Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 214

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

Hi. I want to upload a couple of photos and have official permission to use them. Please could you tell me the email address for OTRS so I can send them the details. Thanks. Myosotis Scorpioides 13:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

@

talk

) 15:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Greetings all. I've been looking at some edit requests, particularly those stuck in the backlog

It's doubtful that Upworthy would be considered an RS, but the intended content (factual information about the scope of the charity's operations) can be sourced to the MfA website.Martinlc (talk) 10:05, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

No. It's a well-known clickbait outfit, and also mostly a news aggregator to boot. Cite to the original source of the information instead (depending of course on whether the original source is reliable, due weight, etc.). Neutrality^talk 15:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. On that basis I'll decline the request. Regards Blackmane (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Please see the RfC Template talk:Infobox observatory#Comments on RfC: Satisfy verifiability related RfC? Jc3s5h (talk) 12:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

An established editor with a track record of productive edits[4] recently created Diccionario enciclopédico hispano-americano de literatura, ciencias y artes and started putting links to it in various articles.[5]Is it a reliable source, or is this spam? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd say it's unlikely to spam as the encyclopedia in question was only published during the 1880s and is archived at HathiTrust, so there would not be much point/benefit in "spamming" it. It's also obviously notable, there are two high-quality RS in the article that testify to that. Most of the links appear to be references, so I guess the question is whether its too old a source to be used as a reference in the linked articles, or if there are better sources might be used instead. This is basically akin to using an 1880s Britannica as a reference, which I've seen done but is probably not ideal in most cases. Looking at the links I don't see an obvious or specific problem in how it's been used so far though. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ?? It was created and then wikilinked from articles that already mentioned it. For the couple instances where it's used as a source, it was already used as a source -- it's just wikilinked now (the article creator looks to have added it to only those articles he/she created, along with many other sources). As whether it's notable is a separate question from whether it's spam or a reliable source, I'm unclear why this raised any red flags. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

In this paper, a previously unknown government decree from Luxembourg in French (1951) has been scanned and published, on page 17, with a translation to English on pages 18 & 19. The decree contains the full text of a summary published in the Luxembourg Government's gazette here (page 1135).

The decree has been cited in the article Prince Bernadotte as a source on specific information about two different coats of arms issued to certain persons named in it.

This article text and sourcing (besides a lot of personal stuff) is what the discussion on that article's talk page has been about (here). This was added, but the text was removed anyway.

Please help us determine whether or not the decree can be cited in the context it was. I may very well have been wrong it citing it that way, but more neutral input is needed. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

The site is obviously not a RS, self-published genealogy-type sites like that are notoriously unreliable. I wouldn't used anything that it is written/posted somewhere like that as a reference at all. The gazette source looks like it might be ok though. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! I fully agree with you about self-published genealogical sites and have done a lot work cleaning up that kind of inappropriate sourcing over the years. In this case, though, what is posted there in full is a paper published with a Swedish ISBN number and included in the collections at the

Kungliga biblioteket

as well as other reputable libraries. That's why I (wrongly?) felt safe in using it. Could that make a differece?

The paper has also bee posted here . --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:05, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the fact that it's held/catalogued in specific libraries makes it reliable. Libraries buy and catalog all kinds of things, especially stuff relating to local/national history, but that doesn't mean that the sources are high-quality: only that the library thinks it's something people might be interested in reading. In this case, the source appears to be self-published by a club rather than an actual publishing house, and to have been authored by someone who is primarily a film and cabaret director. I will leave it to others to chime in here but I would still not call this a reliable source. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

That is exactly what we others have said too, as you can see in the discussion in the article (better keep the discussion there so all involved parts can see it). Best regards, Adville (talk) 19:46, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Added similar view to Fyddlestix as an outside view on the relevant talk page. --Tóraí (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I thank those of you who are neutral for your valuable neutral comments. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Me again. This time, the source in question is http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674987113000868 which argues that the ancient Lake Minchin in the Altiplano occasionally drained into the Pilcomayo River. Now the issue is that it is not entirely clear what the "Lake Minchin" they refer to is - as I noted on the draft I am considering to use it on, there is quite some disagreement on the timing and naming of the various phases of Altiplano paleolakes - the text of the article However, we intend here to continue its usage and, hence, maintain the homage to the original discoverer of the whole system, which includes the northern Titicaca Basin, the southern Poopó-Coipasa-Uyuni Basin and the connecting Desaguadero River Basin (Fig. 1), based on the notion that these water bodies worked and still work as a system. sounds like it does apply to southern Altiplano paleolakes in general and not necessarily to one specific lake cycle. And in this case, it would be worth mentioning on the draft as one prevalent view has it that the Tauca phase lake was the highest south Altiplano lake (--->and would thus be capable of draining into the Pilcomayo). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello please can a senior editor or administrator check the reliability of a particular Salon online newspaper article reference number 58 in the article about public figure ' Sri Chinmoy'? On the Talk page for the article there was a discussion from October 2015 - February 2016 from various editors about whether the article could be counted as reliable but it does not seem to be decided upon by a senior editor. The discussion ends with no-one really able to decide. The article reads like a tabloid, gossip trashy almost pornographic downgrading to religion type article with no balance or dignity. Can it actually provide as a reference for an International encyclopedia especially for an unproven case that never had any legal deals or court cases at all? Your answer would be most appreciated. I feel there needs to be a final overall proper administrative decision. Thank you. 123.100.82.186 (talk) 05:20, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

This is a bit problematic. The article in question is not a straight news story; on the other hand, it is a reference for the testimony in question. We don't really have a rule about using a source which justifies a bland statement but which itself is not the least bit neutral. Mangoe (talk) 12:21, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Pinging Softlavender, who looks to have been engaging with a number of geographically proximal IPs and socks on this article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:12, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

More on point, however, I'd ask if Salon's political bias would affect the accuracy of this story? Possibly? Salon has a pretty good reputation for accuracy, as far as I know, but does also have a reputation for left-leaning political bias that makes it unreliable for facts about certain subjects. I frankly don't know if this would be one of them. It does seem odd that a google search for the woman's name doesn't bring up other reliable sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:16, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for the above feedback. It sounds as if those of you that have looked at the reference article from Salon are not sure if you would clarify it as a good reference because the actual article lacks neutrality. It qute possibly is an approach to the media from a disgruntled ex-follower of Sri Chinmoy or suchlike. If both of you who have responded to my query are not sure if this reference is a reliable one then can either of you or a higher Wikipedia administrator actually make an overall decision about reference 58 so that the banter that gets nowhere on the Talk page of the 'Sri Chinmoy' page supported only by those who are obviously 'haters' of Sri Chinmoy can actually be resolved in a more dignified way?

As it stands the people discussing whether this reference is a worthy one or not on the Talk page only appear when this subject matter is in the air and do nothing productive or 'positive' for the article in the meantime, no editing, nothing other than threatening, yes threatening those editors who may question the source or try to do any editing around it, even if they have very good intelligent reasons for the editing. This article needs help from administrators or senior editors who do not have a particular angle on Sri Chinmoy because right now there are two editors who seem to be protecting the 'controversy' paragraph in a negative rude and obnoxious way and sometimes threatening way who neither, of (as mentioned) have any interest in up-rendering the article in any way, let alone adding to or editing in a neutral way, so No the actual Talk page has turned into a ridiculous ineffective place only for new editors and in actuality any editors from what I have experienced to get squashed almost immediately if they 'go near' the controversial paragraph or so called 'critical' paragraph. The controversial line from ref: 58 is always immediately reverted with no reasons given let alone discussion on the Talk page. Who has the right to do that? If I am in the wrong place for help about this then any help in being directed to some editors who are actually neutral, dignified and intelligent enough to see through what is actually happening on the Talk page and indeed with the editing that would be good because otherwise no proper editors can come forward to do proper editing. Thank you very much for now. 123.100.82.186 (talk) 03:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't get what you mean by no talk page discussion. There seems to have been decent engagement on the talk page Talk:Sri Chinmoy#Do not revert other editors work without legitimate thought out stated reasons and proper discussions on talk page please. You should continue to discuss on the talk page seeking help via standard means of WP:Dispute resolution where necessary (which RSN can be, but ANI is not). As always in any dispute you don't have a right to demand something remains in or out while discussion is ongoing and it's better to discuss rather than worry so much about whether something should remain in or out which discussion is ongoing. Especially when the material appears sourced, has apparently been there for over 2 years [6], there has apparently been a history of sockpuppetry and BLP concerns don't seem to arise. You should also refrain from making accusations that can't be substantiated like accusations of bigotry [7]. Note that wikipedia doesn't operate by "administrative decision" but by WP:Consensus. No one is going to rule on a content dispute for you, anywhere. Nil Einne (talk) 14:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

BTW, it's hardly surprising that someone would be a disgruntled ex-follower if the allegations of what they were required to do are true. Nil Einne (talk) 14:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Nil Einne yes thank you for your feedback. My overall question to begin with was simply and only about whether the Salon article is deemed appropriate by Wikipedia as a reference. Now I understand that the answer is neither yes or no. However to so arrogantly say that it is "hardly surprising that someone would be a disgruntled ex-follower if the allegations of what they were required to do are true", is an utterly rude and inappropriate judgement about a subject matter you know absolutely nothing about and does not belong on a noticeboard like this. Why not just comment on the actual quality of the Salon article reference and the way it is being handled? You crossed the line with your ridiculous posted last BTW comment. More care is needed. 118.93.203.232 (talk) 21:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

In terms of our policies, I'd say Salon is comparable to Fox News in several respects. Some people might argue about the degree or their reputations, but in very broad strokes:

• It has a clear and generally-accepted political position, which doesn't automatically disqualify it (see
  WP:DUE
  weight, and could sometimes require inline citations.
• It maintains a separation between opinion and news reporting. This doesn't mean its reporting is unbiased - what it chooses to report and how it reports it could still be seen as influenced by its political position - but it does mean that...
• Most importantly, regardless of the above, it maintains basic journalistic standards. It has the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy a news source requires; it issues retractions when it needs to issue retractions, and so on.
• The last one means that it generally passes the standard that
  WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims, at least not unless backed up by another source. --Aquillion (talk
  ) 23:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

