Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 218

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.

The article Central Park jogger case has a series of "facts" in the "Arrests, interrogations, and confessions" section that are reported in our voice that are taken from a The Daily Beast source authored by Edward Conlon. This article must be free of bias, I'm sure all would agree. The lives of five boys/men were severely affected by this incident and we need to be very careful not to add to that. I looked up "The Daily Beast" here and did not come up with anything for certain. The news article seems to be an opinion piece...? I would greatly appreciate input. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 18:41, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

It [1] is a long article that rather carefully approaches (often in an overly-roundabout way) particular details of the case in a detailed way, such as pointing out that the differences between this case and other cases with confirmed false confessions are "pronounced", the confessions to a murder before any body had been found by police, the many issues that were not considered in the appeal, the many questions that have not been asked. etc. It obviously is an opinion piece, almost an essay, but it is is not a flippant commentary piece, and it is written by an expert. I'm not commenting on the individual content it is being cited as a source for, but I don't think there is a valid reason to exclude that source as a whole and I see no bias in the text. Because the event itself is an old enough to almost be called historical, almost everything newly produced is going to be commentary or opinions. There are extreme examples of commentary and opinions cited and even quoted in the article, like the ludicrous Hollywood Reporter commentary describing Ken Burns as "one of our most preeminent American historians", and a rabid Burns, having both a stake in the compensation outcome acceptance and an activist's political bias, gleefully jumping into both

Godwins Law and "the greatest threat to the Unites States since WW2" territories. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk

) 21:04, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

This is very helpful. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 01:44, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

This is about [2]. I consider the main source unreliable. The Brill source is a red herring, since it is employed for a very bland claim, it does not

I will be back in communication about the tagging in the coming few days (no later than Tuesday). The holiday is upon us. Skyfall676 (talk) 18:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Those books are not reliable sources according to

WP:PAG and you have to desist from employing them inside Wikipedia. Consider this a formal warning. Tgeorgescu (talk

) 20:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Sock got indeffed, won't be coming back. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:55, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

A discussion concerning the use of

This is a bit of a red herring. The disputed source for the Generation Snowflake article is not GQ itself but an opinion piece published by the magazine. "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.". In other words, it's only reliable for what that particularly writer (one Eleanor Halls) says. The writer, in this case, turns out to be non-notable - a recent university graduate with a degree in French and no qualifications as a journalist, sociologist, psychologist, political theorist or any other relevant field. In other words, her opinion is no more important than yours or mine. Further, the opinion piece on examination turns out to be very poorly researched. An opinion piece by a non-notable writer with no relevant qualifications and evidently poor research skills adds no encyclopedic value and should not be cited. If GQ's editors continue to let this sort of rubbish slip through it may well come to be regarded as an unreliable source, though it probably isn't there yet. MaxBrowne (talk) 08:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

To summarize, editorials are only as reliable as their authors are notable, in general. The same goes for blog postings. In each case, authorship by a non-notable person pretty much excludes the content as non-reliable, but authorship by a notable person could in some (if not many) cases give the source the benefit of the doubt with respect to reliability - but a better source (or a second one) would be the way to go for cementing reliability. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

I am considering using the following article to add information on the subject of Wahhabism and wanted to know if it is considered a reliable source:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/wahhabist-ideology-what-it-is-and-why-its-a-problem_us_585991fce4b014e7c72ed86e

The article is written by

Keep in mind also that per

WP:RS, "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both." Even if the publication was questionable, the professor seems to be a reliable source. —Granger (talk · contribs

) 23:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Based on the above I will use this article as a source. MontyKind (talk) 08:11, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

• User:MontyKind academic experts and scientists sometimes step out of the academic publishing world and into popular media to explain stuff to the public. it is generally a bad idea to use this kind of source. Several reasons:

• there is a huge formal literature on this religious tradition, generated by people like Sells and published by high quality academic journals and book publishers. there are surely much stronger sources generated by the person in the academic literature. We should always raise source quality
• these popular media "explainers" often simplify things in various ways. A lot of information present in more formal sources is gone.
• it is a dead end for readers who want to learn more. if you cite an academic work, that source will have its own footnotes that can lead interested readers deeper into the literature.
• by adding low quality sources, you are essentially inviting other people to add blog postings, and as we all know, there are lots of people with opinions about islam blogging out there. By lowering source quality you open the article and the community to endless arguments about what piece of crap blog should get more WEIGHT than another. It is a tremendous waste of everyone's time and the resulting WP articles generally suck.

So please don't use it. Please go to the library and get high quality sources (articles in academic journals or academic books) and cite them. Then when somebody wants to cite a column by say Pamela Geller you can exclude that as the trashy popular media that it is. Jytdog (talk) 18:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed with Jytdog above. I note that there are numerous very highly regarded reference works on the subject of religion in general and Islam in particular. In many cases, such as I think maybe this one, the amount of content in just those articles will be greater than the preferred length of our articles here. If that is in fact the case here, probably the best thing to do is look over the best of the recent reference sources, have the article reflect the content of those articles as much as possible, and use the sources they use. The only reasonable exceptions I can see are when there are major new developments in the area in the very recent past, which I don't think is likely to be the case here. John Carter (talk) 18:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

However, a "popular media" article by an academic writer can express an immediacy and contemporariness with its subject that an academic work, because of their longer gestation period, cannot. So I think it will depend on what content the article is going to be cited for. It would be pointless searching for academic works and expect to find works that are bang up to date regarding current world events. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:15, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Well said. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I apologize in advance if this type of question has already been brought up either on this noticeboard or some other aspect/essay on Wikipedia. I have done a lot of work on the article Kyra, which is about a fictional character from the television show Charmed. It passed a GA review back in June, and I was thinking about bringing it to FAC sometime in the future (most likely the somewhat distant future as I have a rather long list of articles I would like to bring to FAC). My question about the reliable sources concerns the following two sources: 1) https://charmedcomicfan10.jimdo.com and 2) Tumblr.

I cited these two sources specifically in the context of interviews with the creators of the Charmed comic books as they discuss the development and appearances of the character. I believe that they are reliable in this context (I know it is dubious to use information from a fan website and/or social media, but I would think it would be permissible in the context of interviews). For a point of reference, here is a link to one of the interviews that I cited in the article: 1.

I was wondering if these two sources are appropriate for use on here and if the sources would be deemed okay if brought up in an FAC? Thank you in advance.

As I asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Brazil#Reliable source.3F, is this a reliable source please? I'm trying to expand Castro Barbosa. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:19, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

The site itself, www.museudatv.com.br seems to be reliable but I'm afraid the biografies provided there are not automatically reliable too. Anyone can add them on this subpage and the biography of Castro Barbosa in particular does neither provide the name of the author nor does it cite any sources. So I wouldn't use this page as a source to expand the Wikipedia article. De728631 (talk) 02:05, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

User:De728631: Thanks. He has quite a long article on the Portuguese Wikipedia, but it's not referenced. Are you able to find reliable sources please? Unfortunately I don't speak Portuguese. I don't see any matches on Newspapers.com, but he appears to have been quite famous in Brazil--a second match on JSTOR calls him "the famous Joaquim Silverio de Castro Barbosa".Zigzig20s (talk) 03:05, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

We have often used reliable sources by certain authors, which have reviews that attest to their merit. But some editors have suggested that an author's works are now unreliable, because of their subsequent non-conventional "beliefs", eg:

• Isaac Newton studied the occult
• Einstein believed in the
  Pole shift hypothesis
• Nobel Laurate Brian Josephson apparently believes in homeopathy.
• Nobel Laurate
  Plasma Cosmology
• Emeritus Prof.
  Henry Bauer
  who has some non-conventional beliefs in the association of HIV and Aids.

Do we (a) require sources that confirm that the original works are now unreliable, or (b) is this just the personal opinion of editors based on an

Please see at the top of the page where it states, source, article & content are required. What is the source being disputed, what article is it being disputed at, what content is the source being challenged as reliable for? Sources may be reliable for some content and not others. So the above three things are required in order to give a satisfactory answer. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:11, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure a specific example is relevant to the scenario I described, but I'll give one anyway:

• Henry Bauer wrote Beyond Velikovsky: The History of a Public Controversy in 1984. The reviews on the publisher's website are all good, as are independent reviews, and the book is used as a reference on the page on Velikovsky at least half a dozen times. But, do Bauer's views on HIV and Aids mean that we can now retro-actively assert that this book is now unreliable, as is inferred by the comment on this AfD page, or do we need additional sources to confirm this? --Iantresman (talk
  ) 14:18, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

• Thats a different kettle of fish. Bauer's book would be a reliable source on Velikovsky by our standards. But his use of/endorsement of a journal would not necessarily indicate notability. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:27, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree. So can we say as a general principle, that an authors unconventional views do not bring into question their previous works on a different subject? And if it was alleged, do we need sources? --Iantresman (talk) 14:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

To expand a bit on the above excellent answer, Brian David Josephson is a reliable source on superconductivity and quantum tunneling, but an unreliable source on homeopathy. Variety magazine is a reliable source for box office results, but unreliable on the topic of quantum tunneling. It is the same with other sources -- they are reliable in their field of expertise, probably unreliable in unrelated fields. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:16, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, reliability depends on context. A source can be reliable for one statement and yet unreliable for another. Blueboar (talk) 15:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

In this case I dont think the Bauer's unconventional views on AIDS/HIV have any impact on his use of the Journal (which was being AFD'd) which was integral to the Velikovsky affair - on which he wrote a well received and critically acclaimed book. Velikovsky having zero relation to HIV/AIDS that I can tell. I would not necessarily put huge weight as to the Journal being notable because Bauer used it, it was a source for his book for him. But I wouldnt disregard his use of it either based on unrelated beliefs. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:18, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that something between 60% and 90% of threads on this noticeboard would not be opened if heir OPs understood that reliability depends on context. Perhaps we should make a rule where such threads are speedy-closed with this explanation, similar to how article content disputes are treated on ANI. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:42, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I would like to think that I understand the importance of context, but when other editors question it, I have to come back for a third opinion. Unfortunately I believe that Wikipedia is quite poor in explaining many of its policies and guidelines. --Iantresman (talk) 10:38, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

By "Wikipedia", do you mean the volunteers on this noticeboard who don't want to make sweeping statements that in one or more contexts would be wrong, when they don't even know what you are talking about? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:56, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

No, that it not what I mean. --Iantresman (talk) 13:41, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I concur with Iantresman (in the general sense) that Wikipedia policies are problematic. There is necessarily a degree of subjectivity involved, but that's not the half of it. Disputes are supposed to be resolved by consensus, but I have not seen this in my personal experience. It is really a matter of persistence vs. ability to convince the other person that you have some level of authority. It is more about chutzpah than anything else. Of course things work out when people are actually reasonable (which includes recognizing IAR), but we live in a world where people have agendas or simply unreasonable positions. If Wikipedia is supposed to demonstrate the viability of crowdsourcing, it also demonstrates that self-moderation of crowdsourcing (i.e. the crowd moderating itself) is problematic. Fabrickator (talk) 01:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Your conclusion does not appear to be supported by your premise. I have never seen anyone who actually follows Wikipedia policies fail to resolve their dispute by consensus, and thus cannot agree that the policies are "problematic". Yes we have plenty of situations where neither side follows our policies and guidelines, but that's not the fault of the policies. if even one person does follow them, the dispute gets resolved by consensus (with a closed RfC to show what the consensus actually is if necessary) and everyone accepts it (with An ANI case leading to blocks to make them accept the consensus if necessary). The system really does work. BTW, I wrote up some advice at

WP:1AM that might help some editors who are engaged in disputes. --Guy Macon (talk

) 03:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I won't try analyzing whether the problems are the fault of the editors or the fault of the policy. Perhaps your observation is a result of there being two sets of editors who rarely come in contact with each other. One set is those among whom the rules are all followed, disagreements are worked out as people come to understand either other's points of view, or it is alternatively brought to arbitration through an Rfc and other editors who are really qualified to understand the issues reach an official consensus. The other set of editors is unfamiliar with policies and they just war with each other until one gives up in frustration or out of fear of the consequences of continuing to argue. To me, the bottom line should be whether, as a system, Wikipedia works. If any editor can post "bad content" and the bad content remains indefinitely, it's a system that's failed. Or if one editor can be intimidated by another editor, without regard to how Wikipedia policy would apply, that's nevertheless a failure of Wikipedia. In my attempts to get third parties involved, either there was virtually no response or the response was simply nonsense. As an example, when a judicial opinion was proffered as a reliable source, it was proposed that, instead of using the judicial opinion, a textbook covering that case (presuming one were available) would be the proper secondary source. But this is a rather pointless observation, never mind that legal textbooks are not readily available to the Wikipedia editor, it's not really the purview of legal textbooks to cover every opinion of every state appellate court. Seriously, a hundred Wikipedia editors, each spending 5 minutes analyzing the situation, would easily arrive at the wrong consensus... a handful of editors actually spending 30 minutes each would have a better chance of coming up with the right answer. But as it stands, the result is a page that can be expected to confuse the average reader. Fabrickator (talk) 04:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry Guy, that is not my experience. I make a point of providing sources, and yet I find many editors who will not, can not, or won't provide them themselves to support their points of view. I have been criticised for asking for sources, and topic banned. I think discussions could be reduced 95% if every point put forward was supported by a source. And then there is basic civility which many editors seem to be able to flout with impunity. I've even had Admins support uncivil comments from other editors. In my opinion, it is unacceptable that Wikipedia does not take verbal harassment more seriously, as it appears to be a passive endorsement of bullies and uncritical dialogue that wastes other editors' time. --Iantresman (talk) 14:42, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Your description of why you were topic banned bears no resemblance to the actual reasons for the ban.[3] --Guy Macon (talk) 15:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

That's quite possible. It doesn't make my perspective wrong. See here. --Iantresman (talk) 20:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

It most certainly does not make your perspective wrong. It just invalidates the example you chose to demonstrate to problem. You may very well be correct. What would prove you to be correct would be an example or two of someone who refrained from disruptive behavior, followed our policies, used our dispute resolution process, and yet failed to arrive at a state where the article ended up in a state that dis not conform to the consensus as demonstrated by a closed RfC. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

The main deteriminant of reliablity is the publisher, not the author. Academic journals for example have reputations and review articles they publish. Their authors are therefore constrained by the requirement to state facts honestly, and to use rational methodologies and arguments. There are no similar constraints to what they post to their facebook pages. In some cases, there can be a wide gulf between papers an academic submits to reputable journals and what he writes about without those constraints, for example with climate scientists who challenge global warming in popular media but not in academic papers. Also, for their writings to be reliable, they must be experts in the field. Newton was not an expert in alchemy, because it is a pseudoscience, not a recognized science. It is best to avoid these types of sources except in exceptional circumstances. TFD (talk) 06:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

To expand a bit on this, there are questions as they relate to

At the very least, it would be helpful to provide links to (a) which of Bauer's book you are referring to so that everyone can assess it better (b) The fringe journals you are referring to (c) the pseudoscience you are referring to. From my point of view, it is crucial also to provide a source that link the pseudoscience to the concerns you have about Bauer's book, otherwise it appears as it if is just your opinion, and conclusions only you have made. For my part I have already said that I have looked at reviews of Bauer's book, and they all appear positive (even if I may not agree with them all myself), and of course I am happy to provide them.

This is the big question, can an editor's opinion out-weight published sources. Or is it just

WP:SYNTH? --Iantresman (talk

) 19:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I think the journals in question are fairly obvious from a brief perusal of your or my edit history over the last two days.

