Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 215

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

I am wondering if this website fulfills the criteria for use as a reliable source for entertainment reviews. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so, considering there is only one author publishing his reviews. Meatsgains (talk) 18:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

I prepared a "list of sources" following a claim (here) that the

This resulted in this list of sources of sources used in the article, which I used to remove Politico and Huffington Post sources, because some could view it as unbiased, and replaced them with more other RS sources and reworded language as needed. There were also sources like tabloid news sources removed because they were considered unreliable per RSN. After the audit and updates to the articles using RSN defined reliable sources, the original poster of that (in a series of) NPOV claims did not respond that there was still an NPOV or reliable issue.

In the last few days, a neutrality tag was applied to the article, and a recent discussion (this discussion) seems to indicate that there is a neutrality issues because we are following feedback from the RS noticeboard. I realize that the RSN is a fluid entity. I have said that all future comments will refer to the RSN and not the list.

I also made a posting about LawNewz, I think I had even originally added the content, and found that was not reliable, so I removed the LawNewz content here.

I see the downfall of using it for guidance, people think that there was some ulterior motive in what got added. And, discussions may be too fluid to prepare a list, except for on-the-spot auditing to address POV and reliable source claims.

Would you please comment on this: Is there any reason why we should not be using RSN as a resource to determine whether sources are reliable? Is it inappropriate to find replacement sources based upon RSN postings? --CaroleHenson (talk) 21:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I apologize, I have made some edits to this since posting for clarity. No one has commented yet, so I thought I could sneak in. Done, any further clarification will be noted below.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@

WP:BLPN. Hijiri 88 (聖やや

) 05:18, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Hijiri88, will do!--CaroleHenson (talk) 05:27, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Interested editors are invited to participate in the following

That RFC title is incredibly long, and your citing it makes your second sentence redundant. :P Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:32, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

The diff. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• I'd say remove it in general. (And have done just this.) The sentence relating to him came across a little promotional. This might be because it was him making the edit, but in general it just seemed like a way to make himself seem more legitimate. The source itself is fairly short and not really in-depth enough to where I'd say it's a notable enough comparison to justify inclusion. If multiple outlets wrote about this then that'd be different, plus ideally they'd also show proof of this somehow. I also note that his only other edit was to add his official website to this article back in 2013. He seems to really only be here to promote himself. He's never been warned, but I'm going to give him a short block for this. I'm tempted to make it indefinite given that his only two edits were to add his stuff to Wikipedia - and this latest one seemed to have been done somewhat sneakily by inserting it along with other sourcing. I'm leery about what his future edits will be like.
  (｡◕‿◕｡)
  10:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Whats the policy reason for blocking there? At best you could say its slightly promotional, it was from a reliable source and it was relevant to the topic. People with COI's are not prohibited by policy from editing. Its not 'spamming' - one link in 2013. At most it merits a firm warning to avoide self-promotion. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• He had only two edits, both of which were to add himself to Wikipedia. The first time he didn't add anything of value to the page, he just linked to his real estate business website. I originally was only going to warn him, but there was no reason for him to add his website at all to Wallace Neff, especially since the link goes to his website, which is predominantly concerned with selling people property. He made no other edits except to come back and add his name to an article. Other than the news link there's not really anything to show why he should be essentially quoting himself in an article. There's not a heavy amount of coverage that would justify singling him out for mention on the page. In my experience people coming back twice to only write about and link to themselves (either directly or indirectly) tend to be doing it in order to make themselves seem more legitimate. Now I will say that I only made the block a short one, 48 hours. If it were just one or the other edit I'd have been more understanding, but two edits that dealt with adding himself into Wikipedia seemed a little deliberate.
  (｡◕‿◕｡)
  13:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Does this seem like it perhaps belongs at

WP:COIN rather than here? Just a thought. Safehaven86 (talk

) 16:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

The added text is also a verbatim copy of its scpr.org source, aside from the valid concerns about COI and self-promotional undue weight. GermanJoe (talk) 16:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

The only thing you can say in favour of this edit is that it's less blatant than his only other edit. Guy (Help!) 15:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I was just looking over our mess of an article on

Thoughts? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:38, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

It looks like it's all user-submitted stories with absolutely minimal editorial control (their terms of use talk about stuff like "don't submit NSFW stories", which makes me think that they exert no actual editorial control at all and that stories go live instantly without review.) They fall under

WP:DUE to be used even as an opinion. --Aquillion (talk

) 21:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

[10]

Can we assume they mean USD? Why would it not be AUD? Am I missing something? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:27, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I can't get that video (Warren Rodwell plea) to load correctly, but other sources suggest that in it the hostage specifies USD. Can anyone confirm? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

There's no way in hell I'm watching that video (even if I can get it to load), but even if he did specify USD, then don't we still have a

WP:VNT issue where we know based on a primary source that the secondary source means USD, but the secondary source itself looks like it would mean AUD? Wouldn't subbing in one of the other sources you mention be better? Hijiri 88 (聖やや

) 12:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Given that the primary source is in this case actually embedded within the secondary source being cited, I wouldn't say so. But if you want to cite another source, take your pick: [11][12][13][14][15]. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:16, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

There is a discussion on the talk page of

Depends what you mean by "affiliated", and how they are attributed inline, but in general HELL NO. Nothing published by Chick Publications is a reliable source for anything other than the opinions of their authors and/or the opinions of Chick Publications. Within the Jack Chick article,

WP:UNDUE, but any biographical claims apart from the extremely mundane (Chick is American, Chick is a Christian, Chick doesn't like Roman Catholicism) should be attributable to reliable third-party sources. Hijiri 88 (聖やや

) 01:15, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Shit. I had no idea he died. BLP no longer applies, but everything there that is not attributable to reliable third-party sources should be appropriately attributed directly to its author and mention should be made inline to their publisher if their publisher is Chick Publications. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:17, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

BLP continues to apply to the recently departed for a reasonable period of time per

WP:BDP. There is no hard formula for how long but generally it is understood to be not less than six months and barring something very unusual, not more than two years. -Ad Orientem (talk

) 04:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Quick question: can I use academic working papers like this one as in-line references, or do I need to wait until they've been published in a journal? I have never done this but it could be useful. Thanks.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:48, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Either published, or in some cases if they are cited by others heavily (but this is rare, as they are almost always published at this point). Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

1. Source.Mysterious America: The Ultimate Guide to the Nation's Weirdest Wonders ... By Loren Coleman page; https://books.google.com/books?id=Z2UlKsvrX60C&lpg=PA1&pg=PT270#v=onepage&q=popuessing&f=false

2

3.The dispute; Talk:Jersey_Devil#Origin_of_the_legend

I have included the TP dispute. This source is good imo and the reasons given for why it would not be do not apply to this article and are destructive in my opinion. Any guidance appreciated here, ty.TeeVeeed (talk) 17:02, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

The author is this fellow. The book in question is a typical

folkloristics or history but the user hasn't been able to produce this. :bloodofox: (talk

) 17:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

The source was published by Simon and Schuster and continues to be supported by them. I found this source after the original ref in the article was deleted. The original ref gave this source as a reference, so I used this one to try and amend and appease the deletion of content and sourcing. I'm running into a problem of OR if I go any further here and the noted passage is referenced in multiple other sources, but most use the WP article itself as the source, so I think this would be best here, or maybe the original ref. but I do NOT agree with this folklore stipulation and I again think it is destructive to the article and Wikipedia in generalTeeVeeed (talk) 17:27, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

We don't use flat earth theory works to write our geology articles for the same reason that we don't let cryptoozologists turn our folklore and biology articles into their personal Pokémon databases: Wikipedia simply isn't the place to promote pseudoscience. The project in fact has a variety of policies restricting pseudoscience (for example,

WP:UNDUE

).

