure. It would be much better to dig up a copy of the original source. Maybe a Russian-speaking editor can help out. --Stephan Schulz (talk

) 21:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

If it was genuinely published by the Soviet Academy of Sciences it shouldn't be hard to find; it (and its successors) is one of the world's leading academic institutions. Given that the original paper was published in Soviet times, there will be a copy in the Russian State Library (although probably at their Khimki site rather than Moscow), as it was a copyright library throughout the USSR era. ‑ 

Iridescent

22:07, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

As I understand it, the article was not published by the Academy, but the authors were members of the Academy. Our article Sputnik is very basic - de: Sputnik (Zeitschrift) is much better. The magazine was, apparently mostly addressing foreigners. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:20, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

This [[11]] appears to be a good overview of the political and scientific background to this.

talk

) 22:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Cheers guys. There's a partial archive linked to on the Sputnik page, but it unfortunately doesn't contain July 1970. I'll potter off to

WP:RX

to see if they can help track down the original.

I assume that (for the purposes of including in WP) Jason Colavito's blog is reliable for his opinions, but not for establishing the notability (or weight, I always mix that up) of his opinion? Either way, thanks Irondome for the background information. Bromley86 (talk) 22:39, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi

talk

) 00:49, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's the same Forbidden Knowledge archive. The upside is it's not a translation (that is, the original was published in English, as well as German, Russian and a bunch of other languages). Despite my insistence that the source is unreliable, for WP's purposes, it probably is an accurate transcript of the original. Certainly, it doesn't include mention of minerals that some of the conspiracy sites add (like brass, IIRC). Bromley86 (talk) 09:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

So there I am, websurfing theforbiddenknowledge.com site and enjoying the articles about free energy, and suddenly I run into this... --Guy Macon (talk) 02:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Another

Sinclair ZX Spectrum programmers know, the only thing the TI99/4A was good for was keeping your coffee cup warm. The architecture was crappy and the BASIC was, basically, useless (and slow). --Stephan Schulz (talk

) 09:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

@Stephan Schulz: That is absolutely untrue. Not only did it make a great doorstop, but I managed to scavenge some parts from it to repair my Commodore 64. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:42, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Is World Statesmen.org reliable? I'd initially assumed not, but I have mixed feelings as I've used The Peerage before, and I can see similarities. Bromley86 (talk) 09:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

No. There's zero authority there. Site just copies, without any hesitation or discernment, information from Wikipedia and anywhere else, etc., just to "impress" with quantity, while quality is abysmal. Mewulwe (talk) 22:11, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I need some help with some sources at an AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MacGyver the Lizard. I'm not asking for anyone to vote - that's not why I'm posting here. What I'm concerned about is that the sourcing is ultimately too weak to establish notability for this animal on social media. The non-primary sources in the article are either from a very narrow window of time (a 2-3 month period) or they're in places that are kind of dubious as far as Wikipedia is concerned. For example, the article relies on coverage from the Daily Mail and Vice to give notability, two sources that are shaky at best on Wikipedia. I know that I don't use them, as they've been known to make mistakes with articles, as their goal is more sensationalism and clicks than reporting the news. (Doesn't mean that I don't read both of them, but they're not really the best reliable sources.

Here's a rundown of the sourcing in the article at present, which I'm clipping from the AfD. On the AfD there's an argument that the sourcing should be enough and that one of the sources, Petcha, should be seen as reliable since an e-mail resulted in the person being told that they have an editorial staff - despite there being no mention of this on the website and the site apparently accepting user content.

I just want to know some feedback on this - I know that this isn't a place for notability, but I do have to question whether or not this is ultimately enough and whether or not some of the sources are in-depth enough to be considered a non-trivial source. I also have some questions about FuzzFix, as the site doesn't have a lot about their editorial process and their company's about page (30M) seems to focus a lot on internet optimization. I get some pretty strong marketing vibes from them overall.