Journal of Scientific Exploration is a pseudoscience journal that was edited by Bauer. For some reason, you still seem to be in this mode of not really understanding the basic point that I wrote: the reliability of Bauer's book is not anything anyone is arguing against. jps (talk

) 20:47, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

There you go, I did not realise that the "Bauer's advocacy of fringe journals" was referring to the two up for the AfD, as I never knew he advocated for them in any way. So that brings us to the suggestion that because Bauer's associated with other fringe subjects, that makes him unreliable to comment on all fringe subjects. I have only the reviews of his book, which do not seem to think so. --Iantresman (talk) 21:30, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

The advocacy is referring to the JSE. The point that Bauer advocates for pseudoscience only reinforces my point that using his work as a notability test is suspect as relying solely on Bauer to describe an obscure journal runs afoul of

WP:FRIND. This really has nothing to do with whether the descriptions he offers of said journals are "reliable" or not. jps (talk

) 11:10, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

The Swedish expo.se for reliably and neutrally determining the exact ideology of the nationalist Party of the Danes as being Nazism (which is a disputed matter)?

There are several issues to consider. Expo.se is pretending to be a neutral research organization. Expo Foundation was established by the far-leftist author Stieg Larsson. He was the Expo magazine's co-founder and editor-in-chief until his death. Former "chief-of-research" Tobias Hübinette was an AFA member, anarcho-syndicalist and convicted criminal. One member of this Expo organization stated that "Marxism is science and a doctrine of ideas." Expo's stated goals are to research intolerance, racism and right-wing extremism. Expo is created and managed by known far left figures and solely critizing certain right wing elements.

Does that qualify as a reliable source for ensuring an NPOV documentation of the Party of the Danes being a Nazi party? --ContraVentum (talk) 15:29, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

For more info about Expo, and this discussion (which made Contraventum blocked today), see Party of the Danes#Swedish sources, where some users are stating that "all sources from Sweden are bad sources". This is so the once that are looking into this matter sees that is is not really about just Expo, but about all the countrys sources as being "leftist". Adville (talk) 20:05, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Expo are highly respected in Sweden and are endorced by all political parties from the left to the right of the Swedish Riksdag (except for the Sweden democrats, which believes Expo are bias and leftist/communist, the same goes for what they lable as PCM/Old media/MSM), and has been used as experts by the gorverment, universities, and refered to by law enforcement agencies and used as a source by the mass media. Expos Foundation Board consists of the Social Democrats, Liberals and Moderates (the main conservative party of Sweden). It is hard to call Expo leftist, and when it is done it says more about the political affiliations of the person that makes the claim than it does about Expo.

In short, Expo are heavily disliked by the far-right of Sweden (and Scandinavia), but accepted and respected by mainstream conservatives. Dnm (talk) 20:50, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

"endorsed by all political parties except SD" is an outright lie. How comes it the when dealing with immigration issues that Expo always take a leftist pro-immigration stance? They are much closer to being an activist organization than "scientific research". When liberal politician Jasenko Selimovic criticized press coverage of issues related to the asylum immigration, he was accused by Expo of playing into the hands of "right-wing extremists". When the Moderates proposed a ban on organized begging, Expo accused them of "playing with fire" and indirectly inciting to violence against beggars. You can also read stories like the EU-Turkey migrant deal "being kind of an act of violence". Expo has been sponsored by George Soros' Open Society Foundation with 25.000 dollars. Why on earth does a "neutral scientific research organization" have a political program? This is activism, not research. --175.103.38.30 (talk) 23:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Nothing of what I wrote is a lie. Expo has the support of every political party in the Swedish parliament except for the Sweden Democrats. That is a fact. And Expo is not controlled by Soros. This are all just attempts at GbA. In a sense, Expo is the Swedish equivalent to SPLC, and both are strongly disliked by the extreme right (which of course is natural). Dnm (talk) 00:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Let me quote former chief-of-research Tobias Hübinette: Feeling or thinking that the white race is inferior in all possible ways is natural, bearing in mind it's history and current actions. Let the western lands [Western world] of the white race collapse in blood and suffering. Long live the multicultural, race-mixed, classless ecological society. Long live the anarchy. So you have had an extremist to run this organization critizing "right-wing extremism" "neutrally and reliably", that's a very interesting "scientific organization". As shown by my examples, Expo is meddling with their unwarranted opinions in the immigration debate when classic right-wing Liberals and Moderates do not take a stance on immigration issues, that fit into their perspective - this is activism, and not being "neutral research organization". --175.103.38.30 (talk) 00:21, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, whether **some** parties (the difference being traditionally pro- or anti-immigration) is using Expo is a red herring. WP is not the Swedish government, and Expo's use by certain parties does not disprove that they're activists in disguise of doing scientific research. --175.103.38.30 (talk) 01:17, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

All exept one with roots in the Swedish neonazism are using expo as experts (Sweden democrats), do you call that "some". You have given your point of view, while we in the discussions have given sources. Let other users look at this instead to see (as they already did in the article party of the Danes and blocked some users and showed more sources saying the same as expo. Adville (talk) 07:15, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Neo-nazi roots ≠ being neo-Nazi, that's a guilt by association argument. SD today is the Swedish counterpart to the Danish People's Party, that has no neo-Nazi origins, but origins in a protest party led by an anarcho-capitalist. And today DPP is socioeconomically centrist like SD. Also, I'm not just "giving my point of view", I'm stating facts that counters the narrative of Expo being about "neutral research". It's a fact that their chief-of-research was an anti-white bigot and a violent criminal. How can you trust them doing neutral research about racism, when the organization was run by a man beating up a boy for saying "Look! A Chinese person" and (quote) stating that: All white people, no matter their gender and social class, are racists per definition? It's a fact that they're doing pro-immmigration activism, and they turn against the right-wing parties, that you claim support Expo, when their politicians are expressing a critical stance to mass immigration and its subsequent issues. Such things should make you question the credibility of their judgment of what they claim to be researching. --175.103.38.30 (talk) 10:05, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Please let others write. It is as usual not "the more uou write the more right you are", but sources that counts. Adville (talk) 10:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Agree with first part. Second part = ??? --175.103.38.30 (talk) 11:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

AWDnews is in the headlines for running a fake news story which nearly started a nuclear war between pakistan and israel. I think that may disqualify them as a reliable source. i found 3 usages of them on WP ([4], [5], [6]), and i removed them as they were NOT critical, but i would love to see them blacklisted. this site says they are unreliable. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

•  Note: The dispute is in the news at e.g. [7], [8], [9]. Original article and Tweets are cited by the NYT article. It Is Me Here (talk) 13:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

They're currently running a story claiming the CIA was involved in the recent crash. The claims appear to be sourced to the notorious conspiracy theorist website whatdoesitmean.com. So I would say that this is not a reliable source for anything but its own views.

Tell me all about it.

15:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

The Shinola shoe polish brand is connected in the USA with a saying, "You don't know shit from Shinola." Like any popular saying, this one has appeared in a variety of media. At

The standards for sourcing popular culture examples have been discussed in an RfC. That RfC determined that both accuracy and cultural significance are relevant when sourcing IPC examples, and secondary sources are preferred to establish the latter. These conclusions were incorporated into the Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content essay. I have attempted to remove examples from the Shinola article in accordance with the sourcing standards established in those documents. 7&6=thirteen (talk · contribs) has indiscriminately reverted my changes, accused me of edit warring, and insisted on de novo discussion of the same question that was discussed in the RfC. This user has also added more examples cited only to primary sources or sources of questionable reliability, such as this YouTube channel that has no particular editorial transparency.

I request opinions at the article talk page on the appropriateness of my edits and 7&6=thirteen's edits with respect to the RfC, as well as general Wikipedia norms on reliable sourcing and the removal/preservation of non-biographical material that has questionable sourcing. 24.7.14.87 (talk) 21:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Sourcing makes sense. Take a look at the article.

The deletions don'e.

Admins have reverted these edits by 24.7.14.87 and page protected the page from 24.7.14.87|him. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Is medicaldaily.com a reliable source?

Benjamin (talk) 07:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Seems to be. It has professional writers and an editorial staff and is owned by

problem solving

20:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

An RfC has been initiated in the talk page of the Sati article. The sources being used for some of the disputed material form an important component of the dispute. Please comment on the article talk page if this topic interests you. Soham321 (talk) 05:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Well the issue interests me and I may well have edited the article before, and I contributed to WP:HISTRS which is unfortunately still an essay. The problem is that there is far too much verbiage in the RFC. Why not propose a source here and we will comment on whether/how it could be used in the article. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:42, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm currently in the midst of a discussion on Talk:Tel Dan Stele (extending to other related articles, ie Merneptah Stele) involving sources. I attempted to add a source for the phrase "The Tel Dan stele is one of four known contemporary inscriptions containing the name of Israel, the others being the Merneptah Stele, the Mesha Stele, and the Kurkh Monolith." The source was as follows: ^[1] At first, another editor on the page said the source contradicted the existing source. When it was pointed out that it doesn't, the editor then cursed me out and said the source was "irrelevant". The editor's objections are puzzling to me, claiming that "The Assyrian royal annals, along with the Mesha and Dan inscriptions, show a thriving northern state called Israël" is "irrelevant" because "the only reference to the name Israel is referring to a combination of three sources at the same time", which even as a semantic argument seems to not make sense. We already know for a fact that the first three documents listed (along with the fourth) all independently mention Israel, and the other editor knows that as well, so it's unclear why that argument is being made. To me, these are clearly reliable sources that support the text, but I'm hoping to get a third opinion. (Please note that "Shalmaneser III of Assyria"/"Assyrian royal annals" = Kurkh Monoliths) Drsmoo (talk) 04:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes this is a good source for the article. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I keep finding Crunchbase used as a ref in articles, especially about young companies, to source information about funding the company has raised. (Like, "In 2009 StartupZ raised $10M from MoneyBags Ventures") I checked the RSN archives and do not see that Crunchbase has been questioned before.

A wikilink to the description of Crunchbase in Wikipedia is above, and here is the site itself. (and here fwiw, is a quora question about it.)

As you can see at the site, anybody can register an account, and add or change data. At its about page, you can see that Crunchbase says that (as of the time I am looking at it) it has 299,000 contributors who have made 5.4 million edits. They also have 2,900 "Venture partners" who apparently are funders who add content about funding they do.

Crunchbase says they have paid staff that reviews everything. (See here).

However there appears to be an issue with regard to

Separately, even if the community says it is reliable to source content about funds raised, it seems to me Crunchbase should never be used in a Notability discussion, because a company can add its own information there and create the reference.

Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 04:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't use Crunchbase to establish notability.

whisper in my ear

11:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

thanks for that Jytdog (talk) 20:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

However, it could be used to support certain facts when other sources are not available. I agree that you wouldn't base a notability argument solely on Crunchbase support. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:28, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Unclear why it should be considered reliable for anything per

WP:USERGENERATED and no argument has been given why it should be. Jytdog (talk

) 07:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

If it is acceptable to use Press Releases and SEC submissions, both of which are 'user generated', then why not this? In neither of these cases would the sources be used for notability. Yes, companies can lie in Press Releases and to the SEC just as easily as they can lie on Crunchbase. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

An RfC has been initiated on the talk page of Jawaharlal Nehru. Please vote on it if the topic is of interest to you. Soham321 (talk) 04:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I invite anyone to participate in this RfC regarding the Airlines and destinations tables in airport articles. These tables show which airlines fly to an airport, as well as the cities they fly to from the airport. They exist on the perhaps hundreds of airport articles on Wikipedia, so I would like to establish proper consensus on this issue. One possible issue with these tables has to do with how they are referenced. Regards. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 21:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

An IP editor is adding content to

Is [10] a reliable source for the following paragraph from

Syed Shaidul Islam (

Doorbin

with Sabbir and Noyon.

The affirmative view is held by Nayeem Hossain, the editor using this as a source and as evidence of notability. On their talk page they give the trenchant, policy-based, explanation of their reasoning: "Yes. www.bdalltime.com is a reliable source."

My own evaluation is that the website (also styled as Bangladeshi Entertainment) has none of the characteristics of a

The website has no indication of reliability, and the reasons identified above firmly show that it isn't reliable. Neutrality^talk 03:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Can someone who speaks Spanish please check out poderopedia and let me know if it is a reliable source? I would err on the side of 'no', but just want to double-check. I'd like to translate this and they seem to have his bio, but I may not be able to cite it. Otherwise we may need to find obituaries from 1991, but in Spanish, in published in the Chilean press (not easy to find!). Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Nope... user edited sites like that are not considered reliable. I do see that the poderopedia article cites what look to be newspaper articles... those might be reliable (and may contain the information you are looking for). Blueboar (talk) 01:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia, tweets are most of the time not reliable unless WP:TWITTER or WP:SPS. However, there is a discussion going on the Street Fighter V talk page. It's about an organization called "Evo". One of the co-founder tweets about the number of registrants on his own tournament on his own Twitter account. I'm pretty sure that this is not reliable because nobody can actually verify whether this is true nor is the tweet an official statement from the organization "Evo" itself. But a game magazine called "Polygon" which is usually reliable (but certainly not always) wrote a small article about this using the tweet as a source. Now, even though they have editorial staff, I'm pretty sure that they haven't verified the statement themselves nor did they wrote anything about verifying it in the article itself. Polygon assumes that the tweet is true, which is already something that is not accepted by the rules that Wikipedia has. Note: At the bottom of the article, Polygon literally states: "SOURCE: Joey Cuellar on Twitter". So my question: Isn't it obvious that any article that solely uses a tweet (without verification) as a source can be considered unreliable?

Link of Polygon article: http://www.polygon.com/2016/7/1/12080396/evo-2016-breaks-records-total-number-players Link of Tweet: https://twitter.com/MrWiz/status/748775258828578817 2A02:A03F:2C36:2A00:98BD:A5BF:A747:2881 (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:VG/S. They cited a verified Twitter account who works for the company. Joey Cuella is one of the company's founders. So we've got a reliable source that itself cited a company founder about the company about one of their events. I fail to see anything wrong here. Sergecross73 msg me

21:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be quoted instead of stating it as a fact? The tweet is talking about the organization "Evo". If Wikipedia takes every tweet of every employer of a company as a fact, then it's impossible to form an accurate factual article.2A02:A03F:2C36:2A00:98BD:A5BF:A747:2881 (talk) 22:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

On what grounds would you challenge a company statistic from a company co-founder covered by a reliable third party source? There's no reason to doubt anything here. Sergecross73 msg me 22:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Look, nobody knows if that's the real amount of registrants. A co-founder can write whatever he wants about his company as long as it's positive for the company itself. Yes, it's covered by Polygon, but they don't have the verification that Wikipedia needs. Polygon simply reasoned like this: "The tweet is from a co-founder of Evo. So it's probably true.". That's the only verification it did. The author did not said anything about other verifications. But that verification is not valid by Wikipedia.