Now, if the information is solid, there shouldn't be a problem finding a reliable source for it without resorting to pseudoscience. If it can't be reliably sourced, then it just needs to come out of the article until when and if it can be reliable sourced (

WP:PROVEIT). :bloodofox: (talk

) 17:33, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• Yes (proposing editor)-I think this is a RS. I also believe it is being used in article properly, but I could be wrong about that because at this point it feels like a primary source to me but I've looked at it too much. But even then I think it is good.TeeVeeed (talk) 21:43, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

There's a disagreement at an AfD regarding whether the

Generally they are not reliable as we define them but it varies depending on the newspaper and the type of information needing sourcing. The main problem with student newspapers is the constant churn of staff of unknown experience and/or editorial practice. That's largely irrelevant however, as the MIT newspaper is being used to demonstrate notability of a book/thesis by the (then) Dean of MIT. So it fails the independence criteria for demonstrating notability. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:26, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

The Tech (newspaper) appears to be used as a source about a published book. [16] indicates the book is published by MIT Press which is a reputable publisher of reliable sources. It has been reviewed in major journals (The Hidden Curriculum "will gain recognition as one of the more cogent 'college unrest' books. Its main contention is simple. There exist, Snyder explains, two curriculums governing the university degree. In addition to mastering the substantive one (say, physics or history), a student must cope with its tactical complement, the academic game whereby his appropriate responses to institutional prejudices will best ensure a high letter-grade transcript.... [A] most provocative thesis." —Saturday Review

"...the formal requirements for courses or for success in higher education are often in sharp contrast to what it really takes for a student to complete a course successfully or to be acceptable to peers, faculty, and others.... The central task in studying the 'hidden curriculum' is to learn which patterns of behavior are tribally and/or institutionally sanctioned, and to learn to practice 'selective negligence,' that is, to identify the relevant and simplify the complex. The author calls for a searching dialogue on the disillusionment and gamesmanship that hide behind the specifics of the curriculum."—Library Journal

MIT News states: "Snyder was a professor of psychiatry and psychiatrist-in-chief at MIT from 1959 to 1969; dean of Institute relations from 1969 to 1972; and director for the Division of Study and Research in Education from 1973 to 1986. ... Snyder wrote about students and mental health; his book “The Hidden Curriculum,” published by MIT Press in 1972, was on the culture of MIT and how students cope with overload through selective neglect. The book went through various editions."

other sources include [17], and dozens of other uses in reliable sources. Collect (talk) 14:36, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, so it's really a bit more complicated than my question begins to address. Thanks for your input!

talk

) 17:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• Heads up that the term "hidden curriculum" predates the book, The Hidden Curriculum Your last link is about the former and not the latter. Also Library Journal "reviews" typically aren't reviews but listings, shorter even than Publishers Weekly or Kirkus czar 18:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• This discussion has apparently continued into Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hidden Curriculum so please continue there czar 18:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
• For something to meet GNG it matters if the source is independent or not; it is not only a matter of it being reliable. The discussion is missing that point; the fact that the MIT paper is writing about an MIT dean's book pretty much crosses out "independent", as was noted above. Jytdog (talk) 08:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I would disagree with that analysis. Unless you wish to imply that the editorial stance of the newspaper came under the direction of the academic institution then it can be considered independent. It's not the house magazine of a company; the editors presumably chose to review the book, and the reviewer write about it, without the author of the book exerting influence on those decisions. It is possible that MIT-based writers might overestimate the significance of an MIT publication, making it weaker evidence of notability than another publication, but it shouldn't be rejected out of hand. Martinlc (talk) 08:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I see a lot of debates at Wikipedia over which news sources are reliable and which ones aren't, and usually the debates degenerate quickly into the usual ideological spitting matches. Liberals don't want to include Fox News or Breitbart, conservatives don't want to use MSNBC or CNN. Is there any rule that requires the use of an objective list based on what reputable analysts have determined about reliability? E.g. I remember a Pew Research Group study a few years ago that rated news sources. If Wikipedia doesn't use something like this as an objective litmus test, I think it should. It fits right into the usual requirement that reliable academic sources be used for everything else, so why not use a source like this to determine media reliability? BigGreenCahuna (talk) 04:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

There is an external sources blacklist. And I can't find it right now but, there is or was a request board for removing blacklisted external links.TeeVeeed (talk) 13:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

News reporting from Fox or CNN is reliable for factual content. Opinion content is not generally factually reliable, but it is reliable as a primary source for the opinion of its author. The reliability of a news source comes from its reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Fox News and CNN have such a reputation. Breitbart does not. So Breitbart is not generally a reliable source, except for opinion content. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:32, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Trying to resolve a content dispute at Wives aboard Noah's Ark.

Is the following content reliably sourced?

The Miautso people of China preserved in their traditions the name of Noah's wife as Gaw Bo-lu-en.^[1]

To save you clicking, here is the main page for the book/website cited there.

Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:42, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Not a reliable source, among other things because it states "Moreover, they [Miautso] were in possession of surprisingly accurate recollections of the Creation and the Flood,". Also "preserved in their traditions the name of Noah's wife" doesn´t work in WP:s voice. At all. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:02, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I note that the website uses a text which apparently can be found at [18] as its main source for its claims. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:07, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

"tradition"? "their"? "preserved"? Most north-east and (though to a slightly lesser extent) south-east Asian "traditions" related to biblical figures were invented in the past one or two centuries, and most of the ones I've personally encountered (in Japan, mind you) originate either as hoaxes or romantic, elaborate and bizarre conspiracy theories. The wording of the above sentence implies this is a long-standing tradition that originates with the Hmong people themselves (as opposed to foreign missionaries or random conspiracy-minded individuals), and this is an

WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim that would require an extraordinary source. "ldolphin.org/cooper" doesn't look like such a source. Hijiri 88 (聖やや

) 22:17, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Jesus is buried in Japan, you know. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Obviously not a reliable source, for the reasons explained by the three editors above. Neutrality^talk 00:17, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Is journalisted.com reliable? Specifically, can it be used as an RS for BLPs on journalists? Looks like journalists can sign up and claim a profile but I'm not sure if there is any verification process required. It claims it is "an independent, not-for-profit website" and "is run by the Media Standards Trust, a registered charity set up to foster high standards in news on behalf of the public, and funded by donations from charitable foundations." Any input would be appreciated. Thanks Meatsgains (talk) 22:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

The main problem is on the "about" page, alas.

Find out further information about a particular journalist – such as links to a personal website or wikipedia page and, in some cases, an email address.

shows that issue clearly. It is not a reliable source as such about journalists. But a nice place to look up news articles. Collect (talk) 14:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

@Collect: Thanks! Meatsgains (talk) 16:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

1. Encyclopedia Britannica- Laura Branigan
2. Laura Branigan (This is being discussed on Talk:Laura Branigan (Encylopedia Britannica topic))
3. The issue is that looking over the history of the Encylopedia Britannica is that Born53 swe (aka Stig-Ake Persson) submitted it. I have tried to argue that it is User-generated content, but the name of the site "Encyclopedia Britannica". Please look over the history dropdown on the page and look see they doesn't seem to require proof for changes to article. All they require is second eyes (John M. Cunningham) and thats all to get a rewrite. Please note that the birthdate topic is heated on Laura Branigan article. Devilmanozzy (talk) 20:04, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, there are good sources that imply quite clearly that a 1952 date is a good one... but they only imply it. We as WP editors can't make that inference. But EB editors certainly can. Any interested publisher could. But ... it is trivia that matters to a very few people in the world, and no one is likely to publish this. If EB chooses to take the word of the primary sources, or of the person who secured a birth record, then certainly there is good evidence of the date. I neither support nor oppose EB as an RS, just interested. Shajure (talk) 20:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Although it is clear that EB has altered the birth date following the representations made by

tertiary source. As I've suggested at the article talk page, my view is that we should mention the EB information in the article footnote, but not rely on it in this case. Ghmyrtle (talk