For some background, there are other (primary) sources from Wolfe himself verifying this information, but third-party secondary sources are preferred yet difficult to come by on this person.  Adrian^[232] 08:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Does not look like a reliable source by my reckoning. Looks like a polemic attack piece. Even a simple fact-check on the seemingly outlandish claim in the source that Wolfe once claimed that solar panels are "draining the sun" is quickly proven to be absolutey wrong by clicking on the link to the tweet and seeing that Wolfe's next tweet in response was "Never even crossed my mind that folks would take the #SolarPower post LITERALLY. Scientism clergy are in an uproar!" So... no, it is most definitely not a reliable source for this kind of claim. SageRad (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Fact is, he did claim that solar panels drain the Sun. He quickly retreated from this view but it is exactly true that he once claimed it to be so. For the claim that he is a Flat Earth Theorist, has he ever denied this to be the case? Ewen (talk) 17:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Apparently he did so in jest, so to claim it was not in jest seems an untruth or at least very questionable. SageRad (talk) 22:25, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

"Whatculture.com" is not remotely a "reliable source" nor does it claim to be one. It is an "entertainment" source including a big wrestling site. (Since then we've grown to cover TV, Gaming, Music, History, Science, Technology, Comics, Sport, and Literature, and become the biggest unofficial Wrestling website in the world.) And I suggest any source which says: He’s also Flat Earther because, of course he f*cking is. is pretty much not usable. Sorry - epic fail for that site. Collect (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure about some of the reasoning here. A website cannot be a reliable source if it covers WWE wrestling? Or entertainment? The site covers a wide range of topics, including science and technology, and has editors for those specific topics. Also, does the tone of reporting on a topic and use of profanity disqualify a source as being reliable?  Adrian^[232] 20:45, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

The tone of the "article" appears not to be of a nature as to convince any reasonable person to place credence in its statements. Your mileage may differ, but I rather suspect my opinion is quite rational about this. Collect (talk) 22:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Rational, maybe, but I find interesting the tone you are using here.  Adrian^[232] 22:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

• A couple of points: Anything written by Wolfe is going to be highly unreliable. He's a well known peddler of BS who has made many highly ridiculous statements in all seriousness. That being said, if he says he was joking about something, then absent any compelling evidence to the contrary, we need to either take his word for it or work real hard on honing our psychic powers. Because without psychic powers, the only insight we have into Wolfe's (or anyone else's) mind is through his (or her) words. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the specific question: Yes, I'm afraid this site is not reliable. The problem isn't that it covers wrestling or entertainment, it's that it's making an extraordinary claim of fact about a real person, with no reputation for fact checking or accuracy, in a flippant way. The article is fine as a source for the opinion of the author about Wolfe. I wouldn't use it for anything beyond that, though. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 02:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed with most of those above -- not a reliable site for this purpose. That's the sort of theory that, if he is a proponent to the extent that it would be due

WP:WEIGHT to include, would probably be covered in multiple reliable sources. I'm not seeing that -- some blogs, forums, etc. I see there's a recording of him talking about relevant stuff on YouTube. I listened to the first two minutes before my brain threatened to walk out on me. From what I can tell, he's trying to highlight aspects of scientific theories to try to poke holes and/or provoke, err, "scientism clergy" and/or "open people's minds" or somesuch. So in that audio clip he's talking about how the curvature of the earth should make it so you can't see something that's X distance away... but you can! Seems like he's trying to undercut the authority of science more than actually argue that the earth is flat (i.e. the earth may be round, but science says it knows more about it than it actually does). ...eh. — Rhododendrites ^talk

\\ 14:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

The problem we are having is that he isn't talked about much in reliable sources at all. He is spokesman for the NutriBullet and was a judge and host on a reality TV show; enough to meet

WP:N, but not much otherwise. His public criticism comes mainly from his large social media following and the ideas he expresses that spread on social media. He has claimed that "...the Earth really is flat" [8] on his Twitter, and spoke on a flat Earth panel as in the video which was posted on YouTube [9] (which contains plenty of dogwhistles at the very least). He's spoken about it enough that a news site thought it was the second most notable aspect of his social media presence: [10]. When it comes to this specific thing it seems to be non-controversial that he holds it and out of all of his views it is among the highest weight. The specific source here may not be reliable for this info, but it is difficult tracking down a source that someone doesn't have some issue with.  Adrian^[232]

00:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, that just means we shouldn't have much to say about the guy. Don't get me wrong, I think everyone in the English-speaking world should know that Wolfe is full of shit. But I don't think it's WP's job to let them know. So if we can't get much info from reliable sources, we shouldn't have much info. I understand the rationale. "Everyone agrees that he's notable, but it's so hard to find strict RS sources that talk about him, maybe we should relax our RS standards a bit so as to allow us to write about it." It makes sense, except that it presupposes that stub articles are bad articles. They aren't. If all we can write is a stub, then all he gets is a stub. Hell, that'd probably bother him more than an article that calls him a flat-earther. I least I hope it will... ;) MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Just wanted to double check this one, because inevitably someone will bring up in AfD that "it's just a fan blog", when the website is now published by Time Inc.--Prisencolin (talk) 16:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Its disclaimer is what counts. It is a blog site open to posts by fans, " Taking matters into their own hands, they launched Arrowhead Addict, a move that would spawn the creation of FanSided in 2009, a network of over 300+ fan-powered unique sports, entertainment and lifestyle sites dedicated to team-specific, sport-specific, genre-specific, and fanbase-specific coverage." The material is not under editorial control of Time, Inc.

FanSided editors are given full editorial control of their very own team sites. They’re eligible for our competitive revenue sharing program and a myriad of other perks. Whether you are looking to make a little extra money covering your favorite teams or you want a career in sports, FanSided is where you want to be.

Sorry - it appears there is no central editorial control, and it is a social media site. Collect (talk) 17:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

According to the about page, it does have an editing team aside from contributors. Perhaps they do have at least some editorial control?--Prisencolin (talk) 00:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

They have something they call an editorial staff, but it looks like these guys are just frequent volunteer contributors to the site. The actual employees of the site seem to be exclusively involved in site maintenance and marketing. If you can show that a particular writer for the site has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, such as by frequent citations to his work from sources whose reliability is not in doubt, then maybe you can worm something in under

WP:SPS. Specifically Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, that does not seem likely to be the case here - these people describe themselves as fans. I'm sure if they were professional journalists (or anything else relevant) they would proudly say so. Someguy1221 (talk

) 02:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Wrong noticeboard. Take this discussion to the article's talk page here. Meatsgains (talk) 02:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

The text being added in this edit is being contested by some editors to be sourced to an unreliable source. The text provides an alternative point of view regarding the genocide and provides necessary balance to the article. The author is Bangladeshi himself and his point of view in this book is contrary to mainstream Bangladeshi point of view. The text is being attributed to the book and author specifically and is not being cited as a fact. The feedback from editors not party to the dispute is appreciated.

Breakdown

• Source:^[1]
• Article:
  1971 Bangladesh genocide
• Content: According to Bangladeshi author, Dr Abdul Mu'min Chowdhury's book, Behind The Myth of Three Million, some of these student dormitories had been turned into arsenals and insurgency training centres and a number of the university teachers had been involved with the secessionist movement and the secessionists were buying arms years before the Army crackdown.

Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

First, Chowdhury's nationality is irrelevant as to whether the source is reliable or not. Second, describing the content of the source as "providing an alternative point of view regarding the genocide" sort of gives the game away, doesn't it? It's crap, not reliable. Originally, the discussion on the talk page was whether the source should be described as "controversial". But then someone noticed, hey, this isn't reliable at all. That someone was User:Worldbruce here. As Worldbruce points out this appears to be a self-published work or one from a vanity press. Chowdhury has no expertise in the subject. There's only one WorldCat library which actually has the book. So yeah, I removed it. Another editor also agreed [11].Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Who is Dr. Chowdhury and why should we care what his opinion is? Furthermore, does Al-Hilal ltd. have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy in the publication of history books? I can't seem to really find out anything about the author - everything online just points to this book. And I also can't really find out much of anything about the publisher. Their website is pretty basic and only talks about magazine publications (assuming I even have the right publisher), and there's really not much in Worldcat from any publisher by that name. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree. This definitely doesn't seem to be reliable. For controversial historical topics, it is best to use peer reviewed publications or (in cases of books), use only highly cited books. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

http://www.millenium.org/, French gaming and eSports website.--Prisencolin (talk) 04:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not able to find the page which contains their editorial policy. But a look around their website seems like it is a community website of gaming enthusiasts. The "news" posts for example do not seem to be conventional bylined articles. I would term this as

WP:USERGENERATED. --Lemongirl942 (talk

) 15:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Concerning sourcing at Spotware: much of the article is sourced to these sites:

• fxstreet.com - cited in many articles - "contact us" lists FXStreet / Portaferrissa 7, 1r 2a / Barcelona 08002 / Catalonia - Spain
  • http://www.fxweek.com/fx-week/feature/2281260/best-retail-platform-spotware-systems-ctrader

cTrader is awarded ‘Best Retail Platform 2013’ at the FX Week e-FX awards in New York.

• • http://www.fxstreet.com/news/forex-news/article.aspx?storyid=e3e4c40b-2b17-44e4-8dbb-1aa0254ed009

completed 3402 Type I Audit under the guidance off Deloitte

• financemagnates.com - cited in many articles - "contacts" lists 7 Jabotinsky St., Ramat Gan, Israel with an office in Cyprus
  • http://www.financemagnates.com/forex/technology/ctrader-to-include-netted-and-hedged-accounts-in-single-environment/

Spotware becomes the first e-FX technology firm to offer netted accounts and hedged accounts under a single environment.