Actually the verification that wikipedia needs is that the information is covered by a reliable source. In this case the source would be Polygon. In rare circumstances we might look at where they get their information, as it came from someone who would be expected to know said information (its perfectly reasonable for Evo themselves and the co-founder to actually know that), the information is non-controversial and trivial, per Sergecross there is really no issue here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

So if a reliable source writes an article based on a tweet of an employer of company X. Then we can just put that on Wikipedia (as a fact) without additional verification. Did I get that right? 2A02:A03F:2C36:2A00:98BD:A5BF:A747:2881 (talk) 23:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

The information is purely an internal statistic so the *only* people who would be expected to know how many people registered for SF at Evo would be Evo themselves. If your argument that the co-founder of a company/organisation is not reliable enough for that companies internal stats, well you need to go read the sourcing policies/guidelines again. What needs to be assessed if a source is reliable is 'Where does it come from?' and 'Is it reliable for this information?' The source is Polygon - considered a reliable source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, they got their information from the co-founder of the event. The information itself is info you would expect the co-founder to have access to. There is no issue here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

So yes, like I said. Anything that a reliable source (like Polygon) says or writes about can be considered a fact on Wikipedia ? Also, you said that the *only* people that would know how many people registered for SFV would be EVO themselves. Then, how can Polygon fact-check that statement of the co-founder? I'm really not trying to be nitpicky, really. It's just a bit confusing. 2A02:A03F:2C36:2A00:98BD:A5BF:A747:2881 (talk) 23:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

No not like you said. Sources are considered individually for the information they are being used for. You are trying to be nit-picky and have had a clear answer from multiple people for *this* case. Unless you have some actual *credible* reason why the source should be disregarded there is no issue here. 'The co-founder of Evo wouldnt know that information' is not a credible argument. 'I cant prove Polygon have done due diligence' is not a credible argument. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Wow, you are not very friendly for newcomers, huh. The argument is that the co-founder can say whatever he wants. But fine, I agree to disagree since I don't want to waste my time with someone who is not willing to explain why my argument is not valid. No wonder Wikipedia has a shortage of editors. 2A02:A03F:2C36:2A00:98BD:A5BF:A747:2881 (talk) 00:54, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

This IP has been causing long-term disruption at an article related to this, and has been completely incompetent in understanding what is and is not a reliable source on Wikipedia, so don't expect to convince them. I do appreciate having an outsider telling him he's wrong though, so I'm not the only "bad guy" who has to tell him "no" all the time. Thank you. Sergecross73 msg me 02:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I am currently dealing with an article I wrote and it was

[1] ^{[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]}

Please, I need to know if the new references provided are reliable, and if they don't, please tell what kind of sources are really good enough. I'm asking for help to improve the draft through the sources. Thank you very much in advance for assisting me. Parauleira (talk) 09:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

These sources seem OK. An official website of a film festival is reliable for whether a film was in that festival. A magazine like Variety is a typical reliable source for a film-related article. The references are not presented well. You need to lose the block capitals most or all of the long quotes. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I really appreciated Itsmejudith (talk) your contribution and help. I will fix them following your appreciated advices.Parauleira (talk) 20:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I recently came across this website, and while looking it up here to check for information about it, I found it used as a source on several pages, like Scarlett Montanaro and Dave Rosin. Allowing this as a source doesn't seem like a good idea. The bios seem to be taken from old versions of Wikipedia articles and other sites, including other wikis, and it has a lot of weird stuff, like letting users vote on what they think a celebrity's sexuality is and allowing users to set their net worth. SonOfPlisskin (talk) 23:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

What a load of rubbish that site is. obviously never reliable. Thanks for helping in the cleanup. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

At the

What say the folks here? Wasted Time R (talk) 18:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Seems to be this is not about RS, but bias. Sorry but being biased does not mean they are not RS. As long as they have a reputation for fact checking and editorial control they are RS. So do they?Slatersteven (talk) 18:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, no.

AIDS denialism and the autism vaccine fraud. This means at best it is usable as a source for the opinion of the writer involved, and that would only be relevant if the opinion of the writer here is relevant to the article or otherwise particularly notable. That would need to be determined by a consensus on the talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk

) 18:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely not usable. NorthBySouthBaranof is correct on all points. It's invariably unreliable and can't be used for statements of fact. As for use of statements of opinion, the source is so marginal/fringe that, as a matter of

noteworthiness, it would be citable only in exceptionally rare cases. Neutrality^talk

18:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Concur. In no sense is LewRockwell reliable. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

The website publishes conspiracy theories and is not reliable. Bias of course does not make a site unreliable. But sites reflecting the views of tiny minorities usually are unreliable. TFD (talk) 21:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I've found the article List of United States cities by percentage of white population which draws on IndexMundi as its only source at present; the sited page is http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/united-states/quick-facts/cities/rank/white-population-percentage. I'm not concerned here with that article so much as what I found while looking at IndexMundi. The about page states "IndexMundi is a data portal that gathers facts and statistics from multiple sources and turns them into easy to use visuals." However, I've been unable to find a systematic set of information on where the data for any particular visualization comes from. Now, I could infer that the information cited for the noted article here comes from the 2010 US general census, but inferring that and seeing a clear specification of how the data visualization was arrived at are two very different things. What do you think? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

(Please note: readers will need to google the article in question. The Daily News blocks linkage to its articles, and I don't know how to circumvent it) It's been alleged that the New York Daily News is not a reliable source, because it is a tabloid—specifically that "Soccer Rat! The inside story of how Chuck Blazer, ex-U.S. soccer executive and FIFA bigwig, became a confidential informant for the FBI," from 1 November 2014 can't be used as a source for Chuck Blazer. The specific fact in question is how Blazer 'flipped.' I contend that the News's reporting is reliable, despite its over the top style. There's strong documentation, including official documents. The NYTimes saw fit to quote the Daily News account of the encounter verbatim. Comments please. Tapered (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

why would it not be a reliable source? It is reliable, in my opinion.🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 23:19, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

[11]? Because "over the top style" seems to be another way of writing "will exaggerate the facts for a better story". We want to be very careful about getting the facts correct in controversial issues about living people. Something like just how he became a confidential informant for the FBI seems like it could be very controversial. I would avoid relying solely on the New York Daily News for it. --GRuban (talk) 23:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

"Over the top" would seem to refer to style, not substance. Is yours a warranted assumption? Can you back it with instances when the NYDN exaggerated or fabricated facts? If not, I'd describe it as "label and dismiss."

I invite you and other readers (and I wish I'd put this in the main post above) to read [12] and take note that some of the best coverage of the OJ Trial was done by the National Enquirer. Tapered (talk) 00:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

If the NY Times is writing articles about the topic, use that, as that is a known entity. NY Daily News is, as GRuban states, far more borderline. GiantSnowman 08:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Let's take a look at the front page of today's http://www.nydailynews.com/

• Sisters known for sexy Instagram posts arrested for allegedly exorting Nigerian billionaire
• Man convicted in death of single mom from Colorado who led double life as paid escort
• Jennifer Lopez posted a photo of herself in Drake's arms, Dec. 28, 2016.SEE THE PHOTOS
• Parents enraged after defective Hatchimals ruin Christmas
• John Kerry calls two-state solution only path to peace in Israel, defends Obama stance on U.N. resolution
• GoFundMe created to ‘protect Betty White from 2016’ following Carrie Fisher's death
• Apple manager stabbed to death on Christmas Eve, husband arrested
• Shocking footage from former NFL player Ray McDonald’s domestic violence case released
• North Carolina home intruder gets beaten by firewood-wielding resident
• Suspect in deadly Brooklyn stabbing over soccer game found in North Carolina

One item - Kerry - that would be found generally newsworthy. The rest is "if it bleeds, it leads". This is the front page of classic

WP:BLPSOURCES clearly states, "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources." Fortunately Chuck Blazer seems to have no shortage of more reliable sources: BBC, Bloomberg, The Independent, Daily Telegraph, Sports Illustrated. If you can, stick to more like those. --GRuban (talk

) 17:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Fortunately, the article in question is of the same ilk as the Kerry article, not a bleeding lead. Filling a post with bullet points is a rhetorical flourish, not a tool of reasoned discussion. It's quite a bit like tabloid journalism, designed to appeal, and persuade, the viscera. Tapered (talk) 05:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

The Daily News is no longer the only source for the information, and IMLTHO since it scooped the non-tabloids with its well-sourced and accurate reporting, it ought to be the source of record.Tapered (talk) 05:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

It is a reliable source. While Wikipedia articles should not read like tabloids, there is no guideline not to use them, provided they have a reputation for fact-checking and employ professional journalists. The story btw about the sisters is about two Toronto women and was carried in the Toronto Star and Toronto's National Post and other major media in Canada. The reason broadsheets in the U.S. did not carry it is that their readers are not interested, not that the story is bogus. However, we are supposed to use the best sources available and generally ignore information that has not been widely covered, so normally there would be no reason to use the Daily News. TFD (talk) 18:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

• One thing that does need to be mentioned... while the actual reporting in the Daily News is accurate and fact checked (and thus reliable)... we can not say the same for its headlines. Take for example what was reported on October 30th, 1975... the day before (on Oct. 29), President Ford had given a speech saying that he would deny federal assistance to spare New York City from bankruptcy. The paper's responce to this speech was probably the most famous front page headline in Daily News history: "Ford to City: Drop Dead".

The problem is that Ford never used the words "Drop Dead" in the speech. The headline is essentially an editorial comment about Ford's speech. However... as sensationalized as the headline may have been... the report that follows this headline accurately discusses what occurred... reporting faithfully on what President Ford actually said in his speech.

This is really the crux of the issue here: When determining the reliability of a "tabloid" news source, we need to look beyond the sensationalized (and unreliable) headlines that the paper may use to attract readers. We need to look at whether it has a reputation for factual accuracy in the reporting that follows those headlines. The Daily News has a fairly good reputation. Blueboar (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm reading the Daily News article in question. Here are some quotes:

• "The News, based on interviews and a review of previously unreported documents, found"
• "sources told The News"
• "“We cannot confirm, deny or comment on any such case,” said a spokesperson for the U.S. attorney’s office"
• "The investigation, according to sources,"
• "Those no doubt shaken by Blazer’s choice to cooperate with investigators include"
• "an associate of the soccer big-wig would later say."
• "Documents reviewed exclusively by The News"
• "According to one source, the feds also held racketeering charges over Blazer’s head, claims possibly built on financial irregularities"
• "But another person familiar with Blazer’s behavior suggested"
• "said a source."

So, in short, it's OK to base a Wikipedia article about highly controversial actions of a living person, on the report of a tabloid newspaper that is based on speculation ("no doubt", "possibly") and unnamed sources that no other newspaper will confirm? Surely this is against the principles of

WP:BLP. --GRuban (talk

) 21:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

You're referring, again, the style of tabloid journalism, not the substance. Plus, the NYT and other non-tabloids quote unnamed sources also—with more 'class,' perhaps. Further, there is no controversy about Blazer's criminality—the NYT ran several articles in 2015, describing Blazer's criminal activities (The Daily News scooped them by breaking a great deal of the story in the article in question). And again, the NYT quoted the section of the Daily News article most crucial to this entire discussion verbatim, with attribution, in one of its articles on Blazer. Tapered (talk) 05:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

That last does make me feel better. --GRuban (talk) 16:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that, but I think it does show the weakness of paying attention to the Daily News' downmarket format in the matter of reporting and substantive content. A la the National Enquirer as the primary reliable source for the OJ Trial. The Daily News doesn't make up its salacious stories, and the Enquirer does—but it's still the best source on a serious, but salacious story with a dedicated Wikipedia article. Tapered (talk) 03:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

How were you able to link to the article? According to the OP, "The Daily News blocks linkage to its articles".--Auric talk 16:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

@Auric:A brief experiment showed that my issue with linking to the NYDN and other commercial sites is a caused by either Adblock or Ubuntu, or both. Tapered (talk) 03:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I use Adblock and am able to see the link fine.--Auric talk 20:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• Yes it's reliable mainly per TFD. If we rejected every source that used eye catching or tabloid style headlining we would have a very short list of RS newspapers. And the list of rejected papers would be long indeed... the NY POST, The Telegraph and the Guardian from the UK etc. Tabloid does not mean "we make it up as we go along." If there is specific evidence of poor editorial oversight or a string of stories that required retraction then we can discuss it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Headlines are never acceptable as sources. And certainly all news media sometimes use qualifications such as "according to sources." When they do that, we cannot assert something as fact. Another proviso is that investigative journalism should always be treated with care. We need to establish that other news media have picked up on it in order to show its weight. But broadsheets do investigative journalism too, the most famous of which was Woodward and Bernstein in the Watergate case, who relied on an unnamed source they referred to as "Deep Throat." TFD (talk) 04:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Is the King Faisal International Prize website (http://kfip.org/en) reliable for biographical information? I am dubious as the organisation has commended people such as the Holocaust denier Roger Garaudy and the Islamist Syed Abul Ala Maudidi.

Beyond personal dislike of their "politics" have you any real reason for assuming they do not check their facts?Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I was wondering - can SFF Audio be seen as a reliable source here on Wikipedia? I've seen them around quite a bit and I do see where they get name dropped every now and again. They're mentioned in this Dummies book and their reviews do get put in book praise sections like this one by Galaxy Press. There's also some mention here, on the website for LibriVox. This mention from SF Signal bodes well for the site too, since the founder of SF Signal, John DeNardo, mentions that he regularly takes news and other tidbits from there - and the SF Signal is definitely seen as a RS for reviews and news. (Despite it being now closed, its stuff is still up on the Internet at this point in time.)

Do you guys think that SFF Audio could be seen as a RS on here? It's not a fly by night, they have a set staff, and they aren't a marketing outfit, meaning that they like to promote stuff that interests them but they aren't selling their services or out to promote everyone that sends them an inquiry.

Well, their about page doesn't list any credentials, industry recognition or other indications of journalistic integrity. So for news claims, I would say no. The only subpage of the about page makes it clear that, to the owner at least, it is a hobby site. While a background in education and paying lip service to critical thinking are good signs, they're not enough to label it a blanket reliable source. So the question is, what statements are you proposing we use it to support?

P.S. Galaxy Press is a Scientology organization. Given Scientology's (well-deserved, IMHO) treatment in the mainstream press, them citing praise from a minor web site doesn't really mean much.

Tell me all about it.

22:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, while it's good they have an "about us" page with an established staff and that they've been doing it for 13 years, but I don't really see anything in the way of credentials of any of the writers/staff, other than "being fans/enthusiasts", which doesn't count for much when it comes to RS... Sergecross73 msg me 17:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• Hmm... I was thinking of using their site just for book reviews, honestly. As far as news sites go, there are more well-known sites but the website does tend to review a large amount of indie and self-published books that some of the larger sites don't. Of course one review from them wouldn't make a book notable if they're the only review out there, but it could be helpful for borderline cases, where the book has a decent amount of coverage otherwise but just needs that one review to really push it into notability territory.
  (｡◕‿◕｡)
  05:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, honestly I wouldn't revert someone inserting a review into a book article because it was sourced to this site, unless there were higher notability reviews there to offset the removal. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 05:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

The bulk of the content on Islamic Human Rights Commission seems to have the organization's own website as its source. I have deleted some of the examples and tagged some of the content - but I am unsure as to how far to go with this. FOr example, if some of the organization's activities are entirely unreported except through the organization's own website, is its website a valid source to use, and if not, meaning the material will be unsourced, are such activities notable enough for inclusion in an article? And are quotes from press releases or response statements issued by the organization valid material for article inclusion if they remain unreported by any RS media outlet? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

This is a common problem. For bland organisations it's not a pressing issue, but for organisations that are controversial, their self-description is IMO not something we should report uncritically. I'm equally uncomfortable with the inclusion of slogans, mission statements and other such marketing guff. We should not self-source promotional material, and we should describe the aims of organisations by reference to reliable independent sources. This is especially true in the current post-truth climate, where a number of organisations seem intent on proving that Orwell was if anything too optimistic. Guy (Help!) 10:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• globalsecurity.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

This is a very web 1.0 site with a good deal of what looks like opinion. Is it a reliable source? There are an enormous number of links on Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 17:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• A number of the staff and fellows appear to be experts in the domain. Their editorial policy does not, however, appear to be public. Perhaps you should invite
  WT:MILHIST to this discussion. --Izno (talk
  ) 17:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
• There was a discussion about this site not too long ago, see here. Many more in the archives. [13][14][15] It seems to come up frequently, we should really try to resolve its reliability a bit more firmly because obviously people keep using it even though it's often challenged. Looking at previous discussions, my sense is that it often ends up getting ruled reliable on military knick-knacks, but is considered a poor source for history, geopolitics, etc. Part of the problem is that they do employ a number of people who we might plausibly consider "experts" on military and intelligence matters - but they publish stuff on a variety of other subjects, where their expertise and accuracy is not great.