) 12:09, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

New information about the EB edits have come to light. I had a conversation on Twitter with John M. Cunningham, and he confirms that the documentation was why they changed the date. Further he also notes that John was in contact via email with the owner of "http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~nywestch/" and confirms the documentation came from them. So now the reason for the update on EB was given. Devilmanozzy (talk) 16:31, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

What is important from that exchange is that EB regard the information provided by Persson as giving "definitive proof" of his claims (that Branigan was born in 1952), and that, "for now", they are "satisfied [about] the veracity of the [EB] article..." - which now gives the 1952 date. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

And that makes it even more dicey, I think, to use the EB. We don't normally use Ancestry.com as a source. Doug Weller talk 12:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

In this case, it seems that Ancestry were merely the route through which the original documentation was obtained. Ancestry is clearly not reliable for its user-generated content, but much of its content is not in that category - it is simply a republication of unaltered official documentation, as in this case. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

This will be very interesting to follow. Especially two things.. 1. Devilmanozzy, in your Twitter conversation with JC at EB you are mentioning that "The false information affecting Wikipedia's article. This statement from you demands an answer and explanation right here. Which is the false information I have posted? 2. Devilmanozzy, (you again!) "In the age of photoshop, any image can be forged". I demand you to answer this question right here. Which of my images are fabricated in PS? It would be very interesting to know, though I don't know how PS works and I don't even have PS in my computer! If you and other are starting this RSN against me, at least you have to show me and all others which is false and which is fabricated. I don't know, so you better tell me. Your answer will be very interesting. Both for me and for Wikipedia's editors or what it is called. You see Devilmanozzy, this is very much about your reputation as a wiki contributor. Not mine, I am too old having such burdens on my shoulders.--Born53 swe (talk) 14:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Please take the personal squabbling somewhere else, this thread is for discussing the source not for defending your wiki-reputation.

I spent quite a while looking into this - every article, obituary, and biography that I could find (and there were a lot) gave a 1957 birth date. This seems like a pretty clear

WP:NOTTRUTH situation to me, and the modified Britannica article is a major outlier. We should just list the birthdate as 1957. Fyddlestix (talk

) 14:24, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Based especially on the comments amd wp guidelines stated by Doug Weller and Fyddlestix, in addition to my personal skepticism based that this is engineered by someone who is decidedly COI, I agree that using EB to source this article is not acceptable. We must wait for other established reliable sources to publish retractions / statement of erratum / and publish a new birth year.. Fylbecatulous talk 15:08, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Fyddlestix! I hope you stand by your word and never let wiki change anything. I hereby trust in you that ALL changes will be undone by you and that wiki always will have 1957. You see, I love to see all wrongs and I also find it very amusing (Like people from Armonk, Laura's hometown) reading that siblings are sharing the same birth year, 1957. Maybe you should change Billy's birth year to 19xx? Otherwise, Kathleen Branigan must have being exhausted of tiredness having 2 children same year. First in Feb 28 (Billy) and then 4 month later child no 2, Laura. And about DM, though he has been in contact with Encyclopedia Britannica and accused me for lying and PS, isn't it my right to know what it is I have lied and fabricated? And if he and others are starting this RSN, how can I defend myself when I have tried for month knowing what he means? Maybe you can ask him what he means with his accuses? And ask him why is spelling my name wrong, as well. And what is a major outlier? I would think that EB will be more respectful than wikipedia ever will be. So maybe you should stay on the ground and don't fly away on your wiki wings. Remember, when you are gone, EB will always be there. So you will never be compared with them. Even if you think so. And last, which papers, obituaries, articles, etc, have you read? It could be interested to know, though many of them are out of days.--Born53 swe (talk) 15:26, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I can understand your frustration, but please understand that we are obligated to say what the sources do - I made a good faith effort to look this up in multiple databases and publications, and everything said 1957. You're right that EB carries more weight than Wikipedia but a) that's not saying much and b) it isn't enough to make us toss out or ignore the dozens of reliable sources that agree she was born in 57. The most were going to be able to do here is add a note somewhere that says some sources give an earlier birthdate, which is what's in the article right now. I'm happy to see everyone compromise on that but I don't see how the article is ever going to say 1952 up front - too many sources (including some of the most reliable sources that we could hope to find for a bio like this) contradict that. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Once again, "too many sources including some of the "most reliable sources" that we could hope to find for a bio like this". What sources are you talking about? New York Times? NYT are using former AP's Madison Gray's story. And Mr Gray has admitted to me that he wrote this story from Laura's management (wrong) press release. And he also admits that if the press release is wrong, his story is wrong. And Madison Gray's story are published in many papers. So he is out as a reliable source. Boston Globe, Seattle Times are using Madison Gray's and they are also out of date. Mr Gray has told me in an email if I want to have changes done, he can't do it, and he recommends me to contact AP's head office in London. And that has been done as well. So AP is very much aware of their wrong obituary over Laura Branigan. So Fyddlestix, what are your most reliable sources? And don't forget to ask DMy which pictures I have fabricated in PS? And my false information, as well. He must tell me, don't you think? And for me, it would be nice to know which images and false information I shall delete from my research. It would be very embarrassing for wiki if it is things I have received from Laura's former friends, neighbours and classmates in Armonk. --Born53 swe (talk) 21:35, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to say this and leave it at that for now, I engaged John on twitter to find out why, that is all there is to it. I could have kept the answer to myself and not shared it on Wikipedia, but I wanted all the facts on the table. I honestly brought this here to question the reference since it was at the time seen as above the commonly known birthdate and cause I've never heard of Encylopedia Britannica before this came up. To me, I see issues with the reference because they don't explain why they came to that conclusion on the page, and I had to run to the editor's twitter page to get a why. That to me really hurts the overall respect in the information. Even now, I have to assume that a email conversation happened that I can't see. Ultimately, again this is about proof. I really don't like the idea of just "trusting" someone about something, and I'd rather see a third party be the one to arrive to a conclusion that this date is wrong and prove it is wrong. Devilmanozzy (talk) 03:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

@DevilM, why did you write to John and accused me for fabricating images? Right here, I demand you to tell me WHICH images are fabricated in Photoshop!! I don't have PS in my bloody computer. How hard is it to understand? And what kind of false information am I spreading? Answer here so all can read it!! And do you really think I am so stupid that I would show you or others my email conversation during 1.5 year with EB?--Born53 swe (talk) 16:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, since you asked:

You can see why I said EB is an outlier - and this is just a sample, as there are many many more sources that say the same thing. Newspaper searches alone returned close to 600 results. Obviously did not check every last one, but every single one that I've looked at agrees that she was born in 1957. And not just obituaries - older coverage says the same thing. So do all of the feature/magazine articles that I can find. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Just as I thought..Just crap. Most of this is persons I have been in contact with. Several of your so called reliable sources are from one (1) person, Madison Gray. A former AP staff writer. He has admitted in an email conversation that he wrote Laura's obituary from Laura's management press release from August 28, 2004. He never met Laura or her managers, he had the press release. And he also wrote to me "with a wrong press release, his story is also wrong". But he didn't know anything before I contacted him 2015. I agree with you that all wrongs about Laura depends of a setup by Laura herself and Atlantic Records A&R Dept. They had one (1) purpose with this setup, make Laura younger and attractive so Atlantic would make a lot of money of this new star. And this setup would have been the truth if I hadn't started my research spring 2014. With my research I have showed and revealed that Laura wasn't born 1957 in Brewster. It was 1952 in Mount Kisco, at Northern Westchester Hospital. Just like her little brother Billy, born Feb 28, 1957. If you know a better place to publish my research than Pinterest, please give me a note. I would really left Pinterest for something better, but have no clue where to look for it. Can anyone advise me of a webiste?--Born53 swe (talk) 16:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but the NYT, LA Times, and Washington Post can't be dismissed as "just crap" - especially when your reasoning is clear and obvious

original research. Neither can any of the other sources I listed, or any of the many many other sources that also turned up in a search. It really doesn't matter what your own research has shown or who you've talked to. What matters is what the sources say. Fyddlestix (talk

