Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 219

For future reference, if nothing else, it is possibly worth noting that multiple reliable sources relating to Qigong fever have attested to the fact that at least during the peak of that era the government of the PRC was actively promoting several forms of traditional Chinese medicine both as, in a sense, an "opiate of the masses" for those who could not afford the more expensive and less readily available, generally considered more reliable, Western forms of medicine, and as a way to promote the Chinese cultural heritage, and thus also promote a "collective mindset" among the Chinese people. So far as I know, the government of the PRC is still, at least to an extent, actively promoting such thinking, and, on that basis, any sources which might be seen as in any way promoting these Chinese traditional practices which lack much outside support but seem to be have in some way linkage to Chinese governmental policies and practices should be considered suspect. John Carter (talk) 15:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

At History of Indigenous Australians, the website 'Australia: The Land Where Time Began / A Biography of the Australian Continent' (specifically http://austhrutime.com/malakunanja.htm) is used to source the statement:

The rock shelters at Malakunanja II (a shallow rock-shelter about 50 kilometres inland from the present coast) and of Nauwalabila I (70 kilometres further south) show evidence of used pieces of ochre – evidence for paint used by artists 60,000 years ago.

The wording is a bit of a mess, but I'm looking for comments specifically on the source. It looks a lot like a self-published more-or-less-blog to me, but wanted to get a second opinion. I don't think the content itself is particularly controversial. The source itself cites further sources, and it would probably be more appropriate to use them, but I don't have easy access to them and I'm guessing this is why someone used the web source in the first place. GoldenRing (talk) 13:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi all,

Having trouble with some other editors about whether or not I'm allowed to use certain sources as references in my articles.

Sites:

• Peter Vincent's site - One of three authors of a series of books on the wagons and carriages, culmination of decades of research and transcribing of records kept at the Public Record Office Victoria. Homepage doesn't seem to be working at the moment, but everything else is fine.
• Norm Bray's flickr account

A series of books were written by Bray, Vincent and Daryl M. Gregory over the period 2009-2014 listing most but not all of the details on Vincent's site; and Vincent also hosts a plethora of official

   Do sources have to be free, online and/or conveniently available to me?
   No. Sources can be expensive, print-only, or available only in certain places. A source does not stop being reliable simply because you personally aren't able to obtain a copy.

Additionally, the vast majority of people likely to read the relevant pages will already have (or will easily be able to get) access to the relevant forums.

To a lesser extent, these sites, which host personal photos but also content scanned directly from archives, i.e. diagrams.

• Mark Bau's site - diagrams, photos and scans from publications; the text content on the site is not always accurate. Examples could be the last four images here, for use in Diesel Electric railmotor (VR).
• Rob O'Reagan's site - diagrams and photos
• Les Brown's site - photos
• Weston Langford's site - photos

These are for most/all of the articles listed in the

• Specific Railpage forums & posters - limited to certain posters who are recognised authorities on specific sub-topics, for example user Kuldalai 1, 2, 3 & 4 in the context of this article: VicRail R type carriage (old copy), as he was directly involved in the procurement process. Note I intend to get copies of the other references mentioned in the article and include inline citations at first opportunity, so the forum references would not be the only sources.
• Specific Facebook forums & posters - posts by Brett Leslie in the closed group Victorian Railway Enthusiasts, who is directly involved in organising carriages within train sets, and one or two other people who report sightings, exclusively in the content of tables like the one at VicRail N type carriage#Set history.

In both cases, this is based on the reliability of the individuals' posts and printed/published works (i.e. in the magazine Newsrail) over more than a decade.

How do I get these people individually approved as sources, and then how do I make them immune to future deletion by editors who don't see this thread? One solution might be to add an entry on the Template linking to a list of reliable sources applicable only to those articles? Anothersignalman (talk) 15:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Would the website Phactual be considered as an RS for reference to a US legal case? this Is the one more specifically. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? Let's start with "Wiener v United States (1958)." The blurb refers Chief Justice Frankfurter. Felix Frankfurter was never Chief Justice of the United States. In 1958, the Chief Justice was Earl Warren--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 21:48, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm concerned about using this anonymous group[15] as a source for anything. It's used in multiple articles[16] including BLPs such as