• dailyforex.com - cited in nine articles including XM.com - "contact us" lists no physical address
  • C Trader Review
• forexcrunch.com - cited in four articles - "contact us" lists Sant Pere Mes Baix 26, 1o, 4a Barcelona, Catalunya, Spain, 08003
  • cTrader Launches Open API
  • User:Nagle identified this as a blog here.
• forexbrokerz.com - Cited in seven articles including XM.com - "contact us" lists no physical address
  • Spotware Connect: cTrader Opens Up for Third-Party App Developers

What is consensus on general reliability on any of these? And specifically, are FX Week e-FX awards notable in this context? -

Generally, any of these Forex trading websites (and I periodically remove them from trading-related articles I monitor) exist to sell stuff. In support of that purpose, they publish information that they think will keep people on their site. They are not sources of news; in fact most of the information they publish can be found in other, more reliable sources. At best, they can be considered trade publications, but really they aren't even that. ~

talk

) 20:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Just noting related issues are being discussed at

talk

) 00:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for putting these in one place. I looked through all of them, and they seem to exist in a tiny bubble that is never referenced by any outside sources, aside from trivial mentions. Basically, once you clear google search results from self-cites, press releases, and social media, there's nothing left. I looked into the people who run one site, financemagnates, and they appear to be total unknowns. Certainly, if a source is never used by anyone else, there's no way to prove a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, and we can't claim the source is penned by experts if the authors are totally unknown. I feel comfortable saying that none of these are reliable sources. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest that we be very cautious about sourcing in the "forex" area. In the "binary options" area, which is closely related, we've had some of the hardest COI pushing in the history of Wikipedia. See the history of

Banc de Binary at AN/I. The binary options business, which is mostly in Tel Aviv, has been exposed in a 16-part series in the Times of Israel.[12]. A crackdown in Israel seems likely. (The US crackdown happened years ago.) So the hundreds of companies and thousands of people involved are looking for another industry to enter. Forex and binary options are closely associated; they have a joint annual convention and some of the same people are involved in both areas.[13] With the heat on in the binary options business, some firms are moving into the forex area. On Wikipedia, we're now seeing the same tactics on Wikipedia, as Brianhe and Someguy1221 reported. In this area, I'd look for reliable sources at the WSJ/Bloomberg/Fortune/NYT/Economist level. The legit players in foreign exchange are big enough and well known enough to have references at that level. If somebody claims to be a big player and they're not well known in the financial community, it's suspicious. John Nagle (talk

) 03:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Useful resource: the National Futures Association FOREX company background check database. [14] If a company isn't in there, they are not authorized to do FOREX transactions in the US. None of the business names from the latest COI case are showing up in that database. John Nagle (talk) 22:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• None of those sources are reliable sources. They tend to lightly redress the news (available on other sites) and post them. I do not see any indication that they independently do a fact checking. This essentially makes them a blog which is a
  WP:SPS. --Lemongirl942 (talk
  ) 15:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Recently I reverted an attempt to fill in a "citation needed" request with a citation to http://starsunfolded.com/ because, when I examined the site,

• It refers to entries as "posts" suggesting it's someone's private blog
• The website doesn't disclose any sources whatsoever about where the bio information comes from
• The website doesn't disclose any information about itself, editors, or editorial policies
• The domain name uses a Domains by Proxy DNS which anonymizes all information about who operates the site

All of the above suggest that the site is someone's personal self-published project.

A link search reveals that this site is cited in several other articles.

I hesitate to remove those links because the site does have useful bio information about notable people, provided it's trustworthy, but as far as I can tell it's no better than IMDB. ~

I went ahead and removed the citations I found to starsunfolded. ~

talk

) 02:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

This is patent

WP:SPS. Essentially like a wiki, except that only a person (or a few people) are collecting information and posting them. --Lemongirl942 (talk

) 15:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

The article Whitewashing in film uses American tabloid/clickbait websites as "reliable sources" to call Cleopatra a non-white (an anachronistic tag anyway). This is against general academic consensus that Cleopatra was from a heavily inbred Greek family, and also plays into the fringe Afrocentric theories of Egypt and the Jews, per the sources.

The sources to include Cleopatra are not academic, they are four American tabloids making clickbait lists.

First: Huffington Post using evidence cited from the Daily Mail, a notorious British tabloid http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1095043/Sorry-Liz-THIS-real-face-Cleopatra.html

Second: Complex calls Cleopatra a "woman of color", a phrase which didn't exist 100 years ago never mind 2,000 years ago. Probable echoing of Afrocentric meme http://uk.complex.com/pop-culture/2013/04/25-minority-characters-that-hollywood-whitewashed/cleopatra

Third: US News: "The British-American actress (she had dual citizenship) doesn't look even remotely Egyptian or North African. " Not an argument, Cleopatra was Greek. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/06/12/white-actors-portraying-people-of-color-in-hollywood

Fourth: Madame Noire. An ethnocentric website claiming that both the Egyptians and Hebrews were black, both of which are discredited fringe theories. http://madamenoire.com/496138/cast-non-blacks-in-black-roles/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.18.9.247 (talk • contribs)

• There are certainly enough reliable sources that state that Cleopatra's ancestry was almost entirely Greek. So I have to agree that the casting of Elizabeth Taylor in the movie is not an example of "whitewashing". I would remove it from the list. Blueboar (talk) 18:07, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Cleo's lineage is fairly well-established, and she was not especially "Egyptian", so, unless someone manages to find it wrong, she was probably olive-skinned at most, and probably not with violet eyes. Meanwhile - clickbait sites do not meet

The idea has been used by various writers and genealogists to question the purity of Cleopatra's lineage. The main problem as Chris Bennett puts it: "Her mother is not named in any of the classical sources. Her date of birth is several months before Cleopatra V was removed from power. Aside from a comment by Strabo 17.1.11 that Berenice IV was Ptolemy XII's only legitimate daughter, there is no suggestion in any ancient source that Cleopatra VII was illegitimate. Given the threat she posed to the Augustan regime in Rome, and the narrowness with which it was averted, it seems generally and reasonably agreed that this silence is positive evidence that she was legitimate, since there is every opportunity for her to be labelled a bastard if she was not the daughter of Cleopatra V, even if she was in fact the child of an officially recognised second queen. For general comments on the question of whether Ptolemy XII had a second wife, see discussion under Ptolemy XII."

In other words we are ignoring Strabo's comment that Cleopatra was not a legitimate daughter of Ptolemy XII to begin with. And he was her contemporary. Clearly there are gaps in our knowledge of Ptolemaic lineage. I do not know where the idea of an "African" Cleopatra comes from, but the pure Greek/Macedonian lineage of the dynasty is not known for certain. Dimadick (talk) 22:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

• NOTE - Let's not get sidetracked... The question we need to ask isn't whether the historical Cleopatra was primarily of Greek ancestry, but whether it is appropriate to include the Liz Taylor movie in our list of movies that are accused of engaging in "Whitewashing". Blueboar (talk) 23:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, well, real sources, even real pop sources like Smithsonian, will tell you that it's not at all clear what Cleopatra VII looked like to this level of detail, but she was (from the images we have) not a stunner, and definitely not black. In any case the line here between white and non-white is all too often blurry and arguable.

The real issue here is in that phrase "that have been subject to criticism," because most criticism is irrelevant. The fact that this list is sourced almost entirely from newspaper, TV, and online journalism is a big problem: it presents the impression that they are the only ones who care about this and that anyone who isn't just chasing publicity for its own sake doesn't care that much. There's also no sense of how egregious the various cases may or may not be; Breakfast at Tiffany's is painful even to the unenlightened, but fussing about race in Roman/biblical costume dramas, considering the historical/textual liberties taken, is hard to defend. It would be more accurate to say that "of late the media have made a fuss over this, citing as examples" and then quickly bulleting out a list. I got reverted for demanding an academic source, but when it comes down to it, the problem here is notability, not so much reliability. When the popular media are the primary source for accusations, is the controversy real or manufactured? Surely there are better sources than this clickbait. Mangoe (talk) 13:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

• The fringe theory that she was black can be referenced directyly to Africentric scholars, no need to use bad websites. Another way is to cite it to F. Royster who describes the theory and attributes it to the afrocentric movement.[15] - Lefkowits also describes and critiques the theory in her book on Afrocentrism. The theory is notable and is mentioned (and rejected) by scholars of Cleopatra as well as scholars of afrocentrism.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

What exactly makes it a "fringe theory"? The title of this section begs the conclusion. I don't see how that's ok. What i read in a brief survey of sources says that Cleopatra's race is not known well but there are indications she was not a white European. What qualifies something to be described as a "fringe theory" and then a question asked about it in that light? Anyway, the question here was whether a specific source is a RS, not what race Cleopatra was, but the way of asking it predetermines a specific conclusion. SageRad (talk) 13:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

We are not trying to reference whether the historical Cleopatra was white or black... We are trying to find a quality reference for the claim that the movie is an example of "whitewashing". Blueboar (talk) 18:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

But why's the section title currently "Are American tabloid clickbait websites reliable sources for the fringe theory that Cleopatra was black"? SageRad (talk) 18:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

What exactly makes it a "fringe theory"? Anything that you believe. Just kidding. But seriously, I know for a fact that you've been linked to an expansive and complete answer to that question many, many times. Perhaps you should click on links your are offered, if -as your question indicates- you have no idea what they say. So go ahead and click on that link now, and read the article. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

What makes this particular theory a "fringe theory"? Do not condescend to me. My question is not about the guideline called "fringe" but rather what determines whether something in particular -- like this idea that Cleopatra may have been black or otherwise not white -- is "fringe" and who determined this to be true, and where and when was that determination made? My question is full import and relevance here, MjolnirPants, and your dismissiveness and condescension do nothing to answer my question. We cannot just have anyone declare something to be "fringe" and then call special rules about how it's treated within Wikipedia. That's a recipe for chaos and degradation of content. SageRad (talk) 14:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Sage, given our history, I'm afraid you're SOL if you want me to not condescend to you. You pretty much guaranteed that I'm going to have to talk down every time we engage each other, because you say things like you just said above. This isn't something I do because I want to, it's just that you seem to be marginally more capable of understanding what I'm saying when I condescend.

You see, the answer to your second question is, actually, the answer I provided to your first question. Any questions you have about the nature of fringe theories can be answered by a thorough reading of that page. Normally, I would not advise anyone to use WP as a direct source of information (although it's a great place to start finding information), but in this case, I've vetted the article for you. It's pretty good. So try reading it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Once again your comment is rude and uncivil. And you still have not ansewered my completely valid question about where and when is it determined that this particular concept is a "fringe" concept and therefore subject to "special rules of evidence"? Because there is not a good reason. It's more like editors saying "I know it when i see it" and that is not acceptable in the world of Wikipedia. You say that i guarantee you to condescend to me by "things like you just said above" -- meaning what exactly? What of what i said makes you need to condescend to me? I call your bluff and i declare your behavior uncivil here. Do not speak to me if you cannot be civil. That is a policy of Wikipedia in case you don't know about it:

WP:CIVILITY. SageRad (talk

) 05:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

• To drag this back on target. 'Whitewashing' is the act of casting white actors as ethnicities other than their own - usually minorities. Black, hispanic etc. Taylor was white, portraying a Greek Egyptian. She was certainly portraying an ethnicity other than her own, but was it whitewashing? Taylor could certainly pass for modern Greek, historical Egyptian-Greek? Who knows given the uncertain knowledge of Cleo's exact looks. The afrocentric Cleo theory is completely fringe and the article is 'Whitewashing in Film' not 'Accusations of Whitewashing in Film', so absent a better source (preferably scholarly) indication it is an example of whitewashing, I'm with Blueboar and it should probably be removed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

• The question was whether a source was reliable or not. I do not think it's established what race or appearance Cleopatra was from this here discussion, nor was that the topic. But the title of this section implies that the questioning of the established idea is "fringe" and therefore i asked whether this is acceptable and where did that conversation happen? We cannot allow assumptions like this to creep in. SageRad (talk) 12:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

• Well since the title seems to bother you and Blueboar has clarified what the actual issue is, I have altered the title to reflect the actual question he wants answered. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Only in death.... glad to say those words for a change. I appreciate that, because the title of the section indeed was troubling to me due to the assumption that it implied. SageRad (talk) 16:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

• No. They're not RS and secondly they're never original, thus there is a better source somewhere behind them. That source might be usable.