) 13:30, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

The fact that we, as WP editors, now know the process through which EB made the change in Branigan's birth date is irrelevant. They went through their fact checking processes, and have concluded that the 1952 date is reliable. There is no reason for us to question that process - it is not a matter for us. If we want to question EB's fact checking process in general, and so question EB's reliability in all matters, with the implication that it should be removed as a source from all WP articles, that is a different matter, and one for wider discussion than solely between those interested in Branigan's birth date. So, the only issue is whether the existing footnote in our article - which does not mention EB - is sufficient, or whether EB should be mentioned specifically as a source that gives a date other than 1957. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to agree that EB is a RS here. The age-discrepancy now has enough RS actually, (the NY Post article), to have a sentence included in the article in my opinion.TeeVeeed (talk) 15:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Also adding see Diem Brown. The error was caught early and acknowledged/corrected publicly in many RS, but somewhat similar.TeeVeeed (talk) 15:32, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Maybe this is stupid, but I found this from Mrs Cathy Horn on Ancestry Rootsweb. I have nothing to do with this. Laura's SS-no is there if anyone is interested. There are some errors, Manhattan should be Mount Kisco, Westchester County, New York. Laura and Larry were married in 1978, not 1981. Laura Ann Branigan, born 1952, SS no. 093-48-5378, September 29, 1970 Cathy Horn was the New York genealogist who sent me Laura's application in August. So this is what I can provide in sources. I don't know how you will value this link. It is up to you. Maybe this could be the end of calling me a liar and fabricator. This site is running by Ancestry, which I don't use i my research. I am using FamilySearch though my family tree is published there. So, conclusion maybe will be...I was right all the time about late singer "Laura Ann Branigan, SS no. 093-48-5378, September 29, 1970, Application for Account Number (Form SS-5), Social Security Administration, Baltimore, Maryland." Hope this is over now. Greetings from Sweden and--Born53 swe (talk) 17:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

off topic but I'm wondering why she and her husband are not available in the Social Security Death Index Master List? That could have cleared it up in my mind.TeeVeeed (talk) 20:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Laurence R Kruteck United States Social Security Death Index can be found here.. Laurence Kruteck SSDI But no Laura, so far--Born53 swe (talk) 21:17, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

This is so creepy and tiresome that we are engaging in this amount of

WP:Original research here. The Ancestry.com link: [19] itself states (in paraphrase) that if someone is missing, the survivor benefits were probably not applied for or the number was listed incorrectly on the application. Again, Ancestry.com is user generated and there are many errors in my so-called family tree. We are so barking up the wrong tree here. sigh...... Fylbecatulous talk

20:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

It is completely wrong to state baldly that "Ancestry.com is user generated". That is only true of the family tree material contributed by subscribers, which is clearly not a reliable source. But, most of the material available at Ancestry.com is not user-generated in any sense - it is a convenient republication of unaltered (in many cases scanned) original official material such as census forms, social security applications, etc. etc., which is primary source material. It may not be reliable in preparing WP articles because we should not use primary source material, but it is certainly not "user-generated". Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

PS: It's also somewhat misleading to suggest that "we" are engaging in OR here. What has happened is that two individuals have brought their very heated off-wiki argument over Branigan's birth date to this forum, and are taking up a lot of "our" (WP) space in arguing with each other. "We" regular editors have simply tried to reflect established guidelines over reliable sourcing, which at least one of those two finds very difficult to accept. I certainly understand that editors who have not followed this argument find it difficult to understand, let alone care, what all the fuss is about. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:44, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

This makes no sense: not only are you asking us to assume that user-generated content which can't be confirmed or verified is right - you admit that the content contains errors. Something that an amateur genealogist posted on ancestry.com is obviously not a reliable source. All that matters is what

published sources say. Fyddlestix (talk

) 13:30, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Who are you replying to? Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:40, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I was replying to Born53's comment here Fyddlestix (talk) 18:42, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Anent "Published sources" and genealogy, it is widely understood that genealogies published in the late nineteenth century are apt to be erroneous, as they were generally not independently researched, but relied for information on the people paying for the publication. The current standards, while not perfect, do mean that the modern ones published using independent research are generally usable. I also note that Social Security death records have been found to have some errors, and though such are generally considered reliable, when shown to be wrong, the individual records may cease to be reliable. Collect (talk) 14:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

If it was an actual scanned/digitized document or a link to the actual record I'd probably be fine with it. But that's not what this is. It's

user generated - and Born53 has themselves said that it contains errors. Fyddlestix (talk

) 18:42, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

While tertiary sources meet rs, they are not the best sources and best practice is to avoid them. The major complaint I have is that since they do not have footnotes do not form part of the academic discussion in books and articles, that there is no way of determining if their claims are correct when they conflict with other reliable sources. For example, a false claim made about Timothy McVeigh's connection to the Michigan militia was sourced to a contemporaneous newspaper report. A subsequent researcher, citing the original report, found that it was wrong and subsequent reports incorporated the new finding. We cannot do that with sources that do not state where they got their material.

EB and other tertiary sources frequently comes up as in content disputes.

TFD (talk) 22:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

There is a disagreement concerning the inclusion of red-linked names in lists and the need for citing sources in Talk:Académie de la Grande Chaumière#Lists of teachers and students, and related discussions at Talk:Howardian High School#William Grant Murray and Howardian High School and at User talk:Verbcatcher#Lists of teachers and students. These follow an earlier dispute at Talk:Académie Julian#Lists of notable professors and students. Please help us to resolve these issues. Verbcatcher (talk) 14:16, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

No double standards, no dispute--DDupard (talk) 16:19, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

There is a dispute. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:19, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Clarifying: When there are double standards, there are disputes, when no double standard no dispute--DDupard (talk) 23:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

For the record: over 500 references added on this page--DDupard (talk) 05:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

That is misleading. You are linking to a different page. Verbcatcher (talk) 15:04, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Never said it is the same page. Said I added 500 ref on page List of faculty and alumni of the Académie Julian per user request. Now 500 more could be added to this other page Académie de la Grande Chaumière. (not by me though) . What is the question?.--DDupard (talk) 19:15, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I added my comment because users of this noticeboard could have been confused by your link (or by your "no dispute" comment). Your hard work on a different page is of little relevance here. If you think I am trying to impose double standards then please explain precisely how on my talk page. There is still a dispute at Talk:Académie de la Grande Chaumière#Lists of teachers and students, and I am seeking help to resolve it. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:30, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

!!!? No comments, the link above was introduced in the opening statement of this section: Talk:Académie Julian#Lists of notable professors and students, (not by me). Either one adds references, either one continues to fill pages with debates (on and on).--DDupard (talk) 07:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

We still need help to resolve this issue. The discussion above is simply a continuation of the discussion between the main protagonists. We tried a

We have no requirement that any sources must be in English, only that 1) they are of equivalent reliability as compared to English-based sources of the same ilk (such as a major national newspaper), and 2) that we have a reasonably good method of translation of that material for WP inclusion. Ideally, in this case, if you or another editor can read and understand the other languages, that's allowable (perhaps using the quote= in citation templates to help explain the translation). --MASEM (t) 03:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Awesome, I'll work on roughly translating pertinent sections of news articles. I know a few editors who could review those for accuracy, too. Thanks! MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:05, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

The only potential problem would be translated quotes from the sources, not the sources themselves. If you want to include translated excerpts, I would think the translations would need to come from an RS, not from a Wikipedia editor. However, you could paraphrase them in your words without any problem. GBRV (talk) 04:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

In that case, I'll stick with whatever is the least problematic/controversial. The individual and his colleagues (there are like four of them, upon inspection) aren't controversial; they're just federal judges in the 4th largest country and I felt like they're notable enough to warrant articles with basic educational and career info. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Not sure where to post this but just wanted to ask a general question. Can maps be used as a reliable source? How about those from well-established organisations? Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 10 years 17:31, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