So what's your guy's take on some of the sources? Some of them are fine and reasonably in-depth, while others are pretty brief and others are kind of questionable as a source as a whole. The notability here is borderline, as the biggest argument against is that the coverage is

According to the official USTA Colorado Facebook page, tennis player and coach Chet Murphy died a few months back at the age of 98. See: https://www.facebook.com/USTAColorado/photos/a.373100369408042.103755.165295046855243/1226993777352026/?type=3&theater Normally Facebook wouldn't be a reliable source, but given there are no other notices of his death on the web and the page is linked to the official organization, is there a consensus that we could have an exception in this case? Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 14:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Generally for a facebook source you would need their verified personal page, rather than a third party. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I agree that would normally be the case. However, the same Facebook page is linked from the organization's website here: http://www.colorado.usta.com/cta/about_us/about_us_landing_page/?intloc=headernav Thoughts? --Jkaharper (talk) 15:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Just off the top of my head, I'd say that the official website linking to it as the apparently official Facebook page is enough. I'm not going to argue the case if anyone disagrees, but that seems pretty clear cut to me. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:44, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I had a look at the Colorado page earlier and didnt spot that (I think I was bypassing the main page) so concur with Mjolnir - that works for me. It will probably also show up on the main colorado USTA news section soon enough anyway, which would be a better link to replace the facebook one with then. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Reliable for the time being. We can replace the Facebook reference once it is published in a RS. Meatsgains (talk) 01:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Is being presented as a reliable source that historical figures were overtly homosexual.

An interesting life, yes; and colorful; but worthy of a 300-page biography, so admirably and painstakingly researched in all its available details, given that Stewart was historically only a minor figure and his few efforts as a “spectacularly ungifted” (36) author of (semi-autobiographical) fiction are risible in terms of their literary value? Not really: the reader soon realizes that the true value of Stewart, beyond an example of historical queerness rescued from the misrepresentations of earlier prudish biographers and a thematic impetus for many of Alfred Jacob Miller’s paintings, is serving as a thematic kingpin for Benemann’s lush, vivid overture of that part of 19th-century America that was still deliciously free and wild—and gay. Following the line of inquiry set in his award-winning 2006 book, Male-Male Intimacy in Early America: Beyond Romantic Friendships, the author-researcher provides a fascinating and detailed set of vistas where homosexual desire was enabled, from New York’s Battery Park (where young Stewart’s boat first landed) to the influx of eager young “counter-jumpers” and such dandies manning the urban commercial boom of America’s East Coast, to the gender-bender performativity necessitated by the male-only trapper camp life, including the role of Native American gender models like the berdashes that introduced to whites the idea of a socially-acceptable queerness. Readers, therefore, should not go into this book expecting a “straight” biography, lest they become frustrated by Benemann’s Melvillean lengthy detours into other lifestyles, historical vistas, or lives of other gay couples in America; as the author himself concludes, the center of the story is not Stewart, but the Rockies: “Stewart’s role in the story of the Rocky Mountains in the early nineteenth century is insignificant when compared to that of William Ashley, William Sublette, Jim Bridger, or Jedediah Smith [celebrities peppering the narrative along with Kit Carson and Jean-Baptiste Charbonneau], yet his story is important because so very little is known about what life was like in America for homosexuals during this period” (303-04).

Does not appear to me to be a reliable source for stating that any "minor figure" was such a notable homosexual.

[12] is an edit by the self-described writer of that book William_Benemann, using his own book as the source for the interesting material.

The query is whether the book by Mr. Benemann is a reliable source by Wikipedia standards? It was published by a university press, but I find no reviews in mainstream media (no mentions at all in NYT, for example) other than the one cited, which appears to be quite dubious of the details about people it states are "minor figures". I posit that a book review of a book is not a reliable source for any claims of fact in any article.

Benemann is a major source for

Mr. Benemann is listed as an "archivist" by profession, and I find no other academic credentials for that person. [13] "Law-library archivist by vocation, independent historical scholar by avocation."

I suggest that while Benemann's work has won a

Wow. Still relentlessly stalking my edits. Sad. Well, everyone needs a hobby, but this is looking like a vendetta.