I can find nearly nothing on the group. The website looks professionally done, but the "About" document is information-free. As you, I only found two references to the group in Google News, one in French, one in Italian. There are four hits on Google Book (all in German), of which none looks promising (a novel, a 1983 book by Ruhollah Khomeini and two popular books from 2002 and 2009 that do not actually seen to contain the phrase). Google Scholar finds nothing for the full phrase. So I see no reason to accept it as a source, let alone a BLP source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• No - They are a self-proclaimed "group of experts with decades of experience in the U.S. Government, academia, intelligence community, and a wide variety of businesses", or maybe they're not. There are too many red flags including their anonymity, no evidence of editorial oversight, no reputation for fact checking, and lack of
  WP:USEBYOTHERS.- MrX
  13:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I am currently involved in a dispute with another editor, which is (in part) about the RSness of The Independent newspaper, and in particular about this article's claim "In just one weekend, the website has posted false statistics about rising crime, when crime has actually gone down over the last eight years." which is misleading and wrong. http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/alternative-facts-white-house-website-donald-trump-fake-crimes-statistics-lgbt-climate-change-pages-a7540841.html. You are welcome to weigh in on our discussion, but I want to raise a more general point - can the Independent be considered a Reliable Source any more? Their standards have plummeted and they're basically a clickbait operation now, a shadow of the newspaper they used to be.

Evidence:

• CEO admitting standards need to be raised "He also said that the website’s lightweight editorial approach, criticised by some of its own staff as a “click-bait operation”, would be re-focused to better match the quality tone of the print edition." I can't see any evidence this has happened - the print edition closed and the web-only version has remained poor quality clickbait. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/feb/12/independent-and-independent-on-sunday-closures-confirmed
• Chief editor admits the Johann Hari scandal "severely damaged" the paper's reputation. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/jan/10/independent-editor-johann-hari-scandal It's been suggested that Hari's creative approach to the truth had been an open secret for years at the newspaper. http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/guy-walters/2011/07/johann-hari-independent-prize
• Hari's dodgy articles are still up on their website without any mention of the scandal (try looking at the NYT for some of Jayson Blair's articles - each one has a very thorough note explaining that his work is not to be relied on and which bits were fabricated. That's what an RS does.) NPalgan2 (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Who says, now, that they are a click-bait operation? Doug Weller talk 21:04, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Under a year is not recent enough for you? The decline in quality and clickbaitification of the Indy is a common criticism see http://www.adnews.com.au/opinion/death-of-print-the-independent-s-demise-teaches-us-what-not-to-do http://www.statepress.com/article/2016/10/spopinion-critique-of-modern-media https://theconversation.com/four-reasons-why-listicles-and-clickbait-are-killing-real-journalism-67406 https://www.marketingweek.com/2015/10/29/mark-ritson-i-was-right-about-the-i-newspaper-it-leaves-the-independent-in-worse-shape NPalgan2 (talk) 21:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

You say "still". This source is from October 2015. This one is recent, but isn't enough to say we can't use the Independent. This is also more recent, but is just using an Independent article as an example of problems with modern journalism: "Clickbait titles and eye-catching headlines are often used by modern journalists for the purpose of drawing immediate attention to their work." And I can't find where you told User:Volunteer Marek about this discussion. Doug Weller talk 12:13, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

It's true that lots of newspapers have dropped standards and become more clickbaity, but it's incontrovertible - almost

WP:SKYBLUE that the Indy has plummeted much further than any other anglosphere 'quality' newspaper. Look at this ludicrous "story" in the SCIENCE section - it's cannibalized from quotes Sky News, one of Forbes's worthless bloggers and the *Daily Mail*! Seriously, the Guardian and Telegraph and The Age have their problems, but they wouldn't have published this. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/donald-trump-body-language-inauguration-day-psychology-alpha-male-a7539256.html NPalgan2 (talk

) 17:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

The Independent online edition is clickbaity, and in some cases takes liberties with the facts that would advise caution. For example: http://www.independent.ie/life/family/mothers-babies/my-sonthe-genius-29295077.html: as well as attempting (and, according to some, succeeding) to disprove Einstein's Theory of Relativity. That's an egregious error that should never have made it through fact-checking. However, I see this as an across the board issue with online media. Sometimes it's reliable, sometimes it isn't. I'd put The Independent in the same basket as the Daily Mail. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