The answer is going to depend on which map you're talking about, and what you want to use it as a source for. Can you be more specific? Fyddlestix (talk) 18:45, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

In general, I would say no, maps are not reliable sources. If a statement needs a source, then that source probably should not be a map. One cannot look at a map, see something interesting in that map, and then use the map to support that general observation. I've run into this problem many times, including today at

Kiushan Tao and click on its coordinates; then click on Google Maps; you'll end up in water to the northwest of the island; now click earth view, and you're at the center of the island. Which coordinates are correct? Glrx (talk

) 19:42, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

As always, "is 'x' a reliable source" is the wrong question to ask, it depends on what claim you are sourcing. Is the relevant Ordnance Survey map a reliable source to verify that Maplin Sands is an MOD danger area? Of course. What you might be getting confused with is the related question : is a topic notable if it can only be sourced to maps, which I would say "no". The charity shop at the bottom of my road is marked on maps, but it's not a suitable topic for an encyclopedia. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Good/high quality maps are reliable for basically one thing - their prime purpose - the location of stuff. They are not reliable for names of things (which may be different depending on the mapmaker), notability (different mapmakers consider different things are required on their maps depending on who they are selling/marketed to), or any sort of conclusion based on stuff on the map. You could use an Ordnance Survey map for quite a lot of geographical information (height of hills etc), but its unlikely to tell you the location of all the Little Chef's... Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

For example suppose that a guest (an ordinary man) calls BBC TV program and discusses an issue, Later, BBC puts the link of this phone call in one of it's news items. Can the material discussed in the phone call be inserted in a related article? How? --Mhhossein ^talk 02:51, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Since the BBC is a reliable source, its transcript of what the caller said is reliable. But nothing the caller says can be assumed to be reliable. It is hard to imagine when one would use it. If the caller asked a question of someone important and their reply made news, then it would make sense to say what the question was. But then we would be getting the caller's words from a news report. TFD (talk) 05:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Also note that transcripts of such calls may or may not be accurate as far as spelling and implied punctuation is concerned. This is a well-known problem which plagues many sources based on the spoken words of any person. Collect (talk) 06:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Based on the quality of Warfare History Network, would you say that this article about Oreste Pinto is usable as a source? DS (talk) 17:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

That article contains clearly fictionalized accounts about incidents, as well as factual claims about the person. "Robert Whiter" is not, apparently, a published expert in the field. Pinto wrote "Spy-Catcher" which may or may not be slightly embellished. I would use such fictionalized accounts sparingly. Collect (talk) 06:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

The article Sophie Labelle has been tagged for unreliable sources for the following reason: "Unreliable sources include gayiceland, due to inherent bias, gaystarnews, and gay central valley, etc, all for the same reason." Are these sources reliable in the context of that article? -- haminoon (talk) 07:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Gay Star News looks notable to me. Not sure about the other two.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Notability wouldn't be the issue. I think the idea is that for a work of fiction with LGBT themes, such websites could be considered biased in favor of the subject. ~Mable (chat) 09:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Every source has a bias. Also note, there's a difference between a publisher declaring that its purpose is to focus on a certain topic area, and declaring that its purpose is to promote a certain viewpoint. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

"Gay Iceland" is a tourist information commercial site, alas not RS as a result. Collect (talk) 12:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

The question is too vague. LGBT newspapers may be reliable or unreliable, even some freebie club mags may have perfectly good articles/interviews or be evidence of public impact of her artwork. If there is a specific list of sources which are being challenged, then it would make sense to list them here for feedback, or to do this on the article talk page. --Fæ (talk) 13:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, let's then look at the two sources that are still in the article and that were brought up. Gay Star News is used only once in the article to source the fact that Labelle has created educational materials for Trans Student Educational Resources, which is probably not a controversial statement. An interview between her and Gay Central Valley is used three times in the article: First for the statement that she gives conferences on trans history and transfeminism, which is not a biased statement. Second for a description of the webcomic, which might be better done as a quote, but isn't really point-of-view right now. Third for a direct quote, which is probably accurate. There is no bias to reporting Labelle's intent. Fourth is for the line "She has made educational guides to go with the comics, to make safer spaces for trans youth," which also seems rather factional. All of this seems like fairly neutral content despite the LGBT nature of the source used, so I don't think the brought up issue has much weight to it. ~Mable (chat) 14:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

"Is source X reliable for content Y" is the issue. Sources may be reliable for some material and not others. Some of course are so bad you cannot trust them at all, but I dont think that is the case here. Given your explanation above, I do not see how any of that material is controversial - it appears to be fairly basic statements in an area which you would expect those publications to cover. Even a tourist magazine may be be reliable for 'Person X is appearing at place Y' but would not be reliable for any sort of commentary. (Also I think you meant factual rather than factional). Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Typo - my bad ^_^; Anyway, @BrxBrx: brought up the following points on the talk page of Sophie Labelle, which I think are relevant for this discussion: "sources do not lend an air of notability, as niche sources who are biased in reporting on these niches. (...) On bias, I dont mean bias as in a biased viewpoint, but rather a focus on a very specific, and non-mainstream niche, that would alter the impressions of notability. Also, for biographies of living persons, these sources feel very unrobust, or however you want to put that." Whether this is the case for this specific subject should be discussed there, of course, but I'd like to know what opinions are on this idea. I would personally compare it to how you could not use The Signpost as a source because of its niche subject matter, even though the source may have fine editorial policy. ~Mable (chat) 10:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I've been thinking about improving a stub article with information that I know about, because it happens to be something I studied in college.

My source for the material I wish to submit is a journal that existed in the 1970s and early 1980s. It was considered important reading in the field back then, and was generally highly-regarded as having good standards. You could say this publication was the "paper of record" for the field.

I have actually been in touch with the man who edited the journal. The reason I am posting here is this: the editor told me that he personally took no salary for his editorial work. As the journal was a small niche, its sales were only enough to pay for the printing and other overheads. Now, some people have told me that the fact that he was working pro bono means his journal is barred from Wikipedia as a reliable source. He did paid work on other journals throughout his career, but his work in those publications has nothing to do with the material I want to add.

Unfortunately, there appears to be no other sources on this material, except a few blogs, which I know are not permitted as reliable sources.

I would really appreciate guidance as to the question of whether journal edited by a person working on a pro bono basis can possibly comply with Wikipedia rules. If we assume that the work produced is itself of good quality, and has never been cited as containing a factual error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.171.237.68 (talk • contribs)

Who on earth told you this? Every journal editor I've ever known works as a volunteer. The journal may not be

WP:RS for other reasons, of course. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk

) 16:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

What's the journal? You're not going to get a very useful answer unless you're more specific. But I agree with Boris that the editor being unpaid doesn't in itself rule out using it. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:44, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Agree with above comments -- in fact, depending on who was paying an editor and what they were paying the editor to do, a "bought" editor might be even more suspect! But it would be important that the journal in question not be the only source. If there are sources on your topic to establish

WP:NOTABLE, then quotes from the journal would be OK to illustrate and give supporting details.ch (talk

) 16:07, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

User Ryn78 constantly reintroduces Jenny Gibbons as a source into article Malleus Maleficarum.