Also, I do wish that Americans, from the nation of Fox News and USA Today, would stop describing the Daily Mail, as "a notorious British tabloid". It's bad, but it's not that bad. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Its not limited to the US. You can dislike the Daily Fail from the UK too. About the only thing you can say these days is that at least they didnt hack people's phones. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

BAM! Y'all could have saved a lot of time by doing a properly constructed search on google books, this literally took me a minute to find. Anyway: you don't need the clickbait articles because there are numerous reliable sources that describe Taylor-as-Cleopatra as whitewashing. Here is another example, which states that "It is not the first time that Hollywood has been accused of "whitewashing" historical figures in ancient history. Elizabeth Taylor played Cleopatra in 1963...." Fyddlestix (talk) 13:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Thats kind of the problem. 'Whitewashing in film' is a list of 'whitewashing in film'. There is no end of sources that indicate Taylor portraying Cleopatra is whitewashing. The book ref you posted is indicative of the issue - Cleopatra is often depicted by non-scholars as 'of colour'. So a combination of Black/African Egyptian. When she was actually pretty damn Greek (so Olive-skinned at the darkest). So while its easy to say 'yes these sources say this is whitewashing' the reality is they are based on a faulty premise. It could be solved I suppose if some reliable sources can be found disputing that it was whitewashing and insert that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Your argument appears to be

WP:OR. If a large number of reliable sources call it whitewashing, then it can and should be listed in the article, period. Fyddlestix (talk

) 14:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

To add: a lot of you seem to be under the impression that Cleopatra needs to have been black for this to have been a case of whitewashing, but I don't think that's a valid assumption: the term has a much broader meaning than that (covering, for example, white actors playing Mexicans or Native Americans, or people of any other ethnicity). Cleo doesn't have to have been black or even dark-skinned for this to be a case of whitewashing, just of markedly different ethnicity than Taylor (which she was). Fyddlestix (talk) 14:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I would have to agree with this that if the list inclusion metric is "Below is a list of films that have had their casting criticized as "whitewashing":", and we have RSes (eg books, not clickbait) that state it, despite the fact that separately we know differently, its hard to invalidate its inclusion. What we should be doing, as its OR otherwise, is to find sources that counter the whitewashing statement wrt Cleopatra that points out the arguments above raised about her primarily Greek ancestory and that those calling it "whitewashing" are likely not as well versed on the known history of her. (I note that in trying to search for this counter-source, "liz-taylor-as-cleopatra" seems to be the go-to example of how Hollywood has "consistently" whitewashed Egyptian-based films, so to remove it would go against popular opinion, even if that popular opinion is malformed). --MASEM (t) 14:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Possible better text and sources

I agree that most or all of the popular-media sources cited are either unreliable or, if reliable, of inferior quality to other sources that exist. Fyddlestix is right: there are a bunch of good academic works/works of film criticism that address the topic, and we should cite to those. Because there is pushback on the "white washing" claim, this too should be noted. An example text that I think would read better, and would reflect the high-quality sources, would be:

Some scholars characterize Elizabeth Taylor's depiction of the film's title character, an ancient Egyptian queen, as a form of Hollywood "brown face"^[1] or "racial ventriloquism."^[2] Other scholars, however, note that the historical Cleopatra was part of the Macedonian Greek dynasty that then ruled Egypt, and that "no surviving ancient portrait of Cleopatra gives any indication of her skin color."^[3]

--Neutrality^talk 14:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

It's actually original research for us to prompt the counter-argument based on what scholars have said about her lineage. We actually need something like a scholarly source to point out that the whitewashing claims are wrong. Again, the way the list appears set up, its to list films accused of whitewashing, which doesn't mean that the claims of whitewashing are right or wrong. If we have sources that specifically call out the claims as wrong they absolutely should be included, but we have to watch the OR/SYNTH here. --MASEM (t) 14:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree, certainly, on the need for caution. However, the Lefkowitz source (and others, such as one by the same author here) is a direct respond to the whitewashing claim with respect to the specific film at issue. She doesn't use the specific phrase "white washing," but I don't think that's a problem here. (Hudson doesn't use the phrase, either; he calls it "brown face" but it doesn't require any interpretative step to connect this to the whitewashing phenomenon). Neutrality^talk 14:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

And maybe... just maybe... the whitewashing claims are more right than wrong. This is of course an interpretive question, and it ought to be that we read the universe of available sources and evaluate the lay of the land of opinions by reliable sources on this matter and then report that lay of the land. I find it odd but i feel a "pushing" here to find that it's not whitewashing, as if that's an outcome that many here would love to avoid having written in Wikipedia. I get this sense and i find this odd. Note that i still have a question open as to why it's assumed in the title of this section that the idea that Cleopatra was not white is a "fringe theory". I don't see where that's established as a fact either. SageRad (talk) 14:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I would agree with that. (The whole issue is really not one that's capable of having some sort of "objective Truth" ascertained). I agree that we should briefly survey the lay of the land on the subject and cite to the academics/scholars who have directly commented. This includes both those who characterize the film as being whitewashed and those who have contested this assertion. Neutrality^talk 15:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Unless we have a preponderance of reliable sources claiming that Cleopatra was black, we shouldn't be saying she was black. If there are sufficient RSes documenting that some people think she was black, then we can say that, making sure we don't give it any

WP:UNDUE weight. (Considering the subject of the article, any mention at all might actually be undue, but let's deal with that later, if we have to.) But if the scholarly consensus among historians was that she was Greek, we should absolutely say that (albeit concisely, as that's not the subject of this article). Regardless of what historians say, if the scholarly consensus among cultural anthropologists or film critics is that this film is an example of white-washing, then we should say that. If some notable CAs/critics say that this is not whitewashing, then we should say that some disagree (possible with a "such as so-and-so, who said "blah blah," to illustrate). If it's a hotly debate thing whether this fil represents white-washing, then that's what we should say. As someone else pointed out above (sorry, but I forgot who), there is such a thing as "brownface", "redface" and "yellowface", in addition to blackface. There may be good arguments to be made that Greek people aren't different enough from British-American actresses to consider that in the same category as a blackface performance, but that's not for us to make. We should simply be reporting what the RSes say. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it.

02:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

On the point If some notable CAs/critics say that this is not whitewashing, then we should say that some disagree (possible with a "such as so-and-so, who said "blah blah," to illustrate). I have found for WP that when we say a work is notable for subjective measure X (like whitewashing) (and where it's more than one random person), this implicitly sets out this does not have to be universal opinion that everyone agrees that X applies, and we don't need on this list to include the counter-points. That's on the list page: on the work's page, however, UNDUE should apply, and we should include both arguments for and against X in the proper portion. But further, specifically on the issue of Taylor's Cleopatra, when looking through sources, I see that it often discussed at the key example of whitewashing of Egyptian peoples, so here, outside of the list but in the prose, more discussion is warranted, and there again, like for the work's page, it should include both arguments. In other words, the list doesn't need to flesh out everything but I would expect either on the prose leading the list or on the article on the work a more UNDUE-weighted discussion is presented on whether the work is or isn't whitewashing. --MASEM (t) 02:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

While I agree that better coverage should be given to the article on the film, rather than the list, one of your phrases caught my attention: "whitewashing of Egyptian peoples". Is it possible that the debate is not about Cleopatra VII or the Ptolemaic dynasty in general, but concerns the Ancient Egyptian race controversy which covers the racial classification of all ancient Egyptians? And while there is a lot of debate about that, the main problem is the assumption that Egyptians all looked alike and could easily fit in modern categorization schemes. Dimadick (talk) 20:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I am sure there's elements of that too; I think from just my quick scan of sources that there could be a reasonable section on this Whitewashing article specifically talking about Taylor's casting as Cleopatra and how that has some different opinions if it is true whitewashing or an expectation spread by myth and/or lack of in-depth knowledge. To the point at hand, the number of reliable sources is rather large that there's no need to resort to "clickbait" sites. --MASEM (t) 21:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

...implicitly sets out this does not have to be universal opinion that everyone agrees that X applies, and we don't need on this list to include the counter-points. That's on the list page:...That's fine by me, unless it's very contentious. If it's very contentious (if we can find about as many sources saying it's not whitewashing as saying it is), then we should mention that. Otherwise, just mentioning that "many" have called it whitewashing is enough. If it's a matter of just including it on the list: if there's any significant number of RSes calling it whitewashing, that's enough to include it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm raising this in advance of editing as I'm anticipating controversy. According to this German weekly,

We need the exact use - Focus is a major publication, and claims of fact made by it are generally accepted as being from a "reliable source." The "agent" claim, if made in an opinion column, is only usable as an opinion and cited as such. More to the point, the precise use of "agent" in German has several meanings, and is not always "paid operative" in the "US spy" sense. As so much depends on the exact wording in the source, no one here can make a definitive answer about it being a reliable source as a claim of fact. Collect (talk) 19:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

The labelled as an "agent" claim is actually made by RT English: "Focus had already made similar claims about the former NSA contractor, whistleblower Edward Snowden, whom the magazine labeled a 'Russian agent.'" I'm aware of RT's reliability issues but in this case took the "Russian agent" "label[ing]" at face value given RT's use of quotes. I now think it's more likely that Focus reported Hans-Georg Maaßen's comments about Snowden and RT is mis-attributing the views of Focus' source to Focus. As for Wikileaks, Focus states "Die Whistleblower-Organisation sei seit Jahren von Moskaus Agententruppe unterwandert, heißt es in dem Berliner Regierungsdossier. Analytiker französischer und britischer Nachrichtendienste kämen zum selben Ergebnis. Russlands Präsident Wladimir Putin und Ministerpräsident Dmitri Medwedew seien detailliert über bevorstehende Veröffentlichungen..." which I'd translate as "The whistleblower organization has been infiltrated by agents of Moscow for years, according to the Berlin government dossier. Analysts with French and British intelligence services have come to the same conclusion. Russian President Vladimir Putin and Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev receive detailed information before publication..."--Brian Dell (talk) 21:49, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Which means you might be able to say that:

According to Focus, the Berlin government dossier says that WikiLeaks has been infiltrated by Russian agents.

at most, and not that:

Wikileaks

, which arranged for Snowden's travel to Russia, works for Russian intelligence with Putin being informed "in detail" about every forthcoming WikiLeaks publication in advance.