That last link is from the Irish Independent, a different newspaper. More broadly, while newspapers are generally useful and legitimate sources, WP probably relies far too much on media reporting as a whole, which is often cursory and slanted in its coverage, something which broadsheets are as guilty of as tabloids and online versions. But equally (see the discussion re the Mail above) there seems to be a trend to approach this issue the wrong way round, with people wanting to declare entire publications "not reliable" by citing individual bits of reporting that have been shown to be inaccurate. The RS policy doesn't work like that. It doesn't mean everything a publication reports is indisputably objective or correct, or that anything it says has to be included in a WP article. A newspaper – indeed even an esteemed acadamic journal – can make errors and still be broadly "reliable"; a newspaper can generally be "reliable" in a WP sense but include material that should never be referenced in an encyclopedia entry. Reliability is assessed by the paper's broader processes and structures; and whether a particular thing it reports is good content for here needs to be assessed in context, case by case. N-HH talk/edits 19:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree there is a cline, and that different parts of the same newspaper can have different standards, and that even respected academic journals publish garbage studies sometimes. But WP is don't cite 'tabloids'. And the Indy is getting pretty close to tabloid-standard. NPalgan2 (talk) 20:21, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

This is an excellent point. Maybe there are some things that we can cite tabloids and similar media for (see above proposal regarding the Daily Mail), and some things we do not. It would be good to get some clarity about what's what. (E.g., "celebrity gossip"? sports results? weather events? police blotter reporting? art installations?) Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

There isn't any doubt that the The Independent online newspaper now has little in common with its former printed edition beyond its name - its standards have plummeted to the extent that it has lost much of the high and hard-won stature its print predecessor rightly held. But I think a source can only be said to be reliable or not reliable for particular claims or for particular content, it can almost never be given a "reliable source for everything" cachet or a "never reliable for anything" blanket ban. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but the editor I was talking to seemed unaware of what has happened to the Indy, so I thought a discussion here that could be referenced later would be useful. NPalgan2 (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Just in case anyone ever gets confused, this discussion is not about the I (newspaper) which is no longer related to the Independent. Doug Weller talk 17:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• Production increased almost ten times from 2006 to 2008, and tripled in the following year.[1] From 4,600 in 2006, sales grew to over 100,000 per year by 2010.^[2]

My understanding is that sources are not automatically rejected for simple facts just because they have some POV on a topic, and that secondary sources are preferable to primary sources. However @

• This doesn't even represent the discussion at the talk page. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we do not automatically reject sources because they are biased. NPOV applies to what is written in Wikipedia articles, not what's written in the sources. A consensus to leave criminal usage out of an article would not preclude the use of sources mentioning criminal usage from being used for other information.- MrX 02:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• Sources aren't solely being rejected because they are biased. In fact, no source has been removed from the article at this point. The topic was merely brought up for discussion on the talk page and the discussion has been relatively short. As stated, this is being misrepresented. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with the Niteshift36. This isn't a RS issue though better sources are available. Rather it's using a strong POV source to WP:COATRACK rejected content via links to sources vs direct inclusion in the article. Felsic2 has been trying to insert material into the article against both consensus and guidelines established by WikiProject Firearms. The innocuous production volume data can be sourced to neutral, reliable sources (the source cited by the Huffington Post, Vox didn't list a source). Felsic2 has argued against using such references in lieu of two sources with very strong POVs and largely containing content that was rejected by consensus. Thus we have coatracking where the coat the content of the linked articles and the hook is the otherwise innocuous production data. Bringing it up here is a red herring as the issue isn't if the source is reliable (lacking a better source I think we would accept it) but if such linking is another form of coatracking and getting around consensus. Springee (talk) 02:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, NPOV does extend to the content of what possibly biased but otherwise normally reliable sources might say. What changes is making sure that biased statements are evaluated within

WP:UNDUE among all other reliable sources, and that the biased statement is presented as a claim with attribution and not in WP's voice. That bias doesn't immediately eliminate the source, but it may make the material from that single article inappropriate to include if it a single voice outweighed by otherviews, but that's a point for consensus-based discussion. --MASEM (t

) 03:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@Springee: That's a rather strained interpretation of coatracking. Is there actually a consensus not to use sources that mention criminal use? - MrX 03:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