NB, it's not to be confused with globalresearch (I made that rather embarrassing mistake in the last discussion). Fyddlestix (talk) 17:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mark Schierbecker: called it "notoriously unreliable" in 2010.[16] @Brad101: in 2011 seemed to doubt that it is "high-quality and reliable." [17] Maybe we can decide which, if any, parts are usable. It looks like it's widely used on Wikipedia, but that may be mostly due to the fact that they post articles on many topics which are otherwise thinly covered. Felsic2 (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I think I said it was unreliable because it is mostly tertiary and doesn't always cite its sources.

talk

) 20:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• Tell me all about it.
  19:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Good summary, but I'd also like to add a point that I raised, which is that it probably should not be used as a general reference for an article, and should be accompanied by an inline citation at least, if it is used at all. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• Hmmm. So here's one link taken at random: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2001/010900-zhawar.htm - this is from a copyright source with no evidence of release, and was falsely attributed ot the website not to the originating journal. That seems poor. Guy (Help!) 20:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Isnt there a rule in the policy soup somewhere about not linking to websites that host copyright infringing material? (Found it:

WP:ELNEVER "Policy: material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked, whether in an external-links section or in a citation". So if you think its violating copyright you can just nuke the citation.) Only in death does duty end (talk

) 20:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

That would be public domain since it's by the

talk

) 20:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Not necessarily. It was published by The Journal of Slavic Military Studies. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Then we must delink Wikipedia Commons, since, as well as the numerous copyright violations deleted from it on a daily basis, it hosts hundreds of thousands of images bulk copied illegally, under the laws of many nations, from the image archives of museums and galleries? As I understand it, the policy is intended to apply only to links that directly access the actual material that is violating copyright. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I wasnt suggesting removing *all* the links. Just the ones that are either clearly (or unclearly) violating copyright. Only in death does duty end (talk) 02:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Sounded to me as if you were - you wrote "not linking to websites that host copyright infringing material". But yes, links that directly link to copyright violations should not be there. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 13:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

That would be

Tell me all about it.

14:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Commons has a policy against copyright violation, and removes violations when reported. That is very different from a case where a site is careless or contemptuous of copyright. See Secondary liability#Contributory liability for the rationale behind our policies on this. Guy (Help!) 10:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

From the above, we have:

• Some articles are tendentious
• Some are batshit insane
• Some infringe copyright

That suggests ot me that whatever editorial oversight they have, is fundamentally broken, and thus the site is not a

Some articles are written by people who we would consider experts in their field. If they had self-published somewhere we would still consider using them as an expert opinion correctly attributed. Thats the exception Mjolnir is referring to above when he mentions 'reliable for some technical stuff'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

That is the problem with a blanket "the site is not a WP:RS" statement. While some sources are not RS for anything, others sources can be a RS for some subjects or some purposes but not be a RS for others. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 13:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Here is a link to an RfC that relates to reliable sources: Talk:Banjica concentration camp#RfC about the use of Cohen's Serbia's Secret War Your input would be appreciated. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm currently working on improving the "

• The Daily Mail has a reputation for a lack of fact checking and poor editorial oversight. If you have to rely exclusively on their coverage, it probably isn't worth it, and if you have other sources, use them instead.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  23:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
• Well I guess they talked to some scientists or something, but the Daily Mail's not really an ideal source for an encyclopedia entry on astronomy, or indeed anything at all. There's been much discussion of this paper over the years, a selection of handy cut-out-and-keep quotes can be found here. Why it hasn't been formally banned outright (esp. for BLPs) is beyond me. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 23:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

  I think you can just ask Jimbo about that, he doesn't seem to like it either. —

  talk

  ) 00:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

  "It's really really really bad" He doesn't seem to like them, no. I'm sure it's nothing personal --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 01:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

  I think the ultimate problem with the Daily Mail is that their standard of proof is trash. They are known to base an entire story on an anonymous tweet or blog post. Plenty of news outlets are known to do that occasionally, but for The Daily Mail it appears to be standard operating procedure. The fact that most of their content happens to be true is an accident. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• It's a low-quality source. As said above: "If you have to rely exclusively on their coverage, it probably isn't worth it, and if you have other [presumably better] sources, use them instead." Neutrality^talk 23:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
• The best thing I can say about the Daily Mail is that the
  Tell me all about it.
  23:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• The best thing I can say about the Daily Mail is that its photographic coverage (at least online) is often excellent, and can't be criticised as being false or distorted. Ravi Shankar was one notable example. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• Replaced the source with an article from the The Daily Telegraph. Seems like the Daily Mail is the British equivalent of
  talk
  ) 00:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Eh, I would say the New York Post (also not a reliable source). Neutrality^talk 00:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Breitbart is less obviously racist. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I am not aware of what "racist" or "homophobic" implications could arise from the discovery of a planet 20 light years away - is there a disturbing rampant pink hue to it perhaps (or, worse still, a rainbow colored one), or have the astronomers detected it is full of bearded fanatics just waiting to make the long interstellar journey to Europe? Unless the Daily Mail has a hidden part ownership of the W. M. Keck Observatory in Hawaii, this newspaper is not the source of the story (and the article actually cites something called "Discovery News" as its source). Stop using this noticeboard as an excuse to make stupid and juvenile off-topic attacks on the Daily Mail (or to indulge in deceptive wikilinking using piping - should Hillbillyholiday editing be checked for similar violations in article content?). The Daily Mail is obviously not a suitable source for facts in contentious science-related subjects, but the OP has not asked that - in fact, they seem to be asking spurious questions for dubious motives. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 12:31, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't. His amusing contributions are very welcome. I often find Daily Mail content quite "stupid and juvenile", so I think such criticism is quite on-topic. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

POV manipulation of article content Wikilinks using piping is a serious infraction of good editing practice - so I think to do it anywhere is troubling, even as just an amusement. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 13:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have no idea what you mean or why you are in any way "troubled". Martinevans123 (talk) 17:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

The code that does this

Tony Blair is a vertical line that is called a pipe after its function to "pipe", i.e. direct, users to an article that is named differently from the visible name. Linking to an inappropriate article this way is an abuse of wikilinking. Hillbillyholiday wikilinked Daily Mail to Völkischer Beobachter, which is also a ludicrous over exaggeration. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk

) 21:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah thanks, so that's what a pipe means. And there's me thinking it was some kind of useless fancy frippery or just a confection. Billy's just on fire, ain't he. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC) p.s. but you're big a bit harsh on dear old Tony.

The Daily Mail is very right wing, populist and opinionated and the UK it is treated as a tabloid. Even the normal newspapers

WP:RS tend to use 1 journalist for "Science." I'd recommend a specialised Science journal. JRPG (talk

) 17:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

It is worse than most tabloids in that it has a reputation for malicious dishonesty. And actual, literal, support for Nazism. The Mirror has a political agenda and will spin any story about party politics, the Mail is not above outright fabrication. And then there's the Sidebar of Shame. Guy (Help!) 23:32, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok, you've convinced me that I was wrong. The Weekly World News is a better source. At least they're not malicious about it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 06:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Is this draft a reliable source for this section of the article? Mainly the allegations of raping prisoners. Thanks.--Kazemita1 (talk) 16:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I would say that it's not a reliable source. It needs to be in a reliable secondary source. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 15:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Can you elaborate a little bit?--Kazemita1 (talk) 06:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: This source has been used by secondary source http://docbox.un.org/DocBox/docbox.nsf/GetFile?OpenAgent&DS=A/68/340&Lang=E&Type=DOC (united nations) and its article is Justice for Iran. If you are not sure about something just plz say I don't know or say nothing. This is a long discussion about Kazemita1 trying for censorship and vandalism in wikifa article 1988 executions of Iranian political prisoners. --IranianNationalist (talk) 08:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Also if it not possible to open the un report this is the google cache : http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Esmkn06pbSYJ:docbox.un.org/DocBox/docbox.nsf/GetFile%3FOpenAgent%26DS%3DA/68/340%26Lang%3DE%26Type%3DDOC+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ir&client=firefox-b-ab

or just simply google this term : "Pathways to, conditions and consequences of incarceration for women site:un.org"

PDF version straightforward : http://dag.un.org/bitstream/handle/11176/273207/A_68_340-EN.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y (its archive) --IranianNationalist (talk) 08:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I read the aforementioned UN report. The reference (#48) was to another draft by "Justice For Iran" different than the one I asked about. Moreover, the UN report did not talk about rape in prisons. Here is the exact passage from the UN report:

28. In many countries, women’s political activism has given rise to arrests and detentions. A recent report on the Islamic Republic of Iran refers to interviews with former women prisoners of conscience who were arrested for a number of reasons, including political affiliation, which can include affiliation with political opposition, women’s rights activists, student bodies, NGOs, members or defenders of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community or defenders of the rights of religious minorities; individual activities related to journalism, the media, blogging and human rights advocacy; participation in demonstrations or other forms of activism; religious crimes, including affiliation with unrecognized minorities; and violations pertaining to laws linked to dress codes (hijab).48

Kazemita1 (talk) 12:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@Kazemita1: Some wikien users may be not familiar to Farsi lang. Before you, Kazemita1, write any thing in this page, the right source (http://justiceforiran.org/crimeand-impunity/assets/crime_and_impunity.pdf) referenced by the UN, had been mentioned in the WikiFa talk page and article page by me. Also HOW DO YOU READ THIS PARAGRAPH IN THE UN SOURCE? (http://dag.un.org/bitstream/handle/11176/273207/A_68_340-EN.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y) :

38. A recent study uncovered cases of rape of female political prisoners in the Islamic Republic of Iran throughout the 1980s, including the rape of young virgin girls before execution, forced marriages and other forms of sexual violence, some of which continues today. In July 2011, a female prisoner committed suicide after violent beatings, including with electronic batons. The Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran states that a prisoner alleged that prison guards tortured her by subjecting her to sleep and toilet deprivation, keeping her in a standing position for hours, burning her with cigarettes, exposing her to extreme temperatures for extended periods of time and punching, kicking and striking her with batons (A/67/369, para. 27).

--IranianNationalist (talk) 10:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

About your censorship efforts (and your friends such as Sa.Vakilian censormen) I must add this diff link about you: fa:Special:Diff/18662321/18663525 you asked for a quote citation from UN source I think you need an eyeglass because you can't see the quote in the web-cite template!!! and you repetitively removed the reliable source during your editwar (it must be wonderful for @Jimbo Wales: to know that: Recently, I blocked once due to this subject above, I was hopeful about مهرنگار -the blocker admin- to be not partial this way I didn't complain from him/her in wikifa or en). --IranianNationalist (talk) 11:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Why not cite the UN report then, no one ca argue with that.Slatersteven (talk) 11:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Hi, you may check the quote in the article (added on 8 Dec 2016) "A recent study uncovered cases of rape of female political prisoners in the Islamic Republic of Iran throughout the 1980s, including the rape of young virgin girls before execution, forced marriages and other forms of sexual violence, some of which continues today." in these edits (My edits from 8 Dec 2016) but 3 censormen in that talk page can't see it (and pinged admins are silent) (however I must appreciate Wikimostafa a good rational semi-admin but the 3 censormen don't accept the 3rd opinion of Wikimostafa. Kazemita presumes Wiki to be a democracy) :

• fa:Special:Diff/18520262/18520303 8 Dec added by me. You can see the "A recent study uncovered cases of rape of female poli..."
• fa:Special:Diff/18598577/18598587 25 Dec removed by Kazemita1
• fa:Special:Diff/18598587/18618774 29 Dec added by me
• fa:Special:Diff/18618774/18628321 31 Dec removed by Kazemita1
• fa:Special:Diff/18628321/18662321 7 Jan 2017 9:01 UTC added by me with some improvements in the sources including new UN link (PDF version) and Justice for Iran(JFI) new link (Crime and Impunity. Previous JFI link was the JFI source "Raped out of Paradise" referencing to the same "Crime and Impunity" source UN had used it but the link had broken thus I found the source by googling and mentioned it in wikifa talk and article next Kazemita mentioned it here in En as you can see the date of my edit in this case and the Kazemita1 3rd edit in this noticeboard)
• fa:Special:Diff/18662321/18663525 7 Jan removed by Kazemita1
• Heeeeey Wikifa admins... where are you? Previously I had complained in the WikiFa admin noticeboard but the admins gave Kazemita1 two warnings but nothing more however مهرنگار had blocked me once previously (and this is the Justice for Iran :) ).

I must remind that they (Kazemita1, Mhhossein and Sa.Vakilian) have same fallacious method in the WikiFa talk page (as you can see it above). I had cited the quote in the the article but he cited another part to distort the reader minds of the talk.

Note : the second blue/red part visible in the above links is about Islamic central Shiite Hawzah in Qom, Iran. There was another controversy between me and Sa.Vakilian and he called for the 3rd opinion of Wikimostafa but Wikimostafa took my side and mentioned 2 another sources from Shadi Sadr and Iran Tribunal. That Hawzah source is in Farsi language and in answer to a criticism to the verse 24 of Al-Nisa surah of Quran. The Hawzah source approves the slavery of female war prisoners based on this verse as "Kaniz Harbi" (means War bondwoman) and the source of Shadi Sadr and Iran Tribunal say the same thing "Kaniz Harbi" used by the prison official chief-warders during exactly "1988". This discussion must be resolved by the 3rd opinion of Wikimostafa but after the positive opinion of Wikimostafa to keep the content, suddenly Mhhossein and Kazemita1 started to vandalize the article and falsify in the talk.

Edit : Also I must remind that Shadi Sadr source was talking exactly about Sharia' and religious Fatwas --IranianNationalist (talk) 14:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

"A UN report reported cases of rape of female political prisoners in the Islamic Republic of Iran in the 1980s, including the rape of young virgin girls before execution, forced marriages and other forms of sexual violence, some of which continues today."

Then link to the UN report. This might avoid conflict.~~

Also can users tone down their language, It is confrontational and abusive. if you thin editors are not playing fair do not shout a them report them.Slatersteven (talk) 14:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@

Muawiyah I" he said too) on 28 Nov 2016 this way the discussion started) tnx :) I'm a crap collector. "Crap" is probably based on WP:Patent nonsense (translated as Crap in the lead of the corresponding WikiFa policy :o just check it yourself "چرندیات محض" : fa:ویکی‌پدیا:چرند

) but I just reminded him WP:Civility). In the Fa admin noticeboard Sa.Vakilian called me as partial having emotional talk participation ok I'm partial but his signature is "Sayyed" (means "Sir" as the descendent of the Islam's prophet however I'm a Sayyed too nominally but I'm partial because I don't have a Sayyed signature :) ).

• During the last 41 days in discussion I pinged admins (آرش، Dalba، مهرنگار,...) and experienced users to make the consensus. Thanks to Wikimostafa and Behzad39 who participated in the talk but Sa.Vakilian (who pinged Wikimostafa himself) refused the Wikimostafa's opinion. Mhhossein and Kazemita1 had no participation until 8 Dec when they started the vandalism editwar without any discussion (After the Wikimostafa's 3rd opinion). I reminded the talk to them in the edit sums repetitively. They made a noticeboard complaint and the admin (مهرنگار) banned me (because I had 3 edits and their army each one had 1 or 2 edits regardless to the 3rd opinion however the spirit of the wikipolicy
  WP:3RR
  is difference but this was the admin's justice).

Previously I had some edits in the Fa article Criticism of the Quran too also Saeed Toosi and some other controversial articles (many non-controversial too including Islamic articles). And always there are some users try to censor and admins have no reaction. Some of the users are too old accounts and experienced users such as Sa.Vakilian. (and usually طاها and Bruno and Mhhossein and Kazemita).

Actually there was another edit in Ali Khamenei (Farsi) about his FSU background (Patrice Lumumba). I have referenced the sources in here including rt.com video report from this university inside for the 50th anniversary (its wayback archive and relative video) and kommersant.ru and BBC Russian and political analysis of politifact.com and aim.org and the background of this famous claim about Khamenei in this old tiny newspaper (Observer-Reporter) by Smith Hempstone. All the content was impartial and as CLAIMS, researches, analysis and REFUSES with argues shortly but it is removed from WikiFa article fa:سید علی خامنه‌ای as inappropriate for alive person article :) who did it? "Mardetanha" ! (a good experienced technical admin).