Do you see the difference? Collect (talk) 12:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

If you think Focus should only be used with attribution then why not say so plainly instead of presuming that perhaps I don't understand the difference between using attribution and not using attribution? I've already acknowledged that the text "Edward Snowden is a 'Russian agent'" would not be appropriate given what I've found. Here's the edit: "In September 2016, the German weekly Focus reported that according to a confidential German government dossier, WikiLeaks had long since been infiltrated by Russian agents aiming to discredit NATO governments. The magazine added that French and British intelligence services had come to the same conclusion and said Russian President Vladimir Putin and Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev receive details about what WikiLeaks publishes before publication. The Focus report followed a New York Times story that suggested that WikiLeaks may be a laundering machine for compromising material about Western countries gathered by Russian spies."

I had rather thought I made that clear in my very first post. The "fact" is about what the dossier appears to state according to Focus, not what RT said Focus said etc. The material about what intelligence services though is opinion at best, not concrete fact, and the NYT article appears to be essentially opinion about WikiLeaks at best. And Focus can not know "as a fact" what Putin knows. Collect (talk) 14:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

And I thought I made it clear in my second post that what RT said can be dismissed. Why does the NYT present its article as news if its mere opinion? Is the Gray Lady not a RS here, in your view? How do you know that the intelligence services are drawing conclusions that are unsupported by facts?--Brian Dell (talk) 04:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Where something is an opinion, the fact the NYT publishes the opinion does not use Hogwarts magic to turn the opinion a claim of fact. And might some intelligence organizations spread information which is not simple fact? Really? Collect (talk) 21:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I asked you a simple Q, Collect: why is the NYT mispresenting an opinion piece as news? Or are you not alleging that? Who's using "Hogwarts magic" here, anyway? Is that what the use of attribution involves? As for intel orgs, sure they might spread info that is not "simple fact". But if German intelligence is engaging in a disinformation campaign, why is an otherwise reliable source like Focus volunteering to act as the campaign soapbox? Should we never report what intelligence services have to say?--Brian Dell (talk) 06:42, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

This appears to be a bit of a red herring. Maybe I've missed something, but I have scoured the Internet and I could find no Focus article labeling Snowden a "Russian agent." The actual source cited by Brian was published by RT, which has been described as "the Kremlin's propaganda outlet" by the Columbia Journalism Review and part of Russia's anti-Western disinformation program by The New York Times. Not reliable. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I have talked about whether the source is reliable for Burma campaign's infobox. Is this source reliable? www.scribd.com/doc/137608610/The-Korean-Provisional-Government-The-War-against-Japan GBCKHQ (talk) 12:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Looks like an undergraduate essay from the note at the bottom of the first page: "Georgetown University, GOVT451, Professor Karber." So not at all, at a glance. But it's pretty well footnoted, so if you can verify the sources they might be suitable. Also, we should try to recruit the author to Wikipedia :-D - David Gerard (talk) 13:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Skylar Lindsay, 'Palestinian fishermen struggle to survive next door to Netanyahu’s palatial suburb,'

It strikes me as a non-controversial piece of reportage by a travel writer mainly quoting local people in the Israeli village of Jisr az-Zarqa. It was published by the Mondoweiss web site.

The argument is, Mondoweiss is a blog and can never be used on Wikipedia, a position which has not been confirmed in the past by third parties examining what had developed into a modern web based news organization, under editorial control, and reflecting a wide variety of reportage and opinion.

On 2 occasions, the objecting editor replaced the source with sources he approves of, without altering the content. I argue that this itself testifies to the impression that the article has reliably reported what the people he interviewed remarked, and therefore can be used for things like villagers commuting for work in Haifa and Tel Aviv, a rather innocuous fact, but, in my view, not likely to be mentioned in multiple sources, given the obscurity of the village. Nishidani (talk) 12:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Mondoweiss is a blog that has been accused by reliable (as wikipedia defines it) sources of publishing anti-semitic material as well as being anti-semitic. And you want to use a piece titled "Palestinian fishermen struggle to survive next door to Netanyahu’s palatial suburb" as a source from a blog with that pedigree? If there are other sources to support the same material in the article from more reliable and less obviously partisan origins, they should be used instead. Failing that, I would remove the material added entirely due to lack of a reliable source. [ninja edit] Hilariously the quite sensible filter at my current location blocks Mondoweiss as a 'political/social advocacy'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I asked for outside comment, not a reflex, for the nth time, 'no, Nishidani'. For any newspaper, article, or website commenting critically on some aspect of Israeli policy you will get a storm of accusations about anti-Semitism, anti-Israel advocacy, etc.etc., that any editor with a mission can then drop onto the newspaper or website's wikipage. Use this criterion and half the historical works issued by Tel Aviv University press would be antisemitic. In normal democracies, opinions are refreshingly diverse, even antagonistic, as is reportage itself etc. Most of the mainstream newspapers we use for the I/P area are partisan. I haven't edited the Mondoweiss page to balance the coatrack of negative comments on it, -I expect an average reader can detect hot air -so I'm requesting outside editors to read the article, compare it to other articles cited on the page, to tell us whether this is informative and uncontroversial. Nishidani (talk) 13:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

What kind of location and what kind of filter blocks "political/social advocacy"? Sounds Orwellian. We do not want Wikipedia to be subject to such filters, for certain. A strive for NPOV but this does not mean blinders. SageRad (talk) 13:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

The reason it matters at all whether something is a "blog" is because its sometimes an indicator of a

WP:COATRACK on the village's page and undue on Netanyahu's page. Bias is not unreliability, so there's no reason to exclude their information about the village itself. Rhoark (talk

) 13:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

The fact they are anti-Israel is not what makes them anti-Semitic. Many people are anti-Israel without being anti-Semitic and using your post as an excuse for anti-Semitism to just allow any anti-Israel piece is wrong. Mondoweiss should not be allowed because they have no credibility, and that is on top of their bias. They are a blog, and should not be allowed. Then again, Nishidani thinks Ma'an News is a reputable source so please take this with a heap of salt. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 15:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Of course it is slef-publsihed. Who do you think publishes it ? It list some unknown "Scott Rot" with a twiiter hande as a "publisher". Epson Salts (talk) 14:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't know who that is, but it's not the author, Skylar Lindsey. The pieces there have to get by the editors, who seem to have solid credentials, so its not self-published. Now, there's the question of whether they have "no credibility". It seems they have quite a lot of credibility with some people, and make some other people very angry. This is what's known as bias. Rhoark (talk) 20:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

You wrote "Mondoweiss is not an SPS" - so presumably you know who the publisher is. Who is it? Epson Salts (talk) 22:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Sources are not required to be *neutral* by policy but they are required to be reliable. The relevant part of WP:V would be

WP:NEWSBLOG) and so yes, it does qualify as a SPS. I cant see the author of the piece is an expert on either economics or pollution that would allow a group blog to be useable except for very basic information. The core of reliability is 'Is this source reliable for the material cited?' Given the author is a writer who lists 'social justice' amongst their topics, who writes for a known activist blog with a dubious history of anti-semitism, and the tone of the article is clearly anti-Israel, I have zero confidence they are portraying an accurate reflection of the situation in the area. Only in death does duty end (talk

) 14:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Mondoweiss seems like a good source, with a point of view. As long as its POV is taken into account -- as with any source on such controversial topics -- it seems to not be a junk or worthless source. SageRad (talk) 14:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

What exactly makes it seem like a good source? Epson Salts (talk) 15:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Your edits to the page answer that. On three occasions (here here and here) you retained the content added from this article, but replaced the source each time with articles you regard as acceptable. Therefore, you do not regard the content of the article you object to as problematical, indeed you corroborate its accuracy by finding alternative sourcing that says the same things.Nishidani (talk) 16:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Do I really have to explain the logical fallacy you are committing there? Alternatively, would you accept Arutz 7 as a source, if I present you with a dozen or so of its reports that were also reported by other relaible sources? Epson Salts (talk) 22:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

If there are uncontested sources for the same information, it should make no difference to anybody. There is no precedent to be made here that would carry into a truly disputed claim. Rhoark (talk) 20:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

That it seems to be written by journalists and edited decently, and well-regarded by many other sources that speak about it. It also appears to have a POV that is not liked by a good many other sources but that doesn't disqualify its use. Many sources can be found who think the New York Times is horribly liberally biased, etc. Allegations of bias are everywhere about so many sources but do not automatically disqualify a source. A source's POV must be taken into account in determining whether it a a very good source or a poor source for any particular claim. Sometimes a claim is about a POV and is attributed as such and then it could be a great source about that. SageRad (talk) 05:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

the author is this particular article is not a journalist , and being "edited decently" is not, as far as I can tell, one of the criteria for determining reliability of a source. Epson Salts (talk) 22:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

1. Maja Daruwala is an advocate practicing in the Delhi High Court and wrote about the Central Sati Act here [16] where she mentions history of action against the practice of Sati.

2. The article concerned is Sati (practice).

3. The content using the source are in the section about sati under the rule of the

At Whole30, this diet is being described as a "fad diet" in the first sentence based on two sources: a listicle in Health, and an article in Business Insider. Neither source refers to the Whole30 as a fad diet in the article itself. The subtitle of the Health listicle is "Take a lesson from this year's diet fads, fitness flubs, and expert-approved movements." The title of the Business Insider article is "Millennials are obsessed with Whole 30, the ‘cultish’ fad diet taking over Instagram and Pinterest." Is there any precedent for using article titles in this way? Safehaven86 (talk) 03:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

This mispresents the situation.. The OP who created the article - see this piece of PROMO editing and compare with current version after i fleshed out the article from the sources that were already there (with one exception that i added) - and actually has the chutzpah to even raise the issue of "NPOV" - is

a) claiming this is not a fad diet when every source used describes its marketing "package" and its kooky food exclusions that are not good for you (the definition of fad diet) and

b) is demanding the exact phrase "fad diet" be used in a source.