The consensus is to not discuss crimes in the article. Using strong POV sources to provide minor facts is certainly a way to include articles that would otherwise be outright rejected as out of scope for the article. It's not blatant coatracking but given how easily we could used substitute sources (already added to the talk page) one has to question why we are even here. There is a talk page consensus against discussing crimes as part of this article. That consensus is supported by a larger consensus discussed at Project Firearms regarding when crimes should be discussed. When asked why we shouldn't just change the references Felsic2 avoided the question, claimed it's a RS issue and started the discussion here. Springee (talk) 03:45, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• This is an ongoing issue with firearms articles where firearms enthusiasts like to remove/gloss over/ignore their illegal/criminal use. See any discussion about a high profile shooting where the gun is a major subject of the news (AR's etc). Local consensus almost *always* comes down to 'dont mention on the gun article its the spree-killers/militia/pirates weapon of choice' /cynic Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Springee, adding sources that discuss crimes is not the same as added text to the article that discuss crime. Your opinion of how references can be used is simply not grounded in any Wikipedia policy that I'm aware of.- MrX 13:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I would argue that it's well within the spirit of the concerns that lead to the coatrack essay. WP:OFFTOPIC and WP:TROJAN might also apply. Certainly in this context I think it is clear Felsic2's intent was not simply to provide production figures. Regardless, this RS question is a red herring since no one objected to the sources as unable to reliably source the material in question. I think we can agree they are sufficient though other sources exist. Springee (talk)

In case I didn't state my objection clearly enough, I think we should use secondary sources, such as Vox and HUffPost, instead of primary sources, like raw data from the ATF. As for my intent, it was simply to add production figures. Rather than citing essays of dubious relevance, let's keep the discussion grounded in actual policies and guidelines. Felsic2 (talk) 16:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• The company (Smith & Wesson) is a primary source. The government agency (BATFE) is a secondary source. HP/Vox are third party sources. Granted, we usually prefer third party sources, there are times were a secondary source fits quite well. In the case you haven't explained, the facts in question can be obtained from a secondary source (the US government), without POV commentary found in the third party sources being used. This proposed substitution would not remove any information from the article or diminish it, merely provide a more neutral source. That's it. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @
    WP:TERTIARY says "Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source." A typical example of a tertiary source is an encyclopedia, and at times these should even be avoided. This is of course a terminology issue here, but I think worth clarifying. Doug Weller talk
    17:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• I'd call them third party, but that's really not the primary issue. The issue is not whether or not HP is reliable or not. The question is really why a govt source that has no POV can't be used instead. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

You avoided answering the question when I asked. Given you want to cite production numbers there should be no issues with citing them from the ATF (a more reliable source than your articles) vs an article that doesn't state where it's numbers came from and another that says it got the numbers from the ATF. We can cut out the middle man. It's insulting to others to claim your only intent is to provide production figures. Consider that a link to the ATF data would provide information for all years vs just a select few. Springee (talk) 16:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't like your accusatory tone. Please avoid discussing intent and stick to discussing sources and policies. Felsic2 (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

To me, we have the question "can 'hard facts' like production numbers be sourced to secondary sources that are clearly biased in tone?" There's a lot of issues at play, but to summarize this:

• For any commercial product (guns included), production numbers are essential encyclopedic information. It is highly desirable, if not required, to include these if the source for the numbers can be meet WP:V. This is similar to reporting the population of a city; not including it when it is possible makes the article look bare.
• We have a primary source (BATFE) and two secondary sources for production numbers. Even if we lacked the secondary sources, we would still be able to present BATFE's numbers to satisfy the essential encyclopedic quantity.

So using the BATFE's numbers directly should be fine, and we don't have to include the secondary sources. Now if we were talking about a non-essential figure, such as the number of crimes that a certain gun was used in, even if still sourceable by the BATFE, this is where the presence of secondary sources is required, to tell us that, as a transformative source, why that figure was important and to put it into perspective. And that's where if there's a source bias, that could be a problem to include, since many biased sources will play with statistics to get the point they want to prove. That's where the evaluation of the opinion using those statistics for inclusion under UNDUE/FRINGE may be necessary. If a gun is widely criticized as being too frequently used in crime, then we can use these sources to justify that. If these are the only two sources in the world that consider the gun being used too often, and no one else addresses that, then perhaps this is too FRINGE-y to include. --MASEM (t) 18:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with that reasoning.- MrX 18:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, the vast majority of mainstream sources discuss this rifle's use in two of the largest mass shootings in modern American history. It could be argued that those incidents are what makes this rifle notable, as it's otherwise an unremarkable product.