This author is used for:

1 In modern times, the book has often been viewed as a typical inquisitorial manual, a perception that many historians have refuted. According to historian Jenny Gibbons: 'in the 1970s, when feminist and Neo-Pagan authors turned their attention to the witch trials, the Malleus Maleficarum (Hammer of Witches) was the only manual readily available in translation. Authors naively assumed that the book painted an accurate picture of how the Inquisition tried witches. Heinrich Kramer, the text's demented author, was held up as a typical inquisitor. His rather stunning sexual preoccupations were presented as the Church's "official" position on witchcraft. Actually the Inquisition immediately rejected the legal procedures Kramer recommended and censured the inquisitor himself just a few years after the Malleus was published. Secular courts, not inquisitorial ones, resorted to the Malleus'.^[1]

2 Jenny Gibbons, a Neo-Pagan and a historian, writes: "Actually the Inquisition immediately rejected the legal procedures Kramer recommended and censured the inquisitor himself just a few years after the Malleus was published. Secular courts, not inquisitorial ones, resorted to the Malleus'.^[1]

Not only is this, in my opinion, nonsense but also this journal is unreliable.

A. Here is a complaint by another user about praised by Ryn78 author Jenny Gibbons (mentioned by Ryn multiple times) [32]. Gibbons bio: [33]. "holder of an MA in Medieval Studies with a focus on the Christian conversion of Western Europe, medieval magick, and The Burning Times"

B. the citation is from a "journal" that is in my opinion unreliable, it is edited by this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chas_S._Clifton without any academic credentials. He is a member of "American Academy of Religion". However, American Academy of Religion among its members has also "... students, and interested lay-people." Furthermore, before 2001 this journal wasn't peer-reviewed at all so basically it was more like a hosting. This source was published there in 1998 as it claims.

Is this source reliable?

--Asterixf2 (talk) 14:45, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Now you're claiming an academic journal isn't reliable? Some journals don't have peer-review due to disagreements in academia about whether a peer-review system does more harm than good by allowing censorship of ideas (there's an ongoing debate about this in academia); but journals always do have a vetting process of some type. They are always considered valid under Wikipedia's rules as far as I know. Stop wasting everyone's time with this never-ending crusade of yours. GBRV (talk) 16:22, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but it simply isn't true that "journals always do have a vetting process of some type," unless

cashing a check counts as a vetting process. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk

) 17:17, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

But there's no evidence this one is a predatory journal. GBRV (talk) 17:32, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

The journal was peer-reviewed after 2004, but earlier issues (under a different editor, and published by a different press) were not. Back then it was published as the "New Journal of Neopagan Thought." So this particular article (from 1998) was not peer-reviewed. At the time this article was published, the journal was under the editorship of Fritz Muntean, who started the journal when he was still a graduate student, and appears to have only ever earned an MA. His biography also lists him as "active in the craft" (whatever that means).

As for Gibbons: She also apparently has an MA in medieval studies (it's unclear where from) but I can't find much else on her. Her online presence is not encouraging: mostly it's limited to different Pagan blogs.

All in all, I'd say that this source should be used with extreme caution. The fact that the journal editor and article writer both only have MAs and was founded by a graduate student is a red flag, as is the fact that the journal seems to have been run by-and-for pagans at this stage. Not saying that in itself is an issue, but it does suggest that this wasn't an "academic" publication as we would normally define it, and should not be given that kind of weight. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

'Active in the craft' = Witch/Wizard/Warlock/Druid etc. People who are pagans do not necessarily claim magical powers. This one does. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:01, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

So you think it's suspect because Pagans founded and write for it, and two of the Pagans "only" have MA degrees? Since when do we disallow Pagan authors, and why is an MA degree suspicious? There's no rule requiring someone has to have a full PhD to be usable as a source. In this case, Gibbons' MA degree is in the right field (medieval studies). GBRV (talk) 23:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, normally we would expect an academic journal to have an editorial board full of PhD's. And not to have been founded by an MA student. And to be peer-reviewed. And not to have an anonymous editorial statement that clearly identifies the journal as a place for pagan practitioners to discuss questions like "Where do we come from, and where are we going? Are we a religion; how do we relate to other religions, and what do we have to contribute to the world of religion in general?". Basically, I'm saying that during the period of time when Gibbons' article was published, that was not an academic journal in the normal sense - it was a publication for pagan practitioners. This isn't something we should be looking to as a reliable source for history. Personally I would give Gibbons' article about the same amount of weight as an MA thesis or an article published in a graduate student journal. Maybe less: the current editor even admits that the journal was effectively self-published and not covered by any major indexes before he took over in 2004. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

And yet, books cited for historical topics are often published by non-academic publishing companies and oftentimes the author is a non-academic. One of the most respected and widely cited historians is Henry Charles Lea, who had no college education at all. His books weren't published by a university, but by a commercial publishing company. But we don't disallow Lea's books. It just seems to me that you're setting an unusually high litmus test in the case of this one journal. GBRV (talk) 03:40, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Henry Charles Lea died in 1909 so I'm not sure that's a valid comparison. While I'm sure he's regarded as a founder of the field and revered as such, obviously there is a lot more recent scholarship that you would go to first if you were sitting down to write about the Inquisition today. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:35, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Almost Off-topic

I advise not to confuse Jenny Gibbons discussed here with Edward Gibbon. --Asterixf2 (talk) 21:21, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Gibbon himself is a very biased source. He often added his own editorial slant in his depiction of historical events. And it tells us more about the concerns of an 18th-century politician than about the Roman Empire. A few months back, I looked for published sources which point out the biases and contradictions in The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. The Wikipedia article on the topic already points out his widely-known misinterpretation of the Byzantine Empire, but this is far from the only inaccuracy in the work. I would suggest using Edward Gibbon and the Shape of History by Charlotte Roberts as a starting point for improving the article.Dimadick (talk) 07:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

On

Rima Ariadaeus, one of many rilles on the surface of the moon, has been claimed on the Internet[by whom?] to be evidence of the splitting of the moon.

Is there any reason that the following would not be an acceptable citation for this?

https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Moon_Split_Images

Fabrickator (talk) 17:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

No, that's not an acceptable source. It's a wiki, so it would fail

Strongjam (talk

) 17:44, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. A reliable,

secondary source reporting on the fact that some people on the Internet claim Rima Ariadaeus is evidence of the moon splitting would be better. In fact, why not reuse reference 5, which already addresses the Internet claims? clpo13_(talk

) 17:50, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Not to be argumentative, but while reference 5 ("kind of" user-generated content, for that matter) has a link to a presumed example of such a claim, the link is dead, and does not seem to be accessible through common archives such as archive.org, so while perhaps this is technically a valid reference, it's not a very satisfying one. Do you see any objection to using the following reference? http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http://www.hoax-slayer.com/moon-split-miracle.shtml&date=2011-05-21 Fabrickator (talk) 19:50, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

That one looks fine to me. The reporting on the site at Hoax Slayer convinces me that the author is a reliable source of information in this field. clpo13_(talk) 20:53, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to ask if Behringer, Wolfgang. "Malleus Maleficarum" is reliable. It is used in an article Malleus Maleficarum.

Author is reliable but this source/citation is in my opinion completely unreliable but used multiple times in an article. It is not known when it was published, what it is, whether it was peer reviewed. I even doubt if it is authentic. It looks like a draft and its theories are in opposition to other writers. It has 7 pages (excluding half-page picture) and is only found on some unofficial if not weird website: http://friedo.szm.com/mm.pdf .

Some users insist fiercely on using it in a controversial Malleus Maleficarum. In my opinion, they should be able to find other reliable sources. There are around 25 serious sources in Bibliography for this article already.