Well, even with that demand (which is not supportable by policy) the phrase is used in the title of one article (that goes on at some length describing how it is a fad diet) and it is used in the subtitle of another - the one that calls this one of the worst diets of 2013. This is some pretty serious wikilawyering going on here

here is another ref, that is by a nutritionist and stronger than this bloggy ref used by the OP already. Jytdog (talk) 03:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the source you've added, which appears to be a nutritionist's personal Word Press site, meets

WP:RS standards either. Safehaven86 (talk

) 04:08, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

another from U Penn's Health and Wellness blog. comes out and calls it a "fad diet" too. Jytdog (talk) 04:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Note that

WP:PARITY is at play here. There are zero mentions of this in standard sources about health. no mentions at NHS Choices. No mentions at the NIH, anywhere. no mentions at pubmed. We are out in fringe-y land, so things like a blog from University of Pennsylvania's med school and the blog from the dietician are very much at play here. Jytdog (talk

) 04:13, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

That source says "Develop a weight loss plan that works for you. Make an appointment with one of our primary care physicians and get the support you need for success." It is an advertisement for the University of Pennsylvania medical center. It mentions Whole30 once, here: "It seems like every month, there’s a new 'AMAZING' diet plan. Whole30, The 21 Day Fix, Teatox—the list goes on and on." That's a highly

WP:TRIVIALMENTION that doesn't go into any depth about whether or not the Whole30 is a fad diet. Safehaven86 (talk

) 04:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Safehaven86 as I mentioned both the dietician blog and the UPenn blog are much stronger than this bloggy ref that you used. Jytdog (talk) 04:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

• note, cross posted at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Whole30 Jytdog (talk) 04:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

It's obviously a fad diet and there are sources that point this obvious fact out. Wikipedia needs to say so too per

That's why I've started this thread--to try to establish the appropriate sourcing in this circumstance. Could you please share with me the sourcing you think is strongest? Safehaven86 (talk) 04:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Since it's obvious, pretty much anything will do. What's in the article currently is more than adequate.

talk

) 04:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

This whole obvious thing is a problem. It's very

WP:OR. We need sources to ascertain facts and judgments. Personal reckonings about content are not admissible. SageRad (talk

) 16:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

To the general case, never assume the title or subtitles of an article are reliable regardless of source. They are usually written by different editors trying to capture a reader's attention and may skew the truth. If the fact in a title is not repeated in the source, it shouldn't be included on WP in the prose (though obviously within the reference text its needed). --MASEM (t) 04:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Of course not, Massem. The framing of this as "supported only by the title" is false. Jytdog (talk) 04:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Sure, in this case, plenty of RS prose sources support the fact of "fad diet". Just that the general line that article titles alone should not be considered a reliable piece of information. --MASEM (t) 04:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

On the specific question made at the start - no, they cannot. I recall this issue being discussed a while ago (sorry, can't provide the actual link). It was pointed out that article titles and book titles, and especially tagline subtitles below the main title, are often not decided on by the author of the article, but are derived from an editorial or layout decision and are designed to be eye catching. If there is no actual content in the article or book reproducing the terms or claims used in the title, then these sources should not be cited as sources using those terms or containing those claims. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

But isn't it verifiable - which WP supports above the truth? DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:48, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

The question is about verifiability, and it's whether if a category or label is used only in a title or subtitle, is that enough to be a strong source for that label or category? I think it would depend on specifics, and on a clear and unbiased reading, but generally if a source really means to categorize something, it will do so in the main text as well as in the title. If that's lacking, that is an indication that the source is not very strong for the claim and seems more like grasping at straws or running on fumes, not a solid sourcing. SageRad (talk) 16:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with that, SageRad. Since everyone here seems to be in agreement that article titles and subtitles aren't

WP:RS, I was confused by this edit summary, which says "it is in the freaking title of one of the sources, for pete's sake." My point is that if the Whole30 has been reliably classified as a "fad diet", we should be able to come by better sources than a nutritionist's personal blog, an advertising blog post from a medical clinic, and subtitles of articles. Also agree that the whole "it's obvious because it's obvious" argument isn't helpful. It's clearly not obvious to everyone, hence the discussion. Safehaven86 (talk

) 17:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I also agree. My question above was rather tongue-in-cheek. I think the problem comes when science articles/subjects are reported by popular-science magazines. In my experience, editors do not change the titles of primary research articles, but they may do for journals such as Science or Nature where printing space is more of a concern. DrChrissy (talk) 17:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Gotcha. Do you see sources that you think meet the

WP:RS criteria for describing this diet as a fad diet? Safehaven86 (talk

) 17:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

If that question is directed at me, I'm afraid I am unable to answer this. Others might be able to help. DrChrissy (talk) 17:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

It seems like there may well be an emerging

no deadline. It's frankly a bit disconcerting that editors who don't apparently immediately fall into line behind the self-apppointed Guardians of The Science are assumed to be promotional, unserious, etc. There should certainly be room for discussion among good-faith editors. Safehaven86 (talk

) 17:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree. There should be space and time for good-faith discussion. SageRad (talk) 18:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

• Fad diet. Next. But to answer the question in the title, a source title *by itself* would not necessarily be used to source a statement of fact. When the source title states 'Its a fad diet' and the source goes on to explain why its a fad diet. Its a fad diet. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  • That argument actually makes sense, though it wasn't the one made to me when I was sworn at in an edit summary. That argument was that "fad" was in the article title, so it was sourced. I think the old adage goes, "you catch more flies with honey than with douchebaggery." Safehaven86 (talk) 17:21, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

The first thing I wrote to you on the Talk page, here, was "The content in the body of that article fully supports the label in the title. One doesn't need a quotation for support; we summarize sources in WP." Glad you are finally hearing that. Jytdog (talk) 05:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Headlines in newspapers are written by headline writers whose primary task is to hook readers, As a result, headlines tend to overstate the "interesting bits" of any article, as readers of the Daily Mail can attest, or even readers of The Guardian. Better to find how the "interesting bit" is actually worded in the article than to give credence to the puffed headline. If "fad diet" is in the body of an article as fact, fine. If not, not. Collect (talk) 19:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I want to know if UsaNews is considered a reliable source...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Juniorbeluzzo (talk • contribs)

Do you mean http://www.usnews.com/ ? Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Wait... I get it: USA Today. Seems ok to me for ordinary events and entertainment. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone know if bwf.tournamentsoftware.com is a reliable source? There are enarly 900 links, including things like this abomination: Claudia Rivero (how many links to one site can you get in an article?). Guy (Help!) 10:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can tell from their website, they provide literally no information about where they get their information, or how it is vetted for accuracy. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Interesting commentary from Prof. Ernst on the problem with Chinese studies: http://edzardernst.com/2016/10/data-fabrication-in-china-is-an-open-secret/

A recent survey of clinical trials in China has revealed fraudulent practice on a massive scale, according to a government investigation.

China's food and drug regulator recently carried out a one-year review of clinical trials, concluding that more than 80 percent of clinical data is "fabricated," state media reported.

— Radio Free Asia

That was for reality-based drugs, the problem is worse for quackery. Guy (Help!) 11:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Luckily, the Wikipedia community has been wisely skeptical of such sources - and in general that skepticism is properly reflected in our headline TCM articles - I wonder though how much of this research is lurking, cited, in our content mode widely.

talk

) 11:28, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Is Courthouse News Service a reliable source to cite regarding the lawsuit against Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein? I would like to get a consensus before making any more edits. 173.67.106.134 (talk) 03:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I'd say it is a reliable source for what it produces (legal news in the U.S. state and federal courts). It bears the hallmarks of reliability: a track record (history dates back to the 1990s); editorial control, a professional staff, a separation between news and opinion. The about us page for the service is useful and reflects how it is described by others (the New York Times described it 11 years ago as "a national news wire for lawyers"). A published opinion of the

Bloomberg BNA

— a reliable niche source for legal and professional news.

The

use by other sources is pretty extensive, with citations by the AP, the New York Times (about ~15 or so unique citations, see example, example, example), and the Washington Post (about ~25 or 30 unique citations, see example, example, example

).

Whether it's reliable, of course, is a separate question from whether a particular bit should be included or excluded as a matter of

WP:WEIGHT. Neutrality^talk

04:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Uh, it's reliable, but I'd take it to the article talk page first. IIRC that lawsuit was previously rejected from inclusion in Trump's page due to

WP:WEIGHT. Someguy1221 (talk

) 04:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

It depends on the content you want to support with it and the specific piece from the news service you want to use - no one here can judge whether a source is reliable for any given statement until we see the statement with its source. (i don't know for example if they ever put out opinion pieces). As others have noted, UNDUE will come into play based on whether what it reports has been covered by more mainstream sources. Jytdog (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I can't find anything handily linkable on the problem with sourcing to Forbes - specifically, that they decided to trash their brand by running third-party blogs written by any old blogger under the "Forbes" brandname - they check the blogger is lucid first, but once they're in the stuff is just blog posts. People still can't quite believe that they actually do this and these are just blogs, not editorially-reviewed RSes, and I keep having to point this out. It really doesn't help that they put staff and print articles under forbes.com/blogs too.

(I can't find it now, but I remember an enlightening article from a freelancer who used to contribute to Forbes under her own name, but now makes ten times that ghosting corporate puff pieces that run on a Forbes blog URL.)

The approach I've tended to take is that anything under forbes.com/sites is just a blog, unless it specifically says "Forbes staff" or "From the print edition" (in which case it's Forbes as RS), and if the blogger is notable in the subject area it may be an RS blog.