Separately, the issue of biased sources cuts both ways. Currently, the sources in the article have an arguably "pro-gun" bias. If we exclude sources with one bias and allow those with the opposite bias, then there may be issues with the neutrality of the article. Felsic2 (talk) 18:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that is a separate issue about article content vs reliable sources. I think the RS question here has been address by Masem. Springee (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• Aside from the fact that that comment has nothing to do with reliable sourcing, what you just stated is really not an accurate picture of the extensive discussion that has gone on for months, discussion that has amounted to you saying one thing and every other experienced editor disagreeing with you. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Addressing the "pro-gun" bias, on the current page, I see two classes of information: specifications (the bulk of it), and the "official users". Both are going to be, arguably "pro-gun" sourced, but here, specifications are like production numbers and are essential information (to me, and speaking to that as the farthest from a gun enthusist you can be) - to not include these would make the article bare. So these can be sourced by the manufacturer or any source that is recognized for reliable reporting of these numbers even if they hold a general favorable bias. (but I can hardly see how specifications can be twisted that much). The "official users" though is similar to the crime numbers, in that this is far from essential information, and it does add a POV to this ("Oh, this legal agencies use this gun, therefore it must be okay"). Same type of balance questions will come into play here if this information should be included or not and how the source is biased or not. --MASEM (t) 00:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• I don't really see it, but I'd have no objection to removing the official users section. FWIW, that section appears in many, many firearms, aircraft and ships articles. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

What's the rule on interpreting primary sources?

• Temple Arson Report by Inspector General of Police Keshava Menon submitted to the Government of Kerala
• Goerge, Anjali. "Sabarimala temple in the ‘secular’ world". MyInd. Retrieved 30 January 2017.
• Organizer. "Hindu unity in Kerala through Ayyappa Exposing the atheist plot on Sabarimala". Organizer. Retrieved 30 January 2017.
• K.P. NAYAR. "In Kerala's social lab, a Modi formula". Telegraph India. Retrieved 1 February 2017.

Article:

• Shabarimala

Content:

In 1950, the temple was suspected to be set on fire by radical Christian extremists which destroyed the entire temple and had to be reconstructed.

Is there any merit in the aforementioned sources? I had a dispute with a editor who questions reliability of these sources. Advice ? Crawford88 (talk) 07:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Surely better sources could be found, if this is true? The first source is a Primary Source (

WP:Weasel). First Light (talk

) 08:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Some more context. For a while the OP defeneded a photocopy of the report on Scribd and called it a secondary source. They then found the first source, the report of the police inspector, was kept confidential for years as mentioned in the 4th source[19] which says it was suspected that "a group" was behind the arson but doesn't say who was in the group. The second source, Myindmakers, describes itself as a "platform of ideas"[20] and states:"Disclaimer: The opinions expressed within this article are the personal opinions of the author. MyIndMakers is not responsible for the accuracy, completeness, suitability, or validity of any information on this article. All information is provided on an as-is basis. The information, facts or opinions appearing in the article do not reflect the views of MyindMakers and it does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same." The Organiser, is a publication by the right-wing Hindu nationalist

Talk:Sabarimala. Doug Weller talk

16:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Crawford88, I would agree that the answer to your question "Are there any merits in these article as RS?" is a resounding "no, none." First Light (talk) 03:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Cohler has proposed that the Summary for Policymakers of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report (IPCC AR5) is not a reliable source, because "it is a summary and therefore can lead to misinterpretations" as stated here (be aware User:Cohler signs as TheClarinetGuy). I do not see any indication in Wikipedia:Verifiability that summaries are inherently unreliable. Note also that in this case that the summary is written by a subset of the authors of the longer report. Am I perhaps missing something? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

My point was and is as I stated back at Talk:Global warming#Phrasing_for_the_conclusions, the principle of best evidence in a scientific matter would always dictate that you go to the actual language of the scientific report and not to a summary written specifically for the benefit of non-scientific policy makers. And I might add, this is especially the case when there is any difference in the wording or phrasing, which can very easily change meaning. --TheClarinetGuy _talk 18:54, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore, the SPM is a "line by line" politically reviewed and approved document (see IPCC fact sheet here), so common sense would dictate that scientific claims be sourced to the scientific studies they come from and not to politically reviewed and approved summaries. --TheClarinetGuy _talk 19:00, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

The summary for policymakers is simultaneously reviewed by experts and government representatives - that seems very sensible to me and as a good source for something accessible to be put in the lead rather than the primary results from the scientists.