In WikiFa , We had a completely different problem too when I said the Arabs' invasion to Persia (حمله:invasion and اعراب:Arabs) (iranicaonline.org) has a race inappropriate meaning and it must be Muslim conquest of Persia (britannica.com) (regardless to the Persia means سرزمین پارسی or Persian land not Iran:ایران) I said Muslim is an adj not a noun same as Muslim conquest of the Levant but in the discussion we had a falsification by a completely different user (not religious) and the user complained in the Fa WP:ANB claimed that I called him as a racist thus I was blocked by the Sahehco admin for the first time as you can see the discussion above is closed as unsuccessful by the Sahehco himself.

Islamic censorship in WikiFa admin is complicated. It must be Arabs not Islam... if based on reliable sources you contribute to the criticism of the Quran you must expect a long 6 months discussion to protect it. You will see many falsifications and there will be no admin reaction but if some user assign a false distorted saying to you in the discussion if you say this is a lie and you didn't say that, you will be blocked because you probably wanted to show the user as a liar (personal attack). Here UN is different and they can't do anything so I was blocked due to a 3RR @مهرنگار:. --IranianNationalist (talk) 17:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Please do not accuse other users of censorship or vandalism unless you are willing to back this up with an ANI. Just use the UN source and be done with it now.Slatersteven (talk) 17:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Kazemita1 received 2 admin (Sahehco and Sunfyre) warnings in his user talk page for his editwars and misuse of revert access. When Sa.Vakilian said the same thing to me (partial) on the WikiFa WP:ANI it was not a personal attack on ANI? Now I said , it is a personal attack? ok the links are clear. More relative links for those can read Farsi : Fa ANI by Sa.Vakilian to me, admin warnings to Kazemita1 about editwar and access misuse about Justice for Iran --IranianNationalist (talk) 17:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi there. I noticed this edit by @

To my mind your answer is in your last part of your question. As this is not a verified account we cannot be sure it is him expressing his opinions. His tweets (assuming they are his) can be used for what he is working on, but not for what a company he is working for may be doing unrelated to his direct role.Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, his tweets are believed to be his by many reliable sources (I'm currently writing the article about him and I noticed this a lot), so there is a high chance that he really is the guy using the account. Regards SoWhy 19:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Since articles are supposed to be based on secondary sources, I would avoid them. Let journalists determine whether the accounts are legitimate, what was actually expressed in 140 characters or less and whether it is worth mentioning. TFD (talk) 12:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Basically, if it was a verified account, then it would be a reliable source for Hidalgo's opinions on the film, which may or may not be worth noting in the article, but such would preferably be noted in-line (Pablo Hidalgo posted on Twitter that...). However, the main problem with how it was used here is that the article attributes the content to a Little White Lies interview with Gareth Edwards, so amending that with material gleaned from a separate source, which mentions neither Edwards nor the interview, and which doesn't even explicitly state "2012", is inherently problematic. So in this case it was used inappropriately, and if it is not verified then it shouldn't be used at all, but Twitter not a reliable source is definitely an oversimplification and has nothing to do with why the edit should have been reverted. 182.251.140.111 (talk) 00:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I wanted to add the following to the Sanctuary city article: However, according to a report by

However, another editor shot down the Washington Examiner as not a reliable source and "garbage". I know the paper leans to the right, but as far as I can tell its reliable.--

I think that you should look for other information – perhaps, if you can, a scholarly article.  WP:The Wikipedia Library might be able to help you get access (for free!) to some scholarly journal articles on the subject.  You should also search for more reputable sources, some of which have come to the opposite conclusion, e.g., this one.

With respect to the Washington Examiner article itself, the first problem with saying that there has been an increased crime rate is that the article you're citing doesn't say that.  Literally, the word "increase" is not present in the article.  You're just assuming (as the newspaper's editors wanted you to) that there were a certain number of criminals in the city, and that releasing these people means that there are now an even bigger number of criminals in the city.

And it's a huge number, right?  1,867 people got re-arrested!  Well, that's across 276 cities, so that's about six people per city in the report.  And a few of those "arrests" probably had the wrong person, and some of the charges will get dropped.  The story in those numbers is that the average city released 30 people (saving the city's taxpayers jail costs, healthcare costs, foster care costs, etc.) and re-arrested six of them (a few of whom committed a sensational crime, but not most of them).  Also, it's worth remembering that just because the ICE requests that you be detained doesn't prove that you're not a legal immigrant.  So the cities have released 30 people, some of whom are 100% legally present in this country, and eventually re-arrested 6 of them.  That's a re-arrest rate of just 20%, which is something that many parole officers see only in their dreams.

So the biggest problem is that the newspaper article (and, indeed, the ICE report itself, since the ICE is understandably annoyed that these cities are rejecting the ICE's detention requests) presents de-contextualized numbers, in the hope that you'll see the big numbers and get scared.  They don't want you to see that they're literally talking about six people per city.

Bottom line:  You shouldn't add that.  It's not about the right-wing or left-wing political views of the paper.  It's about accurately presenting the statistical information to the reader.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Even reliable sources publish garbage every once in a while. For the most part I would say Washington Examiner is a reliable source. But any mainstream newspaper article that attempts to make a point with statistics should be viewed with skepticism, and you must take care not to engage in original research to re-interpret what is already reported. Journalists are not statisticians and likely have near zero experience interpreting statistical data. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! At least it seems we agree that the Washington Examiner is a reliable source. Perhaps I should reword what I wrote though "However, according to a report by

Rusf10 (talk

) 03:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Article seems fine. The problem is the title, which is clearly just sensationalist clickbait crap. The article itself highlights "crime wave" as merely a fear that Congress holds, and not as a claim made by the ICE report (which it does not, I just read it). Also, "however" would be inappropriate in the proposed change. "However" implies that the following contradicts the preceding, which is not the case here. The ICE report and media coverage of it support the claim that some released (alleged) illegal immigrants commit more crimes. The other source in that section of the article claims that there is "no statistically meaningful" increase in crime. These two claims are not contradictory, and however the paragraph is ultimately written, it has to be clear there is no academic controversy as far as the sources used go. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Rusf10

, it's not true that they're likely to commit new crimes. Imagine that I said to you "We're likely to have rain tomorrow". Is that a fair and reasonable statement, if I put the actual odds at 20% having rain and 80% being completely dry?

I do not agree that "individuals are likely to commit new crimes" is an accurate summary of that source. Therefore, that source is not reliable for that statement. I would probably agree that the source could be reliable for a statement such as "some individuals have committed new crimes" (although we're assuming that these later arrests are for new crimes, rather than previous crimes – indeed, we're assuming that there were new crimes rather than new accusations – even though we believe that

innocent until proven guilty

applies to everyone, including people who are accused but not yet convicted of entering the country without getting the right paperwork).

The sensationalist image of "high-profile murders" is exactly what encyclopedias are not about. If you wanted to provide information about this, then you should try to do two things:

1. Get a comparison, so that you can compare sanctuary cities vs releases for other reasons (e.g., no spare beds at the jail, person released just before the ICE request came in, etc.). Otherwise, you're trying to inflame readers instead of educating them.
2. Find out what the typical crimes are, and inform readers about those. You can find these by looking at the ICE report directly, or (since I did), I'll just tell you the answer: drugs, DUI, and traffic offenses. Now, I'm not saying that these are great things to do – but I am saying that leading off with high-profile murders, when these are not at all typical, is the wrong way to educate readers. Encyclopedias are the opposite of yellow journalism.

BTW, I think that you ought to have a look at what the ICE considers a "sanctuary city". It includes cities that have said that they'll honor every single detainer request – if the ICE will pay the cost, or if the ICE can produce a warrant, or if the ICE can provide them with a simple statement of probable cause. I don't think that compliance with the Fourth Amendment is too onerous for a federal agency. I hope that you don't, either. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

The paper is a reliable source, but the article does not support what you say. Furthermore, any interpretation by you of the facts is

synthesis, hence not acceptable. It is faulty logic anyway. Obviously the more people a city has, the more crime it will have. TFD (talk

) 06:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Is this draft a reliable source for this section of the article? Mainly the allegations of raping prisoners. Thanks.Kazemita1 (talk) 10:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Who are they? [[20]], reading this I am going to question their neutrality (in addition it may count as self published). I think it can be used as a source for what they claim, but not for it being true.Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

It is not a draft, it is a findings report. "International Peoples Tribunal" is a phrase / concept seen quite a lot - but I don't think there is a single organization behind them, and I'm not sure if the phrase's usage means that there is always a particular common methodology or high set of standards at work behind them. However, for this report, it appears to be a substantial and professionally-formulated report, has a large number of named individuals, and was the result of a physical event, a conference, hosted by a well-known RS organization, so first impressions for me is that it can be a RS for its claims. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 13:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

It is usually better to provide third party sources that establish the emphasis we should provide to different parts of the report. Readers are free to follow the link to read the report themselves. TFD (talk) 07:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Article:

There is an ongoing dispute at

Scientists in Finland have proposed a possible explanation of this phenomenon involving the propagation of microwave 
impulse-momentum theorem depending on the asymmetric shape of the cavity.[1][2][3][4]

Others, particularly

Pinging involved editors not already mentioned above. Musashi miyamoto, Zedshort, mfb, Tokamac, Sparkyscience.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  22:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Briefly, and Insertcleverphrasehere's misleading and deceptive summary notwithstanding, we have a low-impact primary publication (the AIP Advances paper, in a journal with an impact factor of 1.4) that has managed to generate a very small number (three, it appears) bits of clickbait, in outlets that are known for problematic content.

If Insertcleverphrasehere were genuinely interested in true secondary sourcing, he would be waiting for proper, independent confirmation and commentary by genuine experts in peer-reviewed, high-quality secondary articles in respected scientific journals—not whichever bloggers could be duped into writing a high-hype headlines. (Given how badly Insertcleverphrasehere was suckered by the incredibly fraudulent Energy Catalyzer, you'd think he'd be a little more cautious this time around....) Recruiting IBTimes, ScienceAlert, or NextBigFuture as secondary sources for scientific claims lies somewhere between desperate and just sad. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll briefly respond to the few things you've actually said that have to do with WP policy. While it wasn't published in Nature or Science, an IF of 1.4 is not a low impact factor, it is middling, and anyway, the validity of using impact factor to judge the merit of academic work is debated widely (nothing in WP policy required a high impact factor to my knowledge). Also, while peer reviewed secondary sources are of course preferred, I don't believe there is anything in WP policy that requires anything of the sort. Generally secondary sources are required to have editorial oversight, and come from reliable sources, which the IBTimes and Sciencealert both seem to easily satisfy (I have doubts about NBF but it is there).  InsertCleverPhraseHere  00:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

WP doesn't have a fixed rule concerning impact factors, but that doesn't mean every primary source is equal. Extraordinary claims (like a contradiction to special relativity) in mediocre journals are highly questionable.

I didn't notice any editorial oversight of IBtimes or Sciencealert in terms of physics. They seem to write about anything that could have a connection to the EM-drive. And while it is not the same topic: Every time sciencealert writes an article about particle physics, you can be sure that there are multiple errors in it. If they get things wrong in a field where "ask an expert" is easy to do, I don't expect a better quality in the topic discussed here. --mfb (talk) 01:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

All other hypotheses in this article (perhaps except the measurement errors) are equally, if not more controversial - however, that does not matter, because Wikipedia users should not assess validity of peer-reviewed papers. If you were to remove this hypothesis then you would also have to remove all other hypotheses. Why would you want to remove the whole hypotheses section from the article? What would be the point of doing that? All what Wikipedia editors have to do is to establish

WP:RS, and not debate about scientific issues. Musashi miyamoto (talk

) 03:05, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

@Musashi miyamoto: The other hypotheses are not discussed here (feel free to make new sections for them if you like), and "but this is in the article" is not a valid argument. --mfb (talk) 19:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

This is a very valid argument, because first we debate here whether IBTimes is a reliable source, and IBTimes has been a source for all other hypotheses in this article too, second this is supicious that Rolf is being so adamant regarding this section, when there is other material in the Hypotheses section of the article that is at least as controversial, and arguably worse sourced than the section that he has repeatedly tried to blank, that is why I pointed out that if you removed this section then you would have to remove also all other sections in the Hypotheses section - but that would be pointless and counterproductive. Thus, this also shows that what Rolf is doing is pointless and counterproductive. As long as we do not know how this drive works, it is best to share and consider all options, which have been published in peer-reviewed journals. To respect the scientific principles is the best way to ensure progress. Rolf's belligerent behaviour may indicate that he knows very well that he is not right, but despite that he is pushing his POV just for the sake of "I don't want to be wrong", and that can be considered a non good-faith behaviour. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 20:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY

says "Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense". So having secondary sources is not always obligatory, but nevertheless there are several secondary sources in this case, so IMHO there is no issue at all. I do not see a reason why deny Wikipedia users access to all peer-reviewed papers publishing hypotheses trying to explain how this invention works. It would be helpful not only to general public, but also to those research scientists who just heard about EmDrive and who just become interested in this topic, they are likely to read first the article in Wikipedia about EmDrive and in particular the Hypotheses section, which would help them to figure out what already has been done and whether they would be able to contribute. It would also help them finding scientific sources, because they are available in the Hypotheses section. So removing from the article any of the hypotheses without a good reason would be detrimental to Wikipedia, Wikipedia users, and in fact detrimental to progress in science.
Also please note that this article in not about a new theory, but about a new invention, so all those scientific papers about hypotheses how the invention works should not be treated in the same way as papers about a new theory entered as a separate article in Wikipedia.

Rolf H Nelson was disruptively blanking multiple times the whole sections not only of the 'Photon Leakage' section, but also 'Tests in space' section, again claiming witout any valid, relevant arguments, that IBTimes is allegedly not a reliable source. IBTimes report was based on the Chinese government Science and Technology Daily report. Also there was added as a source a report from china.com, which reprinted China Daily report, but that source was removed two times by JzG editor without any explanation why he/she removed that source. Subsequently multiple other sources reported very widely from there quoting IBTimes, so apparently all these other reliable sources considered the IBTimes to be a RS, so why wouldn't we? IBTimes reported also about all other hypotheses presented in other subsections of the Hypotheses section. IBTimes has been awarded many times for their journalism. IBTimes has not been the only secondary source. So even if IBTimes is excluded there is still no reason to remove those sections, which Rolf H Nelson has been repeatedly removing against the earlier reached consensus, and whose disruptive edits were reverted multiple times (about a dozen) by 4 different editors (Tokamac, Sparkyscience, Insertcleverphrasehere, Musashi miyamoto).
IMHO it was Rolf H Nelson who should have started RS, because it was he who disagreed with the consensus previously reached. Yet, despite the repeated many times advice from many editors that he should start RS or DR, instead of talking, he started editing war. He alone was blanking multiple times the whole sections of the article without good reasons and against the existing consensus.Musashi miyamoto (talk) 02:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• In a general sense, I believe IB Times is a reliable source, but I've only used them for technology related articles - usually non-controversial stuff like video game previews. I have no idea if they're an authority on whatever all of this is about - which is difficult to ascertain between the massive long responses and arguing... Sergecross73 msg me 05:56, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Status quo ante dispute

FTR status-quo ante is non-inclusion; but this

Not true. There has been a consensus that it should be included.[[22]] Only your behaviour was belligerent and disruptive. Four different editors were reverting your very disruptive editing - you alone were blanking indiscriminately multiple times the whole sections of the article without good reasons and against the existing consensus. Nobody else was doing that, just you, so you are the only perpetrator in respect to removal of the whole sections.
Regarding your other points my answer can be already found above, so I will not be repeating myself here. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 03:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Background on publishing journal

"AIP Advances is a community-based journal, with a fast production cycle. The quick publication process and open-access model allows us to quickly distribute new scientific concepts. Our Editors, assisted by peer review, determine whether a manuscript is technically correct and original. After publication, the readership evaluates whether a manuscript is timely, relevant, or significant."[23] 2015 impact factor was 1.444. The publisher is legitimate: "AIP Publishing is a wholly owned not-for-profit subsidiary of the American Institute of Physics (AIP)". Rolf H Nelson (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Disputed text is an "extraordinary claim"