Am I off base here? How do others approach the Forbes problem? - David Gerard (talk) 09:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Great question. I think it really depends on the individual writer, which means it takes some user discretion on our part. There is obviously some less-than-quality Forbes writing on their current platform, but there is also some stuff that would qualify at the level of print journalism. Perhaps just taking a case-by-case approach is best, and this absolutely requires appropriate community discussion of any problem sources.

talk

) 09:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

The problem I find is when people bring up a blatantly promotional blog post as an RS or evidence of notability, and trying to get across that really, Forbes really is mixing in unedited blogs with its RS coveraage - David Gerard (talk) 10:25, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

There's a few Forbes "contributors" that we at the VG project recognize as reasonably authoritative for their opinion when they post via Forbes, but that we avoid for facts because the pieces are not guaranteed to be reviewed and checked by an editor. Its not that they necessary include bad info, just that usually we can find this from sources we know do have fact checking. --MASEM (t) 14:44, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• WP:NEWSORG covers this. Even reputable organisations publish opinion pieces, which is what these 'blogs' essentially are, and these are not reliable sources for anything other than the opinion of the author. RGloucester — ☎
  15:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
• Yes. There's a
  WP:RS standards. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk
  ) 15:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
• The
  Strongjam (talk
  ) 15:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• I do not completely agree with your characterization. According to the link you posted describing how the Forbes system works, it is clear that there still is a editorial system--one that is not traditionally implemented. Contributors are vetted: “We look at their experience, we look at their credentials and what they’ve done. And we turn many people away.” Also, Forbes editors will review and check content after it is published, and especially if it has been getting more attention, and readers have been known to facilitate fact-checking.
  talk
  ) 16:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Just because they screen their freelancers doesn't mean they're exercising editorial control, and there is no indication on their criteria and how stringent they are. We can't rely on post-hoc fact checking of only articles that get attention, there is no indication that any particular article has actually been fact-checked, and it doesn't instil confidence that readers are the ones finding the errors. —

Strongjam (talk

) 16:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• Per Strongjam and Masem. There are many good writers there who are experts in their field and have been published previously by other organisations, but apart from the base vetting, Forbes does not fact-check or exercise editorial control over content. Its not a newsblog, its essentially a content farm where the writes undergo an initial check. Its entirely down to the writer concerned. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• it depends. Matt Herper is one of the most informed and smartest commentators on biotech in the world. His Forbes pieces are very solid for facts and his opinion about things is relevant. (see here for example - he is up there with Andrew Pollack of the NYT) He is a senior editor there; maybe we can draw a distinction based on their title at Forbes. Per the CJR piece linked above, Forbest has 125 editorial staff, 1,400 contributors. and 250‑300 posts per day Jytdog (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2016 (UTC) (stupid me Jytdog (talk) 03:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC))
  • He's staff, and Forbes' staff writings, unless specifically called out as editorial, should be taken as RSes as their print magazine would. I believe we're focused on this section on Forbes contributors (eg labelled as such: [17] ) which do not enjoy editorial oversight per what CJR has reported. --MASEM (t) 23:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  • You don't seem to have read my post at the start of this section, answering these precise issues: he's "Forbes Staff", therefore not just another Forbes blogger, that being the issue at hand - David Gerard (talk) 09:21, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

You are both correct. My apologies for not reading carefully and wasting your time. Struck and issuing a new comment below. Jytdog (talk) 03:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

• support exact proposal by OP - articles by Forbes staff are RS; blog postings by contributors must be treated as
  WP:SPS. Dead on. Jytdog (talk
  ) 03:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

• Forbes/sites is patent
  WP:SPS stuff. Even if the article is by a "Forbes staff" it is essentially content without any editorial control. These sources should never be used for notability regardless of who the writer is. For verification purposes, I will still be sceptical, unless the author is an indisputable expert in the field. Actually, the model they rely on is "publish first, retract/correct later if required". Quite a few of these Forbes contributions actually do contain mistakes which are not corrected. --Lemongirl942 (talk
  ) 19:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I would appreciate additional attention to the article, where I was reverted twice due to the editor's insistence on using a Wehrmacht reenactment web site as a source for a citation. Please see: Talk:11th_Panzer_Division_(Wehrmacht)#11thpanzer.com. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

The reliability of this source is doubted on the talk page of Talk:Battle of Karbala. Can it be used?

• Elbadri, Rachid (March 2009). Shia Rituals: The Impact Of Shia Rituals On Shia Socio-Political Character (PDF) (Thesis). Naval Postgraduate School.

Thanks. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

It depends on what its for. Per the instructions at the top of this page, please provide the content you want to source from it. It would be helpful to understand why you want to use a weak source like this too. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 07:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog:The source is used to say that "the Battle of Karbala took place within the crisis environment resulting from the succession of Yazid I," a saying which is in accordance with stronger sources such as this one. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the detail and the link to the Talk discussion. It seems that you are trying to make an argument that the

WP:NOT, Wikipedia articles summarize accepted knowledge. As editors, we find accepted knowledge in strong sources. If strong sources say different things, then Wikipedia has to reflect that. Please don't try to make things more certain in Wikipedia than they are in strong sources. Jytdog (talk

) 16:42, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog: Thanks for the comprehensive explanation. I think there's a consensus among the sources that the Second Fitna started with the succession of Yazid. However, my emphasis was on the word "crisis". This world is used by the strong source, too. Can we use the thesis along with the stronger source while we know they're saying almost the same thing? --Mhhossein ^talk 04:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

i get it that by using "crisis" you want to claim that the second fitna started with the succession. that is far too much weight on one word, based on one source. Jytdog (talk) 04:29, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog: No, this is what the brill source says. According to the strong source "Yazīd’s caliphate marked the beginning of the crisis, commonly referred to as fitna." So, this is not just my "claim". --Mhhossein ^talk 13:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Using stronger sources helps generate consensus; using weak sources generates arguments. The thesis is a weak source; there is no reason to use it if there is support in stronger sources. That's my view; others may think differently. Jytdog (talk) 15:29, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Is the following content reliably sourced? Other issues under policy?

On September 26, 2016, The Savage Nation was shut down nationwide while discussing concerns over Hillary Clinton's health and the possibility that she may be taking

-- Jytdog (talk) 20:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

• No.Dan Murphy (talk) 20:13, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

• Individual stations may have pulled the plug, but that is not the same as a "nationwide shutdown" at all. Collect (talk) 23:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
• I don't think any of those are very reliable. Breitbart ran the story first, and all the rest are just re-writes citing that, except for the Catholic Online one, which claims to be news (according to the URL), but rants about censorship and includes such blatantly obvious opinion statements as "Obviously, Savage was sabotaged." MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
• No. None of these are reliable in the slightest. Neutrality^talk 19:12, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
• No - Rewriting Breitbart doesn't make Breitbart-sourced content reliable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:06, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
• No - See Snopes. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 19:42, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I would appreciate another set of eyes on the article where an editor restored removed material stating that the web site is suitable to use as a source. Please see: Talk:Günther_Seeger#Recent edit. Thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

This news article

It depends on context. What material is it being used to source? Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

The article contains a lot of important revelations that will affect several articles. For the time being, I was planning to use the content Addressing Gen Akhtar, the younger Sharif complained that whenever action has been taken against certain groups by civilian authorities, the security establishment has worked behind the scenes to set the arrested free. This would support a claim already made in the Jaish-e-Mohammed article (and contested) where an "unnamed official" was reported to have said similar things. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the correct place to ask because it's not about the veracity of the source, but rather about whether a source should be used in a particular way.

Article: James Herbert

Source: Daily Express 5th Sept 2012: James Herbert: My new thriller about Princess Diana's secret son http://www.express.co.uk/expressyourself/344077/James-Herbert-My-new-thriller-about-Princess-Diana-s-secret-son

Edit: [18]

Discussion:Talk:James_Herbert#Ash_citation

The question is about whether an individual book entry on a list should be accompanied by a citation on the basis "it is the last known interview with the world-renowned author and gives his own opinion on this, his final work." Well, fair enough, I don't have a problem with incorporating significant information into the article and citing the source (and this is indeed done at another place in the article with the same source) but that isn't what it is being used for here. Using the source in this particular way just supports the existence of the book, which is self-citing anyway and the author's entire ouvre is now supported by a citation to the British library. So the question is a very simple one: does the citation benefit the article in the way it is used in the linked edit above? Betty Logan (talk) 02:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Sourcing for books in a list is a separate matter than third-party documentation on the existence of those books. I have to agree here that citing the source in question when mentioning the book in question is not necessary, adds nothing to the article, and is potentially confusing to the reader. The publication data of the book itself are all the sourcing required. If the cited interview has information not presented elsewhere in the text, the editor who wishes to include that cite ought to consider whether that information (apart from that this was Herbert's last book, which is something you ought to get from the list of his books) meets the WP:RS and WP:NOTABLE guidelines. Also, see WP:Potentially unreliable sources for strong cautions about the particular publication in which this source appeared loupgarous (talk) 22:38, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

In examining what seem to be extraordinary claims in a News of Science article cited in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruggero Santilli (2nd nomination):

"2016 FEB 7 (VerticalNews) -- By a News Reporter-Staff News Editor at News of Science -- Thunder Energies Corp (TNRG:OTC) has recently detected invisible entities in our terrestrial environment with the revolutionary Santilli telescope with concave lenses (Trade Mark and patent pending by Thunder Energies). Thunder Energies Corporation has previously presented confirmations of the apparent existence of antimatter galaxies, antimatter asteroids and antimatter cosmic rays detected in preceding tests. In this breaking news, Thunder Energies presents evidence for the existence of Invisible Terrestrial Entities (ITE) of the dark and bright type.

"This is an exciting discovery. We do not know what these entities are; they're completely invisible to our eyes, our binoculars, or traditional Galileo telescopes, but these objects are fully visible in cameras attached to our Santilli telescope," stated Dr. …"

I found that almost identical reports of this extraordinary claim could be found on Business Television, CNN Money, Yahoo! Finance, and YourNewsWire.com, among others. Should we consider these news outlets and the online business press reliable secondary sources of information after this? I ask because only the extraordinary nature of the claim made in these articles drew my attention to this issue. It's plausible that these and other business news outlets routinely add their

is it plausible that an editor at CNN Money or Yahoo! Finance looked at that copy and decided to put their firm's byline on it? Either a "yes" or "no" answer to that points to a major problem with them and other business news sources that routinely use PR Newswire or other online conduits for corporate press releases as sources for information which they they byline locally to have it appear as though this is copy that's been written by a staff writer and reviewed by an editor. If there was editorial review on this story, it failed in what we'd think was a primary journalistic duty to report accurately, and pursue alternate sources of information on extraordinary or implausible claims made by companies on which they report.