"I find no reviews in mainstream media"

You're not very good at search are you. However, the ones in peer-reviewed academic journals, including I note - Journal of American History/Western Historical Quarterly/Journal of Scottish Historical Studies/Pacific Historical Review, etc are far more important. None of them appeared to have issue with the author's conclusions after his assessment of the evidence. Nor with his credentials. Engleham (talk) 19:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I came here because an author cited his own work in an article. The author has no academic credentials, and his opinions are at odds with the majority of other biographers of the person. Collect (talk) 22:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, then you came to the wrong place.

WP:COIN is elsewhere. Assuming that you are talking about User:William Benemann, he has not inserted the source in any article, he merely corrected statements already sourced to his book in one single article. In my opinion, it's very good if the foremost expert on that source fixes our usage of it, and we should thank him for it. --Stephan Schulz (talk

) 01:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

(ec)You (Collect) are a bit unclear - is the review used as a source, or the reviewed book? Assuming the later: the University of Nebraska Press is a university press with a strong program in Western American history. The NYT rarely if ever reviews specialised academic texts - I'd be surprised if they ever reviewed the Handbook of Automated Reasoning, a cornerstone of my field. Such a requirement would invalidate most of what are usually considered our best sources. The reviews you link to are both positive. The books has, so far, two references in Google Scholar - the one I can see is an academic journal paper that treats it as factual. I see no particular reason not to accept the book. As for other biographies: Do you know of any that disagree with Benemann, or are they just silent on the topic? It's not really surprising that the question was not raised by many biographers until the very recent past - Don't ask, don't tell was instituted as a major step forward in 1994, and only repealed 6 years ago. And this paper seems to agree that Steward was homosexual, so at least that claim seems to have some support. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

The book was added as a source by the author of the book who has no academic credentials. His opinions do not correspond with the great majority of other biographers. The review states the author holds the opinions, but is not a source for the opinions otherwise. I suggest that a second independent source would be a wise idea here, as the single source by a person with no training in the field may be problematic. With regard to the terms used about Frederick the Great, for example, the author's opinions are at variance with many other authors. Collect (talk) 22:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:RS. And somehow "I cannot find academic credentials" seems to have morphed into "has no academic credentials". What qualification do you think an Archivist at a major law school needs? Moreover, the book is vetted by the publisher, especially in the case of a university press. I took a look at the book, and it does have an impressive collection of sources and footnotes - it looks impeccably researched. I have not read the full book, so I don't know what Benemann writes about Frederik the Great. However, that Frederik was predominantly gay is largely uncontroversial - de:Friedrich_II._(Preußen) has three sources, and Frederick_the_Great cites 5 (none of them Benemann). --Stephan Schulz (talk

) 23:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

The law school states only that he is an "archivist", and assigns no degrees to him at all. To me, that suggests his work was done as a hbby and not as a professional endeavor as such. Collect (talk) 23:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Note that the paper cited above is based on Benemann. That's essentially a circular form of support. Anmccaff (talk) 22:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

It's not "based on Benemann", it cites Benemann and many others. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

No - it says essentially "this is what Benemann says" and makes clear that Benemann's style is

... given that Stewart was historically only a minor figure and his few efforts as a “spectacularly ungifted” (36) author of (semi-autobiographical) fiction are risible in terms of their literary value? Not really: the reader soon realizes that the true value of Stewart, beyond an example of historical queerness rescued from the misrepresentations of earlier prudish biographers and a thematic impetus for many of Alfred Jacob Miller’s paintings, is serving as a thematic kingpin for Benemann’s lush, vivid overture of that part of 19th-century America that was still deliciously free and wild—and gay.