Dmcq (talk

) 22:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

A document by competent authors that presents a compact summary of a larger scientific work is an excellent source. It's a lot better to have experts summarise the field than to have random Wikipedians do the summarising. If the SPM is in direct conflict with the full report and this is either obvious or noted by other reliable sources, we can handle this as any case of conflicting sources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Applying your reasoning, ClarinetGuy (aka Cohler), the IPCC reports are not reliable either because they are themselves summaries of the state of the science, as expressed in the many references cited at the end of each chapter in the assessment reports. Fortunately we don't have to grapple with that absurd implication because you went astray when you started looking for "the best evidence in a scientific matter". Since we don't do science, that's not our goalpost. IPCC is a science-AND-intragovernmental outfit, thus the SPM is every bit as

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk

) 22:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, the bottom line here, is that

Dmcq's misreading of a graph and ignoring the explicit, bold-faced findings of the IPCC listed repeatedly in the summary, the synthesis report, the working group, which all say "more than half". "More than half" and "all of it" are very different statements. The IPCC never said the latter. --TheClarinetGuy _talk

04:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

To quote from the IPCC AR5 SPM, page 17, section D3, last sentence of the first bullet point under the coloured box: "The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period" and the next bullet point quantifies the other contributions as "likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C" from natural forcings and "likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C" from internal variability. So I can see how one might arrive at Dmcq's statement even without the misreading of a graph. Also, this result is not particularly surprising - Berkeley Earth's Richard Muller made the same claim independently in 2012 ("Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases") [21]. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

It's a fair summary for a non-specialist audience (i.e. Wikipedia readers). Guy (Help!) 09:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@ClarinetGuy (aka Cohler) Sounds like you're changing goalposts, always a red flag. At article talk you said SPM does not meet our standards that define reliable sources for wikipedia purposes, which can be read at

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk

) 10:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• Unless there is a credible reason why the summary in this case does not reflect the full report, I dont see the problem. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I have discussed extensively at Talk:Global warming why the summary does not accurately reflect the main report. Citing multiple examples. Here for example you can see that the main report consistently uses the phrase "more than half" whereever it refers to this finding of the IPCC, not the word "dominant" as is used in the summary for policy makers. And "dominant" has different connotations and interpretations than "more than half". --TheClarinetGuy _talk 23:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I do not find that a credible argument. The summary accurately reflects the body of the report. If your argument is based on the premise that the definition of 'dominant' can sometimes be used to mean different things *other than the obvious use to which it has been used in the summary* then its really a non-starter. Anything more than half can be generally be described as dominant. The point of a summary is to summarise - not to be technically accurate - as that is the point of the full report. Ultimately your argument appears to be we should be referencing the full report and using the technical definitions therein, rather than the more accessible summary. That is not however a reliable source issue. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

So you have and I've repeatedly pointed out to you that the technical language from the underlying reports is unsuitable for the lead of the article. The body of the article is where things like 95% probability should go if at all. The statements are accurate and they closely follow a reliable source which has been heavily vetted and checked by both the subjects experts and people who know how to explain things to people in general. And in particular your objection on the basis of reliable source is completely wrong. This noticeboard shouldn't be bothered by this any more.

Dmcq (talk

) 01:04, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

More to the point, Cohler is no longer discussing our standards that define a

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk

) 15:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

It is certainly not

WP:OR to point out that "more than half" does not mean the same thing as dominant (Merriam Webster here) and "more than half" is hardly "technical language". What is your source for asserting that "more than half" is considered technical language? Stephan Schulz noted above "If the SPM is in direct conflict with the full report and this is either obvious or noted by other reliable sources, we can handle this as any case of conflicting sources". IMO I think it's pretty obvious that "dominant" is in conflict with "more than half" based on the commonly understood definitions of those words as I have cited here with Webster. --TheClarinetGuy _talk

16:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I think it's pretty obvious that the two are not in conflict at all. "More than half" allows any proportion from 50.00001% to 100%. "Dominant influence" typically means the influence is more important than other influences combined. The two statements are perfectly cromulent together. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I would further note that the non-technical language "more than half" has been consistently used by the IPCC since the Third Assessment Report (2001) which stated, "Human-emitted greenhouse gases are likely (67-90% chance) responsible for more than half of Earth’s temperature increase since 1951", then IPCC AR4 (2007) stated, "Human-emitted greenhouse gases are very likely (at least 90% chance) responsible for more than half of Earth’s temperature increase since 1951" and finally IPCC AR5 (2013) stated "Human-emitted greenhouse gases are extremely likely (at least 95% chance) responsible for more than half of Earth’s temperature increase since 1951." If the scientists who wrote those reports wanted to say "dominant" they could have, but they didn't. They chose the simple, unambiguous, non-technical "more than half". Words have meaning. --TheClarinetGuy _talk 16:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Human activity is the dominant source because no other single source gets into double digits. As explained more than once above. Next. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 10:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to close thread

I propose this thread be closed pursuant to

• http://www.graphics.stanford.edu/~niessner/thies2016face.html
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohmajJTcpNk

I can only assume that someone with a lot more money and a lot more time can do a much more realistic fake. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance to Youtube specifically as a source - anonymous Youtube videos would not be acceptable anyway, nor would videos containing copyright violating material. It's a pretty obvious fake technically - though I suppose that technology will improve. But faked video footage even from supposed RS sources is nothing new - the BBC has used video game footage and presented it as actual real battlefield footage and even once had a video game insignia presented as the symbol of NATO. And there was the infamous tail-wagging-dog "why don't you move a little to the right, the real skinny ones only, over to behind that bit of fencing that's still upright, stick in your stomachs and look miserable, real concentration-camp-like-miserable, that's great, just like that, ...darn it, the fence is the wrong way around, never mind, nobody will notice". Other examples include "the most staged photo opportunity since Iwo Jima". Any editor here can insert fake content already and give that content fake references. On obscure articles it is easy for that fake content to remain for years. I found this example recently, and corrected it [22]. The deterrent for this would be a ban on the inserters, but that can't be done for IP address editors. The best defense against fakery of all sorts is to have a knowledge of the subject and a commitment to its accurate reporting. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Isn't the point that YouTube is never our source. A film or TV programme may be a source, whether or not it is available on YouTube, and we link to the YouTube for convenience. It would be even easier to produce a doctored copy of a written source, but the existence of bad versions doesn't make the good versions unreliable. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Read

WP:YOUTUBE. Does that guideline say that "YouTube is never our source" or does it say something else? --Guy Macon (talk

) 12:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Is this reliable? http://vesselnews.io/shock-video-black-lives-matter-activist-says-need-start-killing-people

Benjamin (talk) 03:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Not for factual information, no. Probably not for opinions either. It's a partisan website that is not a news site, but, in their own words, "a lighting bolt for exposing the leftist agenda, who seek to steal our freedom of speech, right to bear arms and refuse to call by name the enemies of our way of life–Radical. Islamic. Terrorists." And it's a one-man operation. In other words, a personal website masquerading as....something. First Light (talk) 10:19, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

First Light Even though there's a video of actual events? What is the possibility that those events didn't actually take place, that the video is somehow faked? Benjamin (talk) 13:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

A random and probably nameless BLM protester says some sh*t while holding a megaphone at a rally? Really? That's notable? And no, I wouldn't trust this website to tell the truth about when/what/where that video was shot, even if it were notable enough to include an article here, which it isn't. First Light (talk) 13:49, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

KOA Newsradio is likely an RS source, however. Collect (talk) 14:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

There you go. Whether it's notable, and for what, is another question for another noticeboard, or for the article talk page where you are thinking of including this. First Light (talk) 14:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

KOA News Radio simply repeated material from The Daily Caller, and The Daily Caller got it from someone called "BurgerVanDreamz who is streaming this from England". Also,

forum shopping[23][24] before he even got an answer.--Guy Macon (talk

) 15:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think I act improperly, do I? I asked two different questions on two different noticeboards that just happened to involve the same source. Thank you for helping me improve. Benjamin (talk) 15:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

You need to tell us what you want to use the source as a reference for (and in which article) if you hope to get a useful response. The source looks to be very poor quality though. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Could a source be reliable in some contexts but not in others? I guess the obvious context would be Black Lives Matter. Where else would it be relevant? Benjamin (talk) 15:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• No. Hyper-partisan websites are