The claims made in the paper, "On the exhaust of electromagnetic drive", is that photons can pass through arbitrary potential barriers if they are "out-of-phase" with one another, and that this provides an explanation for the emdrive. The out-of-phase argument is nonsense, but that requires some knowledge of

Dubious to me; I drafted [24] to document the judgements of RS on IBTimes; "clickbait" and "content farm" are the key words. Rather than being founded by established journalists, the paper was allegedly founded as a way to make money for an dodgy cult "enigmatic religious figure". List of awards seems unimpressive to me. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

What is the basis for your anecdote about "cults"? . Or your unexplained, vague comment that you're not personally impressed by them? Sergecross73 msg me 05:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Sergecross73 My sources are The Guardian and Mother Jones on both the clickbait/content farm characterization by many of its own employees and the cult allegations. The awards it won don't look Notable by Wikipedia standards nor prestigious, and I personally haven't heard of them, but other RS board members can follow the link to awards and issue their own opinions. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 20:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I can't help but notice that neither article contains the word "cult" at any point, for starters. Sounds like they've got some controversial religious beliefs I neither support nor defend conceptually, but that doesn't necessarily ban them from being a Wikipedia-reliable source in a general sense. Sergecross73 msg me 21:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Excellent point, so let me elaborate. From the Mother Jones article: 'IBT is hardly the first media company with close ties to a religious group. The Reverend Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church founded the Washington Times; the Christian Science Church has published the Christian Science Monitor for decades. But while those affiliations are formal and public, IBT's ties to the Community are neither. In one email, (IBT co-founder) Davis went so far as to refer to his Community role as "inherently covert."' As for the cult characterization, the

Daily Beast alleges "A further wrinkle in the current flap is IBT Media’s alleged relationship to enigmatic South Korean-born pastor David Jang, the founder of an apparently cult-like ministry called “The Community,” in which some members whisper that Jang is actually the Messiah." To me the articles suggest that making money, and not providing quality journalism, is the founders' driving goal. If the RS board doesn't consider all that relevant in any way, then I'm happy to drop that point. Rolf H Nelson (talk

) 01:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd drop it, yeah. If it requires that much explanation and piecing together of points, I don't believe it really has that strong of a bearing on the actual writers, editors, and day to day running of the website... Sergecross73 msg me 15:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

All that aside, this really looks like it'd meet Wikipedia's

Dubious to me; for example [25] seems like clickbait: "In June, a young boy in India was snapping photos of clouds when he captured an image of what some thought may have been a flying saucer circling the skies. While some raised doubts as to whether the object was alien, others said it was definitive proof that UFOs exist, the Express reported"... "One of the more high-profile UFO sightings came after U.S. astronaut Scott Kelly tweeted a photo of the sky over India in November, showing a mysterious object in the picture’s corner. NASA didn’t offer an explanation, but at least one UFO hunter, Scott Waring, suggested that Kelly intentionally showed the UFO, trying to suggest that there may be aliens out there, the New York Post reported." Rolf H Nelson (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

While the title seems a bit clickbait-y, as is usual in the online news industry these days, this source doesn't strike me as 'unreliable' nor would it be a 'science' source. It doesn't really appear to be pro-UFO, despite what you've said above, if you read the whole article in context. To me the article seems to just make the ridiculousness of some of the claims speak for themselves, rather than bothering to condemn them, which is possibly where your confusion comes from. I'd argue that it would be an appropriate and reliable secondary source for use in the List of reported UFO sightings article.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  20:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

If IBTimes isn't a good science source, this example certainly wouldn't be why. The title is "15 times people thought they saw UFOs". They then listed proceeded to list out people's personal accounts, with commentary from UFO enthusiasts but not NASA. What exactly did you expect? That's like every UFO news piece in existence. UFO reports certainly are dubious, their presentation of it here isn't - its not like they're trying to use this to make a case for the existence of UFOs. Sergecross73 msg me 20:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

A look at the last five articles of the author in question, [26], gives [27][28][29][30][31], all five posted by Pandey in a seven-hour period. RS board editors can decide for themselves, but to me the article content of those five looks like a content farm based on rewriting press releases, with no effort to talk to independent scientists; thus to me the anonymous IBT employees' allegation that IBT often acts as a 'content farm' seems credible. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I still don't see an issue here. Lets look at your first one. He wrote this article and used this NASA written feature as their source. Was information misrepresented it? Was there some sort of claim they made that the needed to reach out to scientists for or something? I mean, I could understand a "why not just directly cite NASA than IB Times" argument, but I don't quite see what it is that I'm supposed to be seeing that shows it doesn't meet Wikpedia's

WP:RS benchmark here... Sergecross73 msg me

21:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Extremely dubious to me. The article, [32], has a subheader "A new study proves that the EmDrive does indeed have an exhaust" (Nobel prize time, then!) and has nuggets like "since 2012 nine independent studies have been carried out by scientists from China, Germany and even Nasa to try to build and test their own versions of the EmDrive. Although the researchers are not sure why, they have all discovered signals of thrust that cannot be explained" (In truth, many results were null, most of the various study authors have acknowledged that the signals could be experimental error, and the original Chinese scientists have even retracted their findings) and "The EmDrive does work, but there's still a long way to go." This is all NEJM stuff, but none of it appears to be true, and the article doesn't quote any scientists besides the paper's lead author. IMHO an

@Rolf H Nelson One quick thing which you haven't responded to elsewhere and I'd like your view on. If the IBTimes isn't a reliable source with regard to their reporting on the EMdrive, why was this other story by the IBTimes on the EMdrive picked up and widely covered by other media sources, notably by Popular Science?  InsertCleverPhraseHere  23:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Insertcleverphrasehere I don't have an opinion on whether the linked Popular Science blog is significant, but even if it is, I guess I don't seem to put as much significance as you do that they used IBTimes as a source. It's certainly valid of you to offer that as evidence of IBTimes' weight, maybe uninvolved RS board members can weigh in on whether it's significant. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 01:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Honestly? It's probably because the Popular Science blog is also rather clickbait-y. The bloggers responsible for that particular article specialize in breathless coverage of anything associated with Chinese technology [33], which is the angle in the article you've linked. The fact that these particular Pop Sci bloggers have cited IBTimes should probably encourage us to be more cautious in citing Pop Sci, not less wary of IBTimes.

More generally, Popular Science isn't exactly the most robust source for proper science reporting. If we're ranking popular science (lowercase) outlets, you'd be much better off with Scientific American or the like—though when we're discussing something that represents a major realignment of our understanding of physics, there's no substitute for robust secondary coverage in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

Overall, our sourcing standards should follow a "Bayesian" approach. The greater the significance, importance, or impact of a claim – especially with respect to how much it differs from the status quo and body of accepted science – the more robust the sources must be. When a really remarkable claim is accompanied by this sort of bottom-of-the-barrel scraping for tiny, bloggy blurbs to try to substantiate it, we can read that as a legitimate signal regarding the weight Wikipedia ought to (or not) lend that claim. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

So I ask you and Rolf again, because both of you ignored those questions before: do we remove the whole Hypotheses section from the EmDrive Wikipedia article (or perhaps do we remove the whole EmDrive article)? Because if we follow your (skewed IMHO) point of view, that is what should be done, as explained in more details in my entry above.Musashi miyamoto (talk) 02:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd support including the above section, as written, because we are not endorsing the conclusions of the Finnish paper, we are merely saying that it exists, and has drawn popular notice; which it has. Yes, the IBTimes is not a great source for science. However, I would argue that the

Thanks GRuban, that's exactly the kind of thing I'm trying to get the RS board's opinion on. I agree that we should include it if it's brought a certain threshold of popular notice; you're saying that in your opinion the IBTimes meets that threshold. It'd be helpful to me but hardly not mandatory if you can also give a reason why IBTimes counts for you while you're here. FWIW I don't know that the RF article is currently doing an adequate job presenting it as pseudoscience. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 20:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, here is where the Reliable sources noticeboard discussed the International Business Times before: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 104#International Business Times Reading that you can see that how reliable IBTimes is is debatable, but some reliable sources cite it. For example, here is Newsweek reprinting an IBTimes article. It is, however, clearly popular, and not tabloid journalism; it aims to cover business. I'd say that's enough to say that the Finnish paper drew some popular notice, enough to be worth a short mention in our article. --GRuban (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

@

WP:fringe.  InsertCleverPhraseHere

  20:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Note I meant that it is not treated as pseudoscience universally. There are many physicists that do treat it as pseudoscience, hence the categorization of the article, and the way the article is written makes this clear. I would personally agree that the RF cavity thruster fits somewhere between fringe and psuedo. But as I said, this is a conversation for the talk page, not here. Thanks for stopping by and commenting.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  22:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• Not reliable for the content The content is supported by a primary scientific source and three non-scientific popular media secondary sources. On a contentious issue like this there should be no primary sources, nor blogs, nor popular media used to generate any scientific content. Instead secondary sources in the relevant scientific literature should be used. Raising source quality is the only way to manage this kind of contentious content. If there is some agreed need to accept lower quality sources, it should be news reporting in very high quality sources like the "news" sections of Science or Nature or something like the NY Times. Jytdog (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@

WP:PRIMARY, primary sources may be used, and discussed per the views of reliable secondary sources. Also, per WP:Fringe_theories#Reliable_sources

: Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, but material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas.

If we followed the draconian rules put forth by Jytdog, we wouldn't be able to make more than a stub for most fringe articles.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  22:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

And if everyone did what they "could" do, Wikipedia would be more of a shithole than it is. Every policy says that we should use secondary sources. This is even more important in controversial articles, per the excellent and widely cited essay, Wikipedia:Controversial_articles#Raise_source_quality Jytdog (talk) 00:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY says "Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense".
What would be the point of removing the whole Hypotheses section or the whole Emdrive article? Who would benefit from that? Certainly not Wikpedia users, except perhaps that minority who have stocks in oil, gas, and rocket companies. ;) Musashi miyamoto (talk

) 05:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• Prefer not, thanks. IBTimes is not a particularly highly regarded source, they don't have any significant resources for news gathering and fact checking and a lot of material in IBTimes is blatant churnalism, whihc is especially relevant where you have a subject that has been assiduously promoted for decades with claims well beyond what the evidence supports. When it's in the Grauniad, we can talk again. Guy (Help!) 00:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Any proof to support such opinion? Sergecross73 above proved that IBTimes meets Wikipedia's

WP:RS standard.Musashi miyamoto (talk

) 05:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

We've had a lot of comment on the reliability of IBTimes for the above section, and still need more to decide consensus I think, as there seem to be two clear camps, but there has been little comment on ScienceAlert, which is a second source for the above section that also seems to be a reliable source strong enough to hang the section on. Put another way, even if we decided not to accept IBTtimes (which I don't agree with), we should also discuss this other source as it would also need to be discounted.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  23:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

As above, this just broadcasts hot news about primary sources. We should be using secondary sources from the relevant field. Jytdog (talk) 02:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog Isn't bringing attention to primary sources and discussing them the very purpose of any secondary source? Interdisciplinary secondary sources are really the only place that fringe topics get discussed where they lack an established community, so it would be rather awkward to restrict sources to only from relevant fields. In any case, no such restriction exists in WP policy, another example of an attempt to unreasonably restrict the sources for fringe articles. The essay that you cited above is not WP policy, and it doesn't even suggest that we should ban all mediocre secondary sources (as you suggested), rather it says to look for better sources where available; following your view of only allowing the highest quality sources would leave fringe articles with hardly any viable sources, stubbifying many of them, which is not not what is best for the reader.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  06:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

No. The purpose of a secondary source is to provide us the view from experts in the field of what is accepted knowledge and what isn't. Jytdog (talk) 06:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

That is a purpose of a secondary source, not the only one, nor the only services they provide the wiki. Being ideological is all fine if you are deletionist, but if you actually want to improve articles, sometimes you have to use sources that werent published in Nature or Science.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  09:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

On December 20th, @Knowledgebattle: went through approximately 50 pages, deleting all sources from websites owned by ECT News Network, primarily LinuxInsider, leaving edit summaries saying "ECT News (and it's extra platforms) is a scam site. Shouldn't be referenced." In subsequent discussion on his talk page, he expressed a willingness to discuss it here, but then did not follow through and two weeks later said "I forgot to care about this. I dunno, do whatever you want." What I want to do is get this sorted out. Can these sources be cited or not?

What makes this particularly egregious is that Knowledgebattle removed the citations carelessly, leaving many orphaned refs—and then when AnomieBot rescued them, he reverted AnomieBot's edits (see this edit to Wikipedia as an example). So several pages have had orphaned refs in them for two weeks now as a result, and whichever way this is decided these need to be fixed.

(@David Gerard: @Guy Macon: @Icebob99: @Shenme:)

ZackTheCardshark (talk) 21:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• This editor should have at the very least discus it first. So not points for that. He hasn’t indicted either what is wrong with L.I. just claiming it is a scam. Suggest a topic ban. --Aspro (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

@Aspro: He did explain his reasoning on his talk page. Hoping he comes here to discuss. ZackTheCardshark (talk) 23:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

OK. Should have added that this editor called it 'just a blog' when it is part of the ECT News Network, Inc. featuring professional tech writers and read by professionals. Thus he didn’t explain why it is just a blog. The fact that some stories look rehashed, is for the same reason that the long running magazines such as

Scientific America

etc., run stories may look rehashed, as they often print the same syndicated articles. A journalist can’t survive by the pittance one magazine will pay him, so his verbiage gets syndicated.--Aspro (talk) 23:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me. ZackTheCardshark (talk) 23:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

If those references are truly legitimate, then I would like for them to be returned back to their original articles, but I don't think any form of punishment or penance needs to be meted out. Icebob99 (talk) 00:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Certainly. Just a reprimand. ZackTheCardshark (talk) 02:08, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Going by the "forgot to care about this. I dunno, do whatever you want.", I don't think user:Knowledgebattle cares anymore either way, so in the absence of anyone else to take his argument, I would like to see those citations restored. ZackTheCardshark (talk) 17:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

CC: @ZackTheCardshark: @Aspro: @Icebob99: @David Gerard: @Guy Macon: @Shenme:

Re: LinuxInsider

As I've made clear elsewhere, it was the sketchiness of the ETC Network publishing practices which indicated to me that the site was a scam. A legit business model wouldn't have any need to copy their business model and present it as something different, while hiding their parent companies or owners. I've been corrected - I should have brought it here and presented my findings, rather than taking it into my own hands.

@Aspro: A topic ban? Oh puh-lease. What are you trying to do? Encourage socks?

@Icebob99: Thanks for that. I'm aware that other people have gone over the changes I've made, but I'll review the changes I made too, and try to fix whatever hasn't been addressed. However, in the several cases where LinuxInsider simply regurgitated an original source, I'll be sticking with the original source, rather than their echo. I would expect that's fair handling of sources.

@ZackTheCardshark: Sure, reprimand me. Whatever. Or don't. Whatever. In the meantime, I'm going to review those changes, too. It wasn't my intention to irritate you or anyone else. I enjoy contributing, and it's annoying when people use freelance journalists as sources. Could you imagine what the evolution article would look like, if just any source were deemed acceptable? LinuxInsider is hiring freelance journalists right now, according to their Careers page, and the expectations aren't that high - a journalism degree, a little experience and a little knowledge. That's understandable, of course, when you realize that all they do is rehash other stories they find online for advertising revenue. But, if that's what's considered an acceptable source for Wikipedia, I guess ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

All, in conclusion: To clarify, I'm about to start reviewing the edits where I seemingly messed up. Gonna go make a pot of coffee, then get to work. However, consider the points I made at User:Knowledgebattle/interesting, as well as the points I've made here, when considering LinuxInsider as a source.