Which suggests that the reviewer finds Benemann's style to be more aimed at the last part than the first. Collect (talk) 23:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we are talking about the same source at the moment. And I don't see how your personal speculation is relevant. Anyways, I've given my opinion. I've seen nothing so far that changes or even challenges it. It's a well-received book by an academic publisher. It is extensively and carefully footnoted, with a massive list of sources. As far as I have checked the book, it does not conflict with other well-received sources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Collect appears to labour under the delusion there is a recognised formal process for qualification as an historian. There isn't. There's an informal process, whereby a person gains an academic grounding in research and methodologies. However, there are many acclaimed historians who lack any such academic qualifications. Work accepted and published by academic presses, which is peer-reviewed prior to publication, indicates the writer is recognised academically as an historian. While republished in a popular edition, Benemann's study was originally published by the University of Nebraska Press. So you may want to take up the issue with them. And your continuing objections to gay history with all the other academic presses as well! Lotsa luck. Engleham (talk) 00:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Delusion that a person who is an historian should actually have academic credentials in History? That a person who writes books on medicine should actually have had courses in medicine? Sorry - the issue is whether such a person should use his own book as a single source about anyone in a biography. Benemann is a "law school archivist". His book is usable for his opinions - but is insufficient to be a single source for claims not made by academic historians who at least have a B.A. Collect (talk) 13:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

The review of the book is a RS for the book. The book is a RS on the subject of the book. The book itself may (or may not) be notable, depending on the notice it has earned, and perhaps that is not much. The author of the book is completely ineligible to edit the Wiki article on the book or the subject, given that the article cites the book and may help to sell copies -- or discourage sales. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 01:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree that its a bad idea for an author to edit an article on one of his own books. However, the author of an academic book is typically a highly qualified expert on the topic of that book, and he is very much invited to edit in his or her area of expertise. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 01:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Scholar.google.com [14] shows almost no scholarly cites for Benemann's works. [15] is Benemann citing Benemann for his own opinions, it seems.

"When Richard Godbeer reads aloud the effusive love letters that men sent to other men in eighteenth-century America, his students wonder if the men were "queer." In this deeply researched and elegantly written book, Godbeer answers with an unemphatic No."

"Yet there is little documentation that unrelated men who felt no emotional intimacy ever shared beds on anything but a temporary basis, and most of what we know about the sleeping arrangements in American inns comes from the writings of European travelers who again and again expressed disgust and outrage at the very idea that they were expected to share a bed with a strange man."

Which show apparently a complete lack of familiarity of Henry Mayhew's works on life in Victorian London. (many references) inns having men, women and children sharing a single bed. In London. Which did not mean the men were gay. Collect (talk) 14:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Your OR straw man has more holes than than a Swiss cheese. First, 18th century is about a century from "Victorian London". Second, lower-class families sharing a private bed (which, by the way still happened a lot later than Victorian times in Europe, and certainly still does in poorer parts of the world today) is very different from upper class European travellers (and European travellers in America in the 18th century would be predominantly upper class) sharing beds with total strangers in public houses. If you want to set your own OR against a book published by a university press, I'd suggest you first get it published by a reliable publisher yourself. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Mayhew is not "original research" on my part. The Oxford Encyclopedia of American Social History makes the same point. [16] ditto. [17] Beds were a luxury on the American frontier. [18] Sharing beds became uncommon in the twentieth century. Routledge Travelers were accustomed to sharing beds. How many more do you need to accept that men sharing a bed while travelling was not associated with homosexuality? [19], on nd on and on. So much for any cavlier dismissal of Mayhew as being my "original research." Collect (talk) 21:06, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not dismissing Mayhew, nor the claim that people shared beds, not the claim that people share beds without being sexually involved one way or the other. What I'm dismissing is your claim that all that somehow adds up to Benemann not being reliable, when none of that conflicts with his text, nor, to a large degree, is even relevant to this discussion. Have you even consciously read the quote you yourself picked from Benemann? Anyways, I think this has gone on far enough. I've made my point. If you think Benemann is wrong, write an academic paper and get it published. If you think he is unreliable, find someone reliable who says so - not someone who says things that in your personal original interpretation seem to you personally to conflict with Benemann. I think we all understand that you don't like the source, but that does not make it unreliable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