This source is used for the following statements:
1
Jacob Sprenger's name was added as an author beginning in 1519, 33 years after the book's first publication and 24 years after Sprenger's death;^[1] but the veracity of this late addition has been questioned by many historians partly due to the suspicious circumstances of adding him long after his own death^[2] [...] and partly because Sprenger's known views were in many cases the opposite of the views in the Malleus and Sprenger was likewise a bitter and public opponent of Kramer.^[2] In 1490, three years after its publication, the clergy at the University of Cologne condemned the book, although Kramer would claim that several of them had approved it, which they denied.^[3]
2
In 1484 Heinrich Kramer had made one of the first attempts at prosecuting alleged witches in the Tyrol region. It was not a success: he was expelled from the city of Innsbruck and dismissed by the local bishop as "senile and crazy".^[1]
3
In the words of Wolfgang Behringer: "Sprenger had tried to suppress Kramer’s activities in every possible way. He forbade the convents of his province to host him, he forbade Kramer to preach, and even tried to interfere directly in the affairs of Kramer’s Séléstat convent... The same day Sprenger became successor to Jacob Strubach as provincial superior (October 19, 1487), he obtained permission from his general, Joaquino Turriani, to lash out adversus m[agistrum] Henricum Institoris inquisitorem (against Master Heinrich Kramer, inquisitor)." ^[4]
4
The book became the handbook for secular courts throughout Renaissance Europe, but was not used by the Inquisition, which "denied any authority to the Malleus" in the words of historian Wolfgang Behringer.^[5]
5
Wolfgang Behringer argues that Sprenger's name was only added as an author beginning in 1519, thirty-three years after the book was first published and decades after Sprenger's own death.^[1] [...] Many historians have also pointed out that Sprenger's actual views in his confirmed writings are often the opposite of the views in the Malleus, and Sprenger was unlikely to have been a colleague of Kramer since Sprenger in fact banned Kramer from preaching and entering Dominican convents within his jurisdiction, and spoke out against him on many occasions.^[2]
6
The alleged approval from the theologians at Cologne, which Kramer included in the Malleus with a list of names of theologians who he claimed approved the book, has also been questioned by many historians, since In 1490 the clergy at Cologne condemned the book and at least two of the clergy listed by Kramer, Thomas de Scotia and Johann von Wörde, publicly denied having approved the Malleus.^[6]

This is previous version of the article without this source: [34] current version was also cleaned up a little, but it's probable that this source will be pushed to lead section again, like it was done repetitively before, most recently: [35]

Is this source reliable?

You said the author himself is reliable, presumably because he's recognized as an expert in his particular area of research, in which case I think Wikipedia's rules would regard all of his writings to be reliable regardless of what form they take. The rules state that even self-published works from an expert are considered RSs, as in this passage from the rules : "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications." This seems clear enough: even if it's self-published (or otherwise not published thru a third-party publication) it can still be reliable so long as the author is a recognized expert who has published some of his other works in reliable third-party publications. GBRV (talk) 02:32, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

There is no reliable information that it is self-published (that the claimed author wrote it). It is just some PDF from nowhere. Anybody can create a PDF with any name and any contents (even resembling some legitimate publication). This author has many official publications. I have huge doubts about this source, especially because in my opinion it is used for fringe pov pushing. Also I am interested in opinion of uninvolved users. --Asterixf2 (talk) 02:45, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Your "personal doubts" are not what we go by here. Unless there is proof that the author's name was falsely added, you have no business making the accusation out of thin air. I already told you what the rules say, and that's what we go by. GBRV (talk) 02:56, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

As I said, I am interested in opinion of uninvolved users. Source must be proven reliable, but it does not need to be proven unreliable. It's unreliable if wasn't proven reliable. --Asterixf2 (talk) 02:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

If it listed a publisher, you'd claim the publisher's name was forged just as you claim the author's name was forged. If it was on a university website, you'd claim the website was hacked. That's a senseless argument. You're just making up the idea that Behringer didn't actually write it. You don't get to make things up. GBRV (talk) 04:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Don't you have real arguments that you need to use ad hominem or appeal to ridicule? I am not making up anything and your accusations are offensive to me. It is easier to argue against broader statement. It is not on a university website. I didn't say it is not self-published. Simply nothing reliably indicates that it is self-published. Also there are around 25 other sources in the article and this author wouldn't have any problems to get something peer-reviewed and published in a journal. --Asterixf2 (talk) 10:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

You may want to drop a note at the fringe board as well. In general, comments by an expert in the field *if uncontentious* are generally ok to be primary sourced. The *authorship* of one of the most famous/notorious religious documents related to witchcraft is certainly going to be a contentious issue. However if the expert's comments are in line with the prevailing view amongst (other) experts, this is a non starter as other sources should be available for the same material. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

• The document at [ http://friedo.szm.com/mm.pdf ] appears to be the "intro by Wolfgang Behringer" mentioned at [ https://irinametzler.org/2013/10/10/disability-witches-and-the-middle-ages-some-mythbusting/ ]: "I have used a new translation from the oldest Latin printed edition [Heinrich Kramer (Institoris), Der Hexenhammer. Malleus Maleficarum, trans. Wolfgang Behringer, Günter Jerouschek and Werner Tschacher with intro. and ed. by Günter Jerouschek and Wolfgang Behringer, Munich: dtv, 2006, which these editors and translators felt it was necessary to produce because of the mountains of misconceptions and misinterpretations of the Malleus arising from earlier modern editions and translations." --Guy Macon (talk) 22:55, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
  • It's true that previous translations are either incomplete or not fully professional. It has changed with translation by Mackay. It is the first both professional and complete translation into english. As far as I know Hexenhammer was not translated into english (this wouldn't make sense anyway, because direct translation from latin is preferred not from book in German with translation of Malleus Maleficarum from latin into German). However, I was suspecting unofficial and perhaps amateur translation of some introduction. Nonetheless, this blog post doesn't link introduction to Hexenhammer with this pdf in any way unless I have missed sth. --Asterixf2 (talk) 00:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
    • I established that an introduction to Malleus Maleficarum, translated to English by Wolfgang Behringer, Günter Jerouschek and Werner Tschacher with an introduction by Wolfgang Behringer exists. The document at [ http://friedo.szm.com/mm.pdf ] appears to be that introduction. There is no reason to suspect, as you have claimed, that the document at [ http://friedo.szm.com/mm.pdf ] is a forgery, so we are going to accept it as a reliable source until you obtain a copy of the book (I suggest a trip to the local library, asking them if they can get it on an interlibrary loan) and personally verify that your suspicions are correct and the PDF does not match the book. The burden is on you as the person making the extraordinary claim to provide evidence for that claim. Before you respond to this, please read the conditions of your unblock again[36] and behave accordingly in your reply. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
      • Then resolved, PDF does not match the book because its german only and pdf is in english. --Asterixf2 (talk) 15:24, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
        • No, it isn't resolved just because you say so. Have you even read that book to see if it's in German? Even if the origin of the text isn't clear, that only means the origin of the text isn't clear, it doesn't mean you can automatically declare it fraudulent. I can't just make a declaration of fraud for any sources that I disagree with, and neither can you. The normal procedure is to assume that if a given person is listed as the author, then it's probably true unless there is definite proof that it's a forgery. You haven't proved it's a forgery, even if it doesn't come from that specific book that Guy Macon thought it might come from. It could easily be a self-published essay that the author placed on the web for free, as a great many academics now do. That's fairly common. GBRV (talk) 16:30, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
          • Even if you are correct, I agree with Only in death --Asterixf2 (talk) 17:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I've been looking pretty hard but I can't find any evidence that the book Guy refers to was ever translated into english. It's listed here as having multiple editions, but the only translation seems to have been into Finnish. I can't find it in worldcat or any other catalog, so I'm skeptical that such a translation exists. Am I missing something? Fyddlestix (talk) 19:53, 29 October 2016 (UTC) There's also the fact that the intro is supposed to have been co-written with Gunter Jerouscheck, whereas the pdf we're discussing lists Behringer as its sole author. Unless there's evidence I'm missing, I don't think this is the intro to that book. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