^Knowledge_Battle ^(Talk) | ^Godless_Infidel ︻╦╤── 11:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Think the proper way now, is to revert all this editor's edits regarding LI - period. Clearly (by his own comments) has demonstrated an inaccurate understanding of both the job and profession of journalism and how news gets presented to the pubic, not to mention the input of copyeditors, who can 'rehash articles' hidden behind pay-walls so that the general public can become aware if it. So he is demonstrably not well placed to review his own edits. What is Freelance Journalism?. He questions a topic ban, whilst at the same time continues to pontificate, adding yet more fuel to the fire for such a ban. --Aspro (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I am going to attempt to provide an overview of this issue.

There are four places where this is discussed. Might I propose that all future discussion be referred here so that we have one discussion in one place?

The four places are: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#References to LinuxInsider and ECT network websites removed by KnowledgeBattle User:Knowledgebattle/interesting User talk:Knowledgebattle#LinuxInsider Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2016 December 20#LinuxInsider

First, let us have no more talk about sanctions, blocks, topic bans, etc. This is RSN, not ANI, and thus such discussion are inappropriate here.

OK, on to the main question. Knowledgebattle has presented evidence for CIO Today, CRM Daily, CRM Buyer, E-commerce Times, ECT News Network, Enterprise Security Today, LinuxInsider, NewsFactor, Sci-Tech Today, and TechNewsWorld having a common owner. (He got it wrong concerning FreeNewsFeed. That's a service offered by NewsFactor, not a site like the others)

However, as ZackTheCardshark asks,[34] "Is this particularly different from the way MacWorld, PCWorld, and TechHive are all part of the IDG network? Is that similarly problematic?"

So, on what basis does Knowledgebattle conclude that "having the same owner" equals "unreliable source"? Disney owns ABC, ESPN, A+E, Pixar, Lucasfilm and Marvel Studios. Does that make those sources unreliable? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

(...Sound of Crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 01:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I know, right? Frustrating. ZackTheCardshark (talk) 15:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

So since no one else has any objections, and user:Aspro makes a strong case, can we consider the source legitimate? If so, then I assume there are some tools available that can aid in restoring the references. Is there anyone who can do that? Or should this be requested on another noticeboard? ZackTheCardshark (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Help:Reverting#Bot_rollbackHelp:Reverting#Bot_rollback may help here but think we need an uninvolved administrator to over see it. Oh why are admins so like policemen – they're never about when one needs one.--Aspro (talk) 15:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Have just posted this: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Activating_a_bot--Aspro (talk) 15:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

It's really not that many edits. Surely this can, and should, be done manually. I'll start going through these and see what I can do. Bradv 15:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Several of these edits had already been reverted previously, but they are all fixed now. There is no need for a bot. Bradv 16:17, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done At the very least, the first one that I noticed on my watchlist has not been added back. ZackTheCardshark (talk) 17:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

It would be useful if we could find a place to notate to users to not use Google's amp service as a reliable source and to instead use the actual originating source. Google's /amp/ service was blacklisted by request as it has been a means to get around blacklists, and that it was believed that we should not be using pseudo-source. I am currently seeing regular edit blocks on the urls for the amp service. I have amended the blacklist edit-blocking note to give a little more guidance, however telling users in a block message is too late, and we need to put something more overt and helpful to users. Thanks if someone can think of the best spot to add such a note. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

How does one get the original URL from an AMP version on a phone? As I recall, there is no easy way to do this. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 16:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

My basic understanding of the amp service is that the base url of the source matches the part of the url after the /amp/ so "www.google.com.br/amp/www.ibtimes.com/nikki-mudarris-love-triangle-blows-her-face-love-hip-hop-hollywood-season-3-episode-5-2418724" becomes "www.ibtimes.com/nikki-mudarris-love-triangle-blows-her-face-love-hip-hop-hollywood-season-3-episode-5-2418724" — billinghurst sDrewth 02:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: I just tried that with a Fortune article, which I cannot link: https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/fortune/2016/06/07/donald-trump-racism-quotes/%3Fsource%3Ddam?client=safari. Removing google.com/amp/ results in a amp.timeinc.net URL, generating a 404 error [36]. I see no reliable and repeatable way to derive the original URL from the AMP URL other than loading the latter on a desktop device, where it redirects to the former. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

looks like it flicks to "fortune.com/2016/06/07/donald-trump-racism-quotes/" and I will agree that it is a bit ugly for the way that time have set up their service. We will have to see how it all works itself out. Plus how the community wishes to deal with it, are they like url redirects and prohibited, or is the community wishing for the general use, and happy to manage the negative effects. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

My two cents: Any desktop user would be able to click on an AMP link, be redirected to the canonical link, and correct the citation. Mobile users should be permitted to post AMP links since they are so easily corrected by others. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I was considering the problem of amp being used to avoid the blacklist, but it occurs to me we already have this issue with any URL-obfuscating service, and to my knowledge those are not blacklisted or anything. These should still be avoided, but that may be more something for a bot to go around and fix. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC) Strike that, it looks like such services are blocked from meta - hadn't checked there. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

If AMP is blocked for potentially circumventing the blacklist, and AMP URLs usually contain the original URL as a substring, couldn’t we work around that by blocking the domain names as substrings? Or we could remove blacklisted AMPed links at the time of de-AMPing them, which would obviously be more of a delayed process than blacklisting. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Probably the simplest way for mobile users to get the original URL is to put their mobile browser in desktop mode which will likely mean they'll be provided the full site URL just as a normal desktop user. Most modern mobile browsers do have a desktop mode. They'll still have to copy it from their URL bar or whatever but that isn't any different from getting the AMP link. Note that this isn't the first time that a blacklist of shortened URLs has made it more difficult for editors to provide links. youtu.be for example is blacklisted even though it's what share this link will provide and it's not possible (AFAIK) to use it to link to anything other than Youtube videos. I presume the reason is because if you don't blacklist it, to blacklist videos properly you'd need to blacklist only the hash. People can just copy the URL from the URL bar although if they want to provide a time they either need to know how to transfer this from the share shortcut or open the share shortcut in their browser then copy the URL. (In most cases you shouldn't be including a time in a Youtube link but in some cases, especially in discussions it'll be useful.) Nil Einne (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Or know how to set it manually—#t=1m23s. And I disagree. You should include timecodes for the same reason you should include page numbers. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

BTW removing the extraneous stuff added by Google will likely allow the URL to work although it'll still be the amp version just hosted on the originalo site. E.g. amp.timeinc.net/fortune/2016/06/07/donald-trump-racism-quotes/ Nil Einne (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Nice catch! I’m not sure why I didn’t try truncating it at the last /. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I have a question about a source at Jacob Barnett.

The relevant passage is this:

In 2011, following a series of (no longer available^[1][2][3]) YouTube videos published by Barnett's mother, several articles appeared in the mainstream media...

The source I'd like to discuss is:

• "This video is unavailable". YouTube. Retrieved 2016-12-30.

The apparent reason that this dead URL is being included is because, if you wanted to verify that this URL originally contained the now-unavailable (at that URL) video, then you could go to various Wikipedia talk page archives, and determine that some Wikipedia editors had viewed the video years ago and said that it contained the now-unavailable video.

I believe that this is insufficient to meet

What do you think? Is this dead URL reliable for a claim in a BLP article that a particular video is "no longer available"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC) Time ref fixed by 67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

There are at least two reasons to include something in a footnote like this: (1) to provide verifiable and published evidence that something is true, (2) to point to the original source of something, even though later sources may be more accessible. The newspaper quote "This video does not exist" serves the first purpose, and discussion of it is relevant for RSN. The link to where the original video once was on Youtube serves the second purpose, something RSN is less relevant for. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The link in the TIME source, and other sources, to the video (where the subject allegedly presents his novel theory of astrophysics), is now a dead link. If WhatamIdoing has an archive link to this video, or some other link, that would be a worthwhile addition to the article. Otherwise, I don't see that there is an issue in saying that the video is no longer available. That's easily verified by checking the secondary sources with the links to the videos. (Some even have embedded videos, which now, quite literally, say "This video no longer exists" in the text of the source.) The question of using Wikipedia as a source is just a red herring. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Several talk page discussions appear to have failed to reach consensus on this issue. Maybe it should go to formal arbitration. Viewfinder (talk) 22:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

My question here is not whether the link is dead. My question here is whether any dead link is actually a reliable source for saying that the link previously worked, previously contained some stated content, and now that stated content is unavailable anywhere.

David Eppstein suggests that the link isn't meant to be a reliable source in the first place. His comment seems to imply that it's meant to be a sort of un-reliable pseudo-external link rather than a reliable source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

No. It's a dead link, as outlined at the established editing guideline

WP:LR. Sławomir Biały (talk

) 23:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

It was a dead link when you added it to the article. And

WP:DEADREF – which assumes, perhaps naïvely, that editors are not going around deliberately adding links that they know are dead – tells you that verifiability actually is "temporary" in the sense that something that cannot be verified except to "some editor once upon a time claimed that this now-dead link contained this material, and you should trust him forever and ever": The last step is "Remove hopelessly lost web-only sources" (bolded in the original). I believe that a link that you know is down, and has been down for some time, and your only hope for calling it still WP:Published is your unsupported and dubious assertion that "This video still exists on Google's servers, and may be accessed by request to ABC, Inc."

is not a good way to verify anything. (Of course, if you've ever gotten YouTube to show you someone else's deleted videos without invoking the legal system, then please do let us know how you did it.)

Based on a quick skim of the AFD comments and talk page discussions, it looks like this particular link has been down for about two years. Is that your impression, too? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

One of the other cited sources links to that same video. That should be sufficient to verify that the video was at one time accessible. The dead link is cited to verify that the link is indeed dead. Hope that clears up any confusion around the original question. Now, is this valid? Is it a step too far into

WP:BLUE? —67.14.236.50 (talk

) 16:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I think it's SYNTH to go to independent source #1 to find out whether that this is the true link, and then to primary and non-independent source #2 to say that the link is down. And I think it's anti-WP:V to say that this long-dead link (by itself) can be used to verify that this link previously contained anything at all, much less to verify that the content that used to be there is "no longer available" (anywhere, not just at the original link). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Can someone explain why we are citing a dead link as 'proof' that the link is dead? If other sources have stated the video has been removed, cite them. If no one is commenting on the video being removed, why are we? There are more than enough sources for everything else. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Pinging User:Sławomir Biały and User:David Eppstein to explain why they're using this dead URL as 'proof' that the video is no longer available. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Are you still beating your wife? Come back when you've read the discussion, thanks. Sławomir Biały (talk

) 01:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@

WP:BURDEN

, and, if possible, explain to us how something which in and of itself proves nothing whatsoever, being a dead link, is in any way considered a source for anything. The inclusion of the dead link has been questioned, so it is now incumbent on the individuals who wish to include to indicate exactly why they believe it is required.

If nothing else, it would, presumably, be reasonable to indicate in the text that the internet address listed is in fact the sole source for the material, preferably based on independent sources which substantiate that. Without that, all that anyone can see is that some address, which might have been chosen randomly for all they necessarily know, is in some way documentation that something has been removed. And even that might not unreasonably be seen as being some form of

WP:OR. Providing an independent source which specifically refers to the page being taken would presumably be the optimal way to refer to this matter. John Carter (talk

) 01:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Obviously, Whatamidoing's deceptively loaded question has found a mark! Once more, this is settled by looking at secondary sources, wherein the text "This video does not exist" helpfully appears, word-for-word, as part of that source. We reference two such sources. No one is claiming that a dead link verifies in itself that the video was taken down. And furthermore it appears that an archive has been located, which after all is the intention of the LR guideline. I will not be responding to any more questions why a dead link verifies anything, since no one here said that, except User:WhatamIdoing. Sławomir Biały (talk) 02:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@Sławomir Biały: So is the YouTube link itself unnecessary, in your estimation, if it’s not meant to verify anything? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Standards for scholarship are to include references to original sources where major scientific discoveries are made (such as presenting a new theory of astrophysics that disproves the Big Bang). Wikipedia also demands secondary sources. That is why we give both. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

No major scientific discoveries were made, though. No theory has been presented to any significant extent outside of the subject’s own mind. I thought this was all well established. Even if there were such a source, that source no longer exists as far as we know, so it’s impossible to give a functional reference to it. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 16:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

It was widely reported that Barnett had disproved relativity and/or the Big Bang, was in line for the Nobel Prize, etc, on the basis of Jacob's theory. The only place where that theory was ever publicly discussed was the video in question. I am definitely open to replacing it with a more solid reference, when and if this supposed theory actually appears in some more appropriate written form. But it is certainly within the scope of things we are expected to do in an article to give a link to a video in which the theory was supposedly presented, when there are secondary sources to back this up, and I'm astonished that anyone would suggest otherwise. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

You were presenting the video as something which you’ve previously and insistently said it’s categorically not. Given that, as well as the fact that it’s inaccessible and never directly used as a source, I just don’t see how it could be considered of any benefit to our readers, or to anyone. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Is it accessible or not? Does the archive link not work? Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

There is no video accessible at the archive link, no. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

There is a video title at the archive link, which seems like a better source for that video’s title than a generic error message is a source for anything. So I consider that an improvement, but it still has the reader investigating two separate links and visually comparing two URLs to verify the single claim that this was that video. It would be best (and remove any concerns of

WP:Synthesis) to have a direct source, unless we can avoid making any such claims. —67.14.236.50 (talk

) 03:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

But we do have such a source, the TIME source that we cite. Does that link to a different non-existent video? Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

But no one has actually answered my question yet: What precisely are we sourcing? We dont need a dead link, or an archive of the removed video to say they uploaded a video, we have a reliable source that says they did. The subsequent availability of said video is irrelevant unless secondary sources comment on it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

One of the things we're expected to do when covering scientific topics (like novel theories of astrophysics) is to supply their textual locations. It is, in fact, part of the

WP:V policy that mandates that exceptional claims (like a novel theory of astrophysics) require exceptional sources (peer reviewed scientific publications). Here we have supposedly "reliable sources" that point to the "textual" location, but that video is no longer available. It is incumbent on us to point out that this text is not available, and so the alleged theory cannot be verified. Sławomir Biały (talk

) 13:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Er no that is a gross mischaracterization of the editors job - which is to reflect what reliable sources have stated. No more or less. WP:V is for sourcing material to an article. So if you are claiming this is to comply with WP:V, that is *directly* contradictory to your statement below where you say the non existant video is not being used to reference anything. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

We have sources that say the video does not exist, as has already been pointed out many many times. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Name one. I mean that literally—name precisely one source that identifies the video and says that it doesn’t exist. Until now, the answer has consistently been that no such source has been found, and jointly using two sources is the best we can do to verify that claim. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

And as per

WP:SYNTHESIS it would be very problematic for us to attempt to synthesize sources to say that neither one explicitly states. John Carter (talk

) 00:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

FYI

 – I've updated the link in question with an archived version of the webpage. Sadly the video was not archived. "Jacob Barnett talk about Einstein... And eats lunch". Archived from the original on 7 April 2011. Retrieved 10 January 2017 – via YouTube.