It is not for me or you to "know" that Benemann is right or wrong. I suggest that he is, on his own, an insufficient source where he makes claims not made by others skilled in the field. I particularly note his emphasis on sharing beds to indicate that 40%+ of men on the frontier were homosexual (in fact, he appears to assign homosexuality to almost every male on the frontier, as well as to male American Indians in general), and that a Scot who had kilts (fancy dress) was homosexual may be quite overstating any reasonable positions as stated by most historians. I note that "sharing beds" was not considered evidence of homosexuality in that period, and that, as a result, we should ask for additional sources before giving such exposure on Wikipedia to a clearly minority view as though it were undisputed fact. [20] presents a figure of 40,000 known homosexuals in Paris in the 1780s - which would verge on 15% of all grown men there being known homosexuals (population of Paris then totally 600,000 to 650,000, or 325,000 total males of all ages, or 200,000 to 240,000 being over 16). Collect (talk) 10:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• Here is my opinion - in short I agree with everybody. Collect, the book itself is an RS as we define it. Published academically etc etc. There is no reason to exclude the material sourced to the book on reliability grounds alone. On the other hand - this is clearly fringe/unverifiable theory that does not have any sort of wide academic consensus behind it. So it should be treated as such - directly attribute to Benemann and made clear there is not wide acceptance. If there is consensus to include it in the article, the lead is entirely inappropriate and it should be restricted to a brief summary in the prose. Thats 'if'. There is a good argument (which is consistant with how wikipedia deals with new stuff like this) that mentioning it at all absent at least some wider recognition (and thats recognition by peers, not book reviews) would be undue (there is also the problem that when include fringe stuff like this, you spend more time pointing out its not accepted than it deserves). While BLP doesnt apply (as the subject is very much dead) we dont give prominance in biographies at all to single-source claims on controversial material. Alive or dead. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Is there a way to show in live articles only? A lot of those links appear to be discussions, archives etc. Or is that part of the problem? Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Used to was, but they removed that. It would be good to get it back. Guy (Help!) 15:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

You can do a regular site search for "beforeitsnews.com". It's not likely to appear in article content except as a source. Rhoark (talk) 15:55, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

User MER-C recently pointed me to their nice external tool with additional features. [https://wikipediatools.appspot.com/linksearch.jsp?radio=on&wiki=en.wikipedia.org&link=beforeitsnews.com&https=1&ns=0 This search] is limited to mainspace and looks for both HTTP and HTTPS. GermanJoe (talk) 16:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Ha, its being used to source some info on the 9/11 conspiracy pages about David Icke touting his theories. Is a user-generated conspiracy site reliable for basic statements about someone who thinks the world is being run by Reptilians - on an article about conspiracy theories? Its unreliable, but is it reliably unreliable in this case? Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:39, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

The first use I found in an article is in Tim Clemente, where it claims The Guardian is their source, which in turn is sourced to a CNN transcript. So I think Only in death makes a good point here. But yeah, this looks like a job of work, and I agree it should be done. Any site claiming that [http://beforeitsnews.com/health/2016/08/zombie-radiation-fukushimas-poisonous-fallout-eating-entire-chunks-of-peoples-brains-away-reaching-california-coast-2657760.html we're in the early stages of a zombie apocalypse] is pretty much unreliable by definition. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I found it masquerding as NBC in a couple of places. Looks like deliberately obfuscation. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say the site is reliably unreliable. That being said, for certain claims, it's not necessarily reliably wrong. After all, conspiracy theories need to start with a nugget of truth, even if that truth is "Some wacko said something wacko." MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

(

FTN, and guess what the first source in that article is... MjolnirPants Tell me all about it.

16:08, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

See thats what I mean. Its being used in completely fringe loon stuff to report on what fringe loons are doing. Which is what I would expect that sort of website to cover... Like the way I expect the Daily Mail to cover what celebrities are wearing... Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I found it following this thread. Rhoark (talk) 16:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Its also being used as a primary source on a few writer's BLPs who are affliated with the site. From what I can tell they are non-notable and should be AFD'd, if not done by when I have more time later I will get to it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)