I think there ought to be general guidance to editors in

PR Newswire is by definition not reliable; and a regurgitation of content coming from PR Newswire echoed on some other website does not thus become reliable. These websites do not actually put their firms' byline on the content, but merely pass it on as interesting or amusing. You have to distinguish between the internet echo chamber function of websites, and the editorial content to which they lend their name and their prestige. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:45, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Press releases, however published, fall under the rules listed at

WP:ABOUTSELF limits is that the self-published source may not be used to support an "unduly self-serving" or "exceptional claim." Neutrality^talk

01:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

This is why it doesn't appear in any science news outlets. It's also worth noting that the purported publisher of the 'paper' making the claims outlined in this press release is a three-year-old journal owned by deceptive and predatory publisher. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:55, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

phys.org is infamous for doing this with science-based press releases. a bad bad thing. Jytdog (talk) 19:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone, for your comments. The reason I brought this up is that there's an ongoing controversy at

CNN Money and Yahoo! Finance

. I categorized this as 'laundering press releases' in that essay.

When a prima facie extraordinary or implausible claim can be made in a press release, then repeated in what look like independent secondary sources with

bylines and statements (as in the original News of Science report I cited here) that a staff writer and/or editor was responsible for the article - then that source needs to be impeached for systematic dishonesty and placed on WP:Potentially unreliable sources

.

I did that for

WP:RS as the reliability of the business press isn't specifically mentioned there. loupgarous (talk

) 20:35, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I call these recycled press releases or lightly edited press releases and agree 100%. The key differentiator is whether the news agency does any independent reporting - brings something new to the table - or just, well, lightly edits the press release. Yes absolutely. We should consider adding something to RS about this. It is really a question of

independence. Jytdog (talk

) 23:04, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, made a bold edit to RS and started a discussion at

here. Jytdog (talk

) 23:10, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

On July 17, 1979, she had 115 contracts outstanding with a market value of $3.2 million. A 4 or 5 per cent adverse fluctuation, as occurred once or twice a month, in Clinton’s position would have constituted five times her annual income and five times her net worth.[1]

WP:BLPSOURCES does not require magazines with identifiable political leanings to be removed. WP:BIASED "Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking.” One of the co-authors of the article is a former professor of finance at UC Berkeley, so expertise. This isn't highly contentious material, also, just a simple calculation from publicly available material: Hillary’s trading records, the cattle futures market at the time, the Clintons’ salary and net worth from pubic released information. There are lots of RSs saying similar things about the size of her exposure relative to the Clintons net wort at the time. The NR quote that I want to include is only the most detailed and would illustrate the facts best. Newsweek: The editor of the Journal of Futures Markets said in April 1994, "This is like buying ice skates one day and entering the Olympics a day later. She took some extraordinary risks."[2] Yet Mrs. Clinton took surprisingly large positions in cattle futures, earning one-day profits as high as $30,000. Had the market moved the other way, she could have lost huge amounts virtually overnight, according to market specialists. http://articles.latimes.com/1994-03-31/news/mn-40520_1_hillary-clinton another RS talking about the size of hillary’s risk https://books.google.com/books?id=NIIVeirctosC&pg=PA218 She acquired 50 new cattle contracts – worth $1.4 million -- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/stories/wwtr940527.htm NPalgan2 (talk) 05:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

• First, I think it should be noted/acknowledged that in general there are few publications out there that could be expected to be more biased against the Clintons than the National Review. This also appears to be editorial content, which is never a good source for facts in a BLP - especially when printed in a
  WP:BIASED source, and about a contentious topic like this. Finally, you hold up the fact that Victor Niederhoffer is a "former professor of finance at UC Berkeley" as if that made him an expert - but Niederhoffer left Berkeley more than 3 decades ago, and also has a personal stake/bias in this controversy - he lost at least 35 million dollars in 1997 when Refco called in his margin and liquidated his portfolio.[19][20] Refco also features very prominently [21] in the Clinton cattle futures controversy - for allegedly allowing Clinton to hold positions where she had insufficient margin. In other words, Niederhoffer likely has a pretty major axe to grind on this subject. So no, personally I would not use this source in the article at all - and anything that does get used would need to be clearly attributed as Niederhoffer and Baum's personal opinion, possibly while noting Niederhoffer's potential bias about Refco & futures trading more generally. If there are, as you say, other, less-biased sources that say similar things, then you can use them to put that content in the article. Fyddlestix (talk
  ) 13:52, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

• OK, I didn't know that about Niederhoffer. But the article was writen in 1995. Niederhoffer's margin was liquidated in 1997 after he made huge losses that same year. Refco was one of the very largest brokers in the country and many of the people with expert knowledge of the futures markets would have dealt with it in some way. The allegations of favorable treatment were confined to the Springvale office run by Bone. NPalgan2 (talk) 15:49, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Hm touche on the article predating his losses, should have noticed that! I still don't think there's any good need or reason to use such a biased source though - and it should def be attributed if it does get used. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:01, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

OK. NPalgan2 (talk) 16:26, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I need clarification on some issues. The article

The scan is likely copyvio so the link should be removed and replaced with the title & publication info of the book itself. As to whether the book itself is a reliable source - that's hard to evaluate. We'd need some basic info about who wrote and published it, which is hard to get from a scan of a non-english source. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

1. Maja Daruwala is an advocate practicing in the Delhi High Court and wrote about the Central Sati Act here [22] where she mentions history of action against the practice of Sati.

2. The article concerned is Sati (practice).

3. The content using the source are in the section about sati during the rule of the

Bringing this up again since I am still waiting for a reply. JustBeCool (talk) 00:20, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

The references in the article on Microwave volumetric heating seem to exist mostly of press releases by organizations and universities involved in the commercial development of the technique and the company that offers it, AMT. Also, the article tells a lot about why this technique is supposed to be so great, supported by these references, but offers little encyclopaedic content on how it actually works, as I noted on the article's talk page. I am wondering whether the article should be tagged with {{Advert}} or {{External links}} and subsequently rewritten. (Current revision) --IByte (talk) 11:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Another possibility would be to merge it to Dielectric heating#Microwave heating. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Not an academic source this time, but I wonder if

Impressive work on the draft article.To avoid being

WP:OR you need to have RSs that cite Paris' description of the weather disruption and consequences when discussing the famine or the 1257 eruption. NPalgan2 (talk

) 21:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I see that the original team that in 2013 claimed they'd identified the 1257 just had a paper published in nature 10 hours ago. Has their work been accepted in the rest of the research community enough for it to be the subject of an article? NPalgan2 (talk) 21:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

In order:

• The sources in question (which quote Paris) do explicitly cite the 1257 eruption at Samalas/Rinjani. That's why I included them actually.
• Given how widely cited their discovery is in a number of separate sources, journals and the like, and that I haven't seen any rebuttal or criticism so far, I'd say yes.

As an aside, I wonder if that newest paper (http://www.nature.com/articles/srep34868) should be included as well.

talk

) 08:14, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Then there's no issue - you aren't even citing Paris as an RS per se, you're citing RSs who cite Paris, and then maybe quoting Paris in a bit more detail than they do. NPalgan2 (talk) 16:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I was editing the Charlie Clouser article when I noticed that, aside from the cited claim I added, there were only three citations in the article. I removed one of them because it came from IMDB, which certainly isn't reliable. The other two citations (which are still in the article) come from a website called SoundtrackNet. Is this site reliable in any way? Because judging from the layout of the site, it appears very amateurish to me. Should the citations be removed? DarkKnight2149 23:49, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

They seem to have a Wikipedia article at Soundtrack.Net (which is a bit promotional). It's hard to say how reliable the site is. Is the information contributed by other users? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Both citations were originally added here by Blandoon. The user doesn't seem to have contributed to the Soundtrack.Net article, though. DarkKnight2149 16:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I usually let it go if it's trivial. Interviews and track lists are alright, I would think. The site is prominent enough that there'd be an outcry if they faked an interview. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:13, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Is there a policy reason why all lulu.com sources should be deleted on sight? Without per source, or per-use review? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:53, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Do you have examples? Are you talking about books published through Lulu or links starting with lulu.com (like their blog)? clpo13_(talk) 23:57, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

SPS through Lulu.

As an example, edits like this [23] and

cn}} at most, even without the other source). The book in question is written by a competent professional person in the field, even if not personally WP:BLPN, and has been well received outside WP. Through any other publisher, this would never have been challenged. Andy Dingley (talk

) 00:04, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

The removal looks totally appropriate. That entire book series (exclusively published on-demand) looks to be cited by literally no one, and its author appears to have no peer-reviewed publications of any kind. I don't see any way you could argue it is a reliable source for any statement on any article. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Which removal? The removal of the ref (which stands if all lulu sources are implicitly blacklisted), or the removal of the whole statement and the second source? Unsurprisingly this removal was then edit-warred to repeat it, without discussion, and the bizarre justification "The statement [...] does not even need stating, let alone sourcing". Andy Dingley (talk) 00:28, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I didn't even notice at first that a second ref was removed. It seems like neither did Guy. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:34, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Nor did he "notice" that the template was only "unused" because he'd just gone through and removed all the uses of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:39, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

That was obviously deliberate. Would you have rather he delete all links to this unreliable source, then leave the template untouched? It's really irrelevant. Putting aside your specific beef with Guy, do you have any substantive objections to the assumption that Lulu books are unreliable? Someguy1221 (talk) 00:52, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it was obviously deliberate. As was the message at the TfD equally obviously deliberately misleading to other editors. That is not an acceptable way to phrase a deletion request, and Guy ought to know better. I don't have any specific beef with Guy, merely the regular disgust as bad-faith behaviour like this, especially when it comes from an admin.

As to Lulu, then I have yet to see anything good come from blanket editing campaigns. There is no blanket ban on Lulu and I have no reason to consider this specific book to be unreliable. In their absence, I see no reason to start using false nominations to get things deleted. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

The template was used exactly eight times. That is extremely low for a supposed universal authority on railway articles (there are many thousands of articles in this area). Good things do come from blanket editing campaigns. For example, we now no longer have any citations to journals published by OMICS Group or Science Research Publishing. Links to inappropriate sources creep in over time, and while it would be nice if people noticed them at the time and removed them, that doesn't happen nearly enough. The result is that we have large numbers of statements sourced to unreliable sources, and when I find one of these sources that is widely used, I will sometimes set about fixing that. Bog standard Wikignoming. Guy (Help!) 15:49, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

(

WP:ABOUTSELF. Alphabet soup aside, anyone can publish anything through Lulu, so we treat it like every other publisher that does that. Someguy1221 (talk

) 00:04, 12 October 2016 (UTC)