• This is pretty clear-cut. Find the original German source, and figure out if the PDF is accurately translated in relation to the material attributed to it. If so, remove the PDF citations and only cite the original work. If not, then remove the citations and tag the material as being unsourced. Self-published translations of reliable sources are not in themselves reliable. If a Japanese source was cited on an article and some non-Japanese-speaker asked me to translate the relevant passage on the talk page, we wouldn't then cite my self-published translation in the article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:03, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
  • In both cases this PDF cannot be cited. Also, I agree with Fyddlestix and Only in death. This source is clearly a mistake. --Asterixf2 (talk) 09:39, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Are you still pounding this issue? The idea that it's from a German book was based on nothing but a suggestion from Guy Macon. It could also be a self-published essay, or an article from an academic journal, or any number of things. You've latched onto the idea that it must be from a German-language book, therefore it must either be fake or someone's translation. You're still just making stuff up. If it says it was written by Wolfgang Behringer then we would normally assume it was written by Wolfgang Behringer unless there is actual evidence to prove the name is a forgery. You haven't presented any evidence. But let me ask you this: would you appreciate it if other people alleged that all of your sources were forgeries without proof? That would get rather old pretty quickly, right? So why do you have the right to do that? GBRV (talk) 14:03, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
      • How the hell did Asterixf2 start with me writing "I established that an introduction to Malleus Maleficarum, translated to English by Wolfgang Behringer, Günter Jerouschek and Werner Tschacher with an introduction by Wolfgang Behringer exists. The document at [ http://friedo.szm.com/mm.pdf ] appears to be that introduction" and conclude that it must be from a German-language book? What part of "translated to English" is difficult to understand? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
        • Yeah this seems to be going in odd circles now. Is there any reason we cannot just AGF and cite the translation itself and ignore the PDF completely? Its not relevant except as additional confirmation the book covers what it should do, and since sources are not required to be online the book itself should be enough given the author? Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced that the pdf is related to the book. The introduction to the book is supposed to be co-authored with Jerouscheck, but he's not listed as co-author of the document we're talking about. I haven't seen any actual evidence that this is from the book Guy suggested. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:54, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Guy Macon: I addressed this above, and you didn't really "establish" what you're suggesting. There's no evidence that the book you're talking about was ever published in English. I looked long and hard, but found no evidence that an english edition of the book exists. Plus there's the issue of Behringer's introduction being co-written by Jerouscheck, while the document we're talking about lists Behringer as the sole author. But even if that's what this is - who translated it? Where does it come from? We can't use it as a source without answering those questions and confirming that it's an authoritative/accurate translation (and isn't copyvio) - you can get into all kinds of trouble that way (see a similar example on an unrelated page). Without evidence that this is an authorized, published translation (or, really, any verifiable info about its provenance) this document can't be used as a source. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:50, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I assumed Guy was referring to his original post which included "I have used a new translation from the oldest Latin printed edition [Heinrich Kramer (Institoris), Der Hexenhammer. Malleus Maleficarum, trans. Wolfgang Behringer, Günter Jerouschek and Werner Tschacher with intro. and ed. by Günter Jerouschek and Wolfgang Behringer, Munich: dtv, 2006, which these editors and translators felt it was necessary to produce because of the mountains of misconceptions and misinterpretations of the Malleus arising from earlier modern editions and translations." I read that as 'A new translation by (Behringer, Jerouschek, Tschacher) with introduction and editing by (Behringer, Jerouschek) published by DTV Munich in 2006'.... which appears to answer most of your questions? Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:57, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

No such book exists though. The source (Der Hexenhammer. Malleus Maleficarum, trans. Wolfgang Behringer, Günter Jerouschek and Werner Tschacher with intro. and ed. by Günter Jerouschek and Wolfgang Behringer, Munich: dtv, 2006) was a translation into German and it has never been published in English as far as I can tell. Certainly neither the publisher's website or any library catalog that I can find shows evidence of an English edition. So if the pdf is the intro to that book, it's an unpublished, un-authorized translation by god-knows-who that we should not be using (or linking) in an article. Also, if you look at the document, it cites the Jerouscheck, Behringer, and Tschacher edition of Der Hexenhammer. Why would a book cite itself? That's three strikes (wrong language, cites itself, Jerouscheck not listed as co-author) against this being the introduction to that book. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

No I know what you mean. I meant why cant we just cite the German translation? Unless there is some doubt about what it covers? WP:DE uses three citations for the material on Sprenger, one of which appears to be an edition of the German translation. Thomas Grüter: Freemasons, Illuminati and other conspirators. As conspiracy theories work. Fischer, Frankfurt / Main 2011 (3rd ed.), P 93.

ISBN 978-3-596-17040-1, Heinrich Kramer (Institoris) The Malleus. Malleus Maleficarum, New from Latin transferred from Wolfgang Behringer, Günter Jerouschek and Werner Tschacher. Edited and initiated by Günter Jerouschek and Wolfgang Behringer, Munich 2000, pp. 31f. Christopher S. Mackay (eds.): Henricus Institoris, OP and Jacobus Sprenger, OP: Malleus maleficarum Volume 1, Cambridge 2006, pp 103-121.. (apologies for google translate) Only in death does duty end (talk

) 16:11, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

OK Good - glad I got my point across! In reply: I feel like the fact that it doesn't credit the person who co-authored the introduction to Der Hexenhammer and cites Der Hexenhammer as a source makes it pretty clear that this isn't from Der Hexenhammer at all. So I would be opposed to citing the book on that basis, and also on the basis that if it's an un-authorized translation from the book it's very likely to be full of distortions and errors. We'd be putting an awful lot of trust in whoever translated it, without knowing anything about them or how reputable a translator they are (translation distortions can be really bad - see the example I linked a couple comments up). Fyddlestix (talk) 16:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Lest I be accused of being unreasonable here: I totally accept that Behringer is a good scholar and something he's written would be a good source. But if we're going to use a source we have to be able to confirm its authorship, cite it properly, and confirm that it's a published work (ie, not an un-authorized translation/copyvio). We can't do any of these things with the pdf that's being discussed here. We basically have no evidence/idea what it is - it could be a talk he gave at a conference, it could be a journal article, it could be an excerpt from something he's published, or it could be a poor, unauthorized translation of something else he's written by someone who's not-so-great with reading German. We need to figure out which of these things it is before we can use it and cite it properly. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Well its hosted on a cryptographers personal website, so its not from a reliable source in any event, nor even a primary one. If it was hosted on Behringer's own website it would at least be eligible for the expert opinion . It looks like an except from a larger volume, Behringer has had a few works professionally translated into English that deal with Witchcraft in general (rather than specifically the Malleus) but it doesnt look like it is from them. It could be a translation of a paper submitted elsewhere. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

We're probably making this harder than it needs to be - I just emailed Behringer the document and asked if he recognizes it & what it is. Hopefully he replies. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:02, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I emailed him 5 days ago. He has not replied so far. I must say that I would be really upset if somebody purported to quote mi with such questionable sources with this kinds of serious doubts. --Asterixf2 (talk) 21:47, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

If we needed to email the author of every source and wait for confirmation that he actually wrote it, it would slow editing to a crawl and many authors likely wouldn't write back at all since they have other things to do. This is so far outside of the normal procedure that it seems almost surreal. GBRV (talk) 23:55, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Not really, WP:V requires that sources are verifiable. That PDF as it stands is not verifiable. If the author can say 'Yes that's my paper in journal X' - great its now verifiable. Otherwise its just a PDF on an unrelated website that has no explanation as to context, where it was published, where you would go to request a copy etc. Only in death does duty end (talk) 01:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

But the claim that even the author is suspect is way out of line. Yes, the PDF doesn't say where the text comes from, but it's a giant leap for Asterix to claim that the author's name may be a forgery. Asterix only began claiming that after I explained to him that Wikipedia's rules allow self-published texts by reputable experts (like Behringer), which led him to claim it wasn't actually written by Behringer. Before that, he was arguing it was self-published by Behringer. He keeps moving the goalposts. GBRV (talk) 02:02, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

GBRV, please stop misinformation to put it mildly. At the very beginning of the post I wrote "I even doubt if it is authentic". In the first comment above in response to yours I wrote There is no reliable information that it is self-published (that the claimed author wrote it). --Asterixf2 (talk) 03:05, 5 November 2016 (UTC)