--Auric talk 01:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

NOTE: if you change some of the digits randomly in the above URL, (basically creating a random youtube designation) you will get the same result (providing you dont get the astronomically bad luck of getting a designation that has been issued to a video). In other words, the page displayed is the same for youtube designations that have been deleted, as for youtube designations that have not been issued to a video yet. Therefore I don't see the link adding much of anything, unless another source specified an exact youtube designation. this page that is returned is simply youtubes version of a 404 page.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  03:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@Insertcleverphrasehere: As has been said, the Time article linked to the same video ID. I think the idea was that the two sources together (the article and the YouTube error) show that the video no longer exists where it once did. Maybe the archive link does this better? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

That still does not explain why that is necessary - is there anyone commenting on the videos being removed? At the moment it reads like it is trying to imply some negative impact due to them being removed, but since no one has actually commented on it, thats OR. Unless there is a reason why it being removed needs justification. As it stands, if the youtube video was being used to reference itself as a self-published source (which would be allowed) and its no longer uploaded, its treated as a dead link/ref. If it wasnt being used to actually source anything (as there are plenty of reliable secondary sources) but was only added to confirm its no longer there, thats ridiculous. You cant verify that a video was uploaded with a dead link that was added after the video was removed. Especially when no reliable source is actually mentioning it. And if they were mentioning it, we would just use them! Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if it's negative or not. But I think the text should now be rewritten to reflect the fact that an archive link has been found. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Whether we’re citing the video’s current state to an error message or we’re citing the video’s title to an archive page, we still have the reader investigating two separate links and visually comparing two URLs to verify the single claim that this was that video. Can anyone offer rationale for how this is not

If we got rid of the link to the video, it seems like your synthesis objection would disappear. But the link to the video is not meant to verify anything. It's just a link to the original video, just like we give links to all kinds of original documents in scientific articles. If there is a reasonable objection that it is the wrong video, then we can easily check that it is correct by looking at the TIME source, and (as you say) "visually comparing the two URLs". I think that settles any such reasonable objection. It is certainly not

WP:SYN to include a link to the original video, on which absolutely no conclusions are made. Sławomir Biały (talk

) 13:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

If its not meant to verify anything just remove the damn link. Its a dead link that serves absolutely no purpose other to show 'heres a dead link'. Since its not being used as a reference its completely pointless. We dont link to non-existant content. If it was being used as a reference it would have a valid place as a previously available reference. If it was a live video, it would have a place (even if not being used as a reference) as an external link that provides extra information. So far its doing neither of those things and so has no place in the article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

A dead link is not proof that some medium is no longer available, because it can be put up somewhere else and found through searching. Doing that searching is

research. We need a RS that says it was taken down. Mangoe (talk

) 14:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Once again, we do have such a source saying that the video is no longer available. This does not say that the video no longer exists anywhere, and neither does the article (and we wouldn't really be entitled to say that). I still do not see what the problem is with stating that the video is no longer available, sourced to the two secondary sources. Is the only problem here that we have a dead link in the article? Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source that explicitly states the video is no longer available, why are you using a dead link to reference the same material while simultaneously claiming you are not using it to reference anything? The length of this discussion should have made it clear to you that yes, having a dead link *that serves no purpose* in an article is a problem. If it doesnt need to be used as a reference for historial material, we dont use it. If there are reliable sources that state the video is not available, we dont use it. If its not being used to actually reference anything or being used to provide further information, we dont EL to a dead link. This is not a difficult concept, why are you failing to understand this? Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, at least two editors have suggested that the link does serve a purpose, which is not related to RSN. But no one here seems to have caught onto that. I have removed the link to the video for now. But I suspect that local consensus will be to restore it for reasons beyond the mandate of this noticeboard. I assume the matter is now resolved. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

According to your comments at WT:V a few days ago, it appears that the purpose you have in mind is to treat it like a retracted academic paper: "It is certainly not undue weight to indicate that the video is no longer available. We would say the same thing if a researcher published a paper that was later retracted. I don't see why there should be a double standard here". As stated there, I firmly disagree with treating a 12-year-old kid's homemade video like it's a peer-reviewed academic journal article written by a professional academic whose academic career (rather than merely his YouTube page views) depends upon the status of the publication. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Jacob Barnett (break)

My question is specifically about whether it's possible for current and future readers to verify material using this YouTube URL. It appears from the above that even the proponents of including it agree that it is not. I hope that they will now explain which guideline says that Wikipedia articles must cite original sources for scientific ideas, and how a YouTube video by a 12 year old falls under that standard. (I have my doubts about both of those points, but perhaps Wikipedia has a guideline for astrophysics, and perhaps it is exactly the opposite of Wikipedia's well-known guideline for biomedical sciences.)

On the other sources, I consider this a bit of a tangent from my original question, but we've already gone three rounds on the question of other reliable sources that say the video isn't available, so let me give the RSN folks a short summary.

The proponents of including this statement have produced two news stories from a few years ago that they say "verifies" the non-availability of the video because those stories (a) linked to the original YouTube URL and (b) now those YouTube URLs don't work. These sources are included at the top of the section. They are:

• The Daily Mail (yes, good ol' Daily Mail), which contains the standard YouTube error message. If you to go the article (and disable NoScript, etc.), you'll see the YouTube video embedded at the end of the page. Click the mostly blank video box, wait a moment, and then see that it says "This video does not exist". Why? Because that's what YouTube says when it can't find a public video for an embedded link. Daily Mail didn't write that; it's the standard YouTube error message. The error message isn't even on the website for The Daily Mail. — WhatamIdoing — continues after insertion below
  • And the text gives no indication as to that video’s content or source. All that could be reasonably assumed from looking at that article is that the video has something to do with Jacob Barnett, possibly a video adaptation of the Daily Mail article itself. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• TIME magazine, which does not contain even an error message. The article says "as seen in the video above", so I assume that it originally embedded the video. However, I haven't found any combination of browser or settings that lets me see any video on that page, or even an empty hole where there could have been a video.  There's a still image at the top, but that's it.  It does not contain any information about the current function of the non-existent URL, or anything else that indicates whether this video is currently available. So perhaps other people can, but I personally can't even use the TIME source to get YouTube's own automated dead-link error message. — WhatamIdoing — continues after insertion below
  • Point of clarification: The Time article includes a YouTube link on the text, “while she taped her son explaining his take on the theory.” This link does not lead to a video page or an error message. Plugging the link into Archive.org does not yield a video page. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

What the other editors have asked for is:

• A source that says this, in plain language. For example:
  • about two sentences,
  • written by an actual human (i.e., not a bot that tags pages with their equivalent of {{dead link}} and not the automatic error message from YouTube),
  • in a reliable source that has a chance of passing BLP standards (e.g., not a neighbor's personal blog), ** that says that the kid (or his mother) took the video down – ideally, but not necessarily, with some other information, e.g., when or why this happened.

That kind of source would let us know that:

1. it really happened/isn't just a change of URL (which is the RSN question) and
2. that Wikipedia should consider whether this information is worth including in an article (the DUE question).

So far, nobody seems to have found any human-written reliable sources talking about the broken URL. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, you're quite right that an article about someone primarily "notable" for an unpublished theory of astrophysics, all trace of which has disappeared from the internet, is inherently problematic, and that's why it promises to be contentious for as long as the article remains in existence, at least until Barnett actually makes some meaningful accomplishments worthy of an encyclopedia article. At the present, he is notable largely for the ridiculous media overreaction unfortunately. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

If the article communicated that this kid is basically a victim of a book tour, then we probably wouldn't be here. We probably would not bother saying that the videos links are down, especially since no reliable source has ever bothered to say that. We would probably not cite a bunch of blogs about this BLP. We would probably not worry one whit whether someone ever used the word "Nobel Prize" in the same paragraph as this kid's name; we would most especially not go on so long about Nobel Prizes that non-Wikipedians might start wondering whether this is all sour grapes because this kid's name was mentioned in the same paragraph as the Nobel Prize in some e-mail message from a kindly college professor, and ours wasn't. In fact, the article would probably just say something like "Jacob Barnett's mom wrote a heavily hyped book about him. The book sold okay, because people like reading stuff about kids on the autism spectrum who can do stuff that requires focus and perseverance, especially if it's a subject that they personally never focused and persevered in, like math."

But that's not what we've got. Maybe you'd like to try re-writing the article to head in that direction? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

this kid is basically a victim of a book tour—That’s actually a good idea. But we need more sources about the aftermath, even if we don’t go that route; I think we only have two. But that’s a discussion more for the article than RSN. Same goes for everything in these replies, actually; none of it seems relevant to the question posed. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I intended to use the source “Participatory storytelling and the new folklore of the digital age” to expand our article on the SCP Foundation. The source in question provides a lot of useful information on the SCP Foundation website that is not available in any other reliable source. For example, the source describes the website’s forums, deletion policy, application policy, and also gives an overview of the general structure of SCP articles that is much more through than the overview given by other sources. My problem with the source is that it is a doctoral thesis, rather than a traditionally published journal article. I have zero experience with this type of source, and our policy on reliable sources seemed kind of iffy on whether they were acceptable or not. I’d appreciate it if anyone more familiar with this type of source could provide some feedback on whether or not this is a useable source. The full citation is: Newsom, E. T. (2013). Participatory storytelling and the new folklore of the digital age (Order No. 3601025). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1466302542). url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1466302542?accountid=11091 . Spirit of Eagle (talk) 07:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Accepted doctoral theses, from respected institutions, adviser actually in the field the thesis was published on, are generally considered reliable sources for non-controversial content. The type of information you're talking about sounds sufficiently non-controversial, I would consider it reliable for such purposes. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I would consider this reliable and usable along the lines of what Someguy1221's comment. Neutrality^talk 21:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thank you both for your feedback. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

"Scholarship" says, "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available...can be used...." It is always important though to consider why a source is selected and you have provided a good explanation. TFD (talk

) 06:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Is this website) a reliable source? It seems to be different from this site. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 12:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

You need to tell us exactly how you want to use it. No source is reliable for all possible statements, and no source is unreliable for all possible statements.

In general, if you try to use it to support a claim about

WP:MEDRS. In some cases, it may be (barely) reliable for claims about biomedical information; in no case will it be the best possible source for those claims. On the other hand, it might be a perfectly reasonable source for non-biomedical information (e.g., how much money a health company made last year). WhatamIdoing (talk

) 06:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

The source is an article from Ray al-Youm here. It's being used to support these statements in

According to the Rai al-Youm on-line newspaper, 'Abdeh Raji', known as 'Captain', and 'Biar Rizq', known as 'Akram', were involved in the abduction.

The abducted individuals were reportedly poisoned under the supervision of Elie Hobeika, a then Phalangist, in Karantina for 20 days and were moved to the prison of Adonis.

Later in 2016, according to what the London-based Rai al-Youm referred to as an accurate intelligence report, a recently released Greek prisoner from Israeli jails informed the Iranian embassy in Athens that he had seen the four abducted individuals alive in Israeli jails. Ahmad Habibollah Abu Hesham, known as a "spiritual father" of prisoners of Israeli jails, had made a similar comment that Motavesellian and the others were alive in Atlit detainee camp after visiting and inspecting prisoners in Israeli jails. He died in what Rai al-Youm claimed was a "made up accident by Israel."

Elie Hobeika verified the abduction of the diplomats and their handing over to Israel by Geagea's group

What our Wikipedia article refers to as a London-based online newspaper looks to me like a propaganda website run by an expat. I don't speak Arabic but I don't get the impression there's any real fact checking or editorial oversight involved. The Wikipedia article already suffers from a pro-Iranian bias due to the fact the there's not much interest in the subject from outlets outside the region. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• The mentioned newspaper is used as a source on other occasions by reliable sources such as the Washington institute for Near East Policy ([37], [38]), Defend Democracy Press, Middle East Eye, New York Times, Jerusalem Post and etc. Moreover, the quoted material is reflected by other sources such as [39], [40] and [41]. Finally, we know that per
  WP:BIASED, "... reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." --Mhhossein ^talk
  18:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
• Chris Troutman: I think the final sentence of your comment, i.e. "the Wikipedia article already suffers...", is completely irrelevant here in this board and will be respected on the article talk page. I think you had mentioned that in the GA review. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Are [42] and [43] reliable sources for the film budget and box office information in Ami Shudhu Cheyechi Tomay (4 citations)?

The website's home page shows "blog stats" and advertises "Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com." There is no "about us" or "contact us". The author of all content is identified only by the handle dhallywoodworld. There is no evidence of editorial review. I see no reputation for fact checking or accuracy. I haven't found any reliable sources that cite Box Office Bangladesh.

So my evaluation is that it is not a reliable source. It is cited in 17 Wikipedia articles, mostly by IPs (7 articles) and sockpuppets (6 articles), who may not know or care about Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but also by editors in good standing (4 articles). The author of

Wordpress is a blogging site that lets anyone publish anything. This specific blog provides absolutely no information about who writes it, or where their information comes from. I would consider it absolutely unreliable for any and all purposes. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Wordpress? No indeed. Completely not a reliable source. Bishonen | talk 20:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC).

Hi, just trying to use The Intercept as a source. The Intercept journalist cites multiple military and intelligence sources stating that a subject of a Wikipedia article, Linda Norgrove, worked for British Intelligence. I'd like to make a brief note of this in her bio. Another editor undid my edit, said the source was not reliable (among other things).

• Source: https://theintercept.com/2017/01/10/the-crimes-of-seal-team-6/

"Norgrove, though in Afghanistan as an aid worker for DAI, an American NGO, secretly worked with Britain’s MI-6, according to four U.S. military and intelligence sources. Two of these sources told me that the British government informed SEAL Team 6 mission planners that Norgrove worked for the spy agency, and that they had been tracking her movements since the abduction."

• Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Linda_Norgrove
• Content: DIFF: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Death_of_Linda_Norgrove&type=revision&diff=760121262&oldid=760120586

"On 26 September 2010, British aid worker and reported MI6 worker Linda Norgrove and three Afghan colleagues were kidnapped by members of the Taliban in the Kunar Province of eastern Afghanistan."

• Further Info: Tried to resolve this (unsuccessfully) on Talk Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Death_of_Linda_Norgrove#MI6_connection
• Further Info: Journalist is Matthew Cole, bio here: https://theintercept.com/staff/matthewcole/

Fx6893 (talk) 06:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I see no particular reason not to allow The Intercept. It is a news organisation with editorial oversight and operated by well-respected (if not well-liked by all sides) journalists. I don't think your phrasing conveys the same message as the original article, though. Her alleged MI6 contacts have not ben "reported" by neutral sources (and certainly not by The Intercept, which only reports on what their sources say). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Could you give an example of phrasing that would be better? Fx6893 (talk) 01:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd say this falls into the basket of reliable but use with caution due to strong editorial agenda. In practice that usually means attribution rather than stating anything in Wikipedia's voice. I must say I was dismissive of this site until the Juan Thompson incident. Retraction, correction and eventual firing constitute a robust response to bad journalism. Guy (Help!) 11:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Generally agree that the fact that some people dislike The Intercept's politics would not be a good reason to exclude it, although attribution might be an idea when sourcing things to it, as it usually is for anything beyond basic facts. It can be quite opinion-heavy, but is staffed and run by serious journalists and also does some serious investigative work, like the piece in question (and in any event, would be "reliable" as a source for the opinions of its writers). That's especially true in this case, where it is passing on the comments of anonymous sources. That said, although WP:RS was raised here, the real issue in this case seems to be more about weight and presentation. Norgrove is not commonly described as an "MI6 worker/agent". The Intercept piece is not primarily about her or her death. This single element of one report is not enough to justify describing her straight-up in the very first sentence as such. It may be useful for attributed and qualified detail about the circumstances of her death in the main body. N-HH talk/edits 12:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

That makes sense to me, though I have no real knowledge of the specifics of this case. Guy (Help!) 00:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I am. There are related issues that the Aid/Development organisation she worked for has been accused of being a CIA front. Personally I would want at least another source before including that sort of information. The intercept *by itself* does not go into enough detail to label her as such. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• no. passing mention of the proposed content in the source, and even if this were the focus of the source it would need to be attributed due to the partisan nature of the source. Jytdog (talk) 00:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I am looking at a source for record chart data originally published by Radio & Records magazine. The source, http://wweb.uta.edu/faculty/gghunt/charts/chart.html, while not the most sophisticated web design, appears to be the product of academic research by a Graham Hunt, Ph.D., Professor of Musicology and Music Theory at the University of Texas at Arlington. This research could possibly just be a hobby, although the site says Radio & Records granted permission to use the data which suggests an academic pursuit. Opinions and guidance would be greatly appreciated. Piriczki (talk) 17:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't the most obvious step be to email Hunt and ask him? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Apparently it's just a hobby. Piriczki (talk) 14:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

We can safely ignore Hunt himself and his lack of credentials, as he works with published data from the magazine. The question is if the magazine is reliable and whether we can quote their data. Dimadick (talk) 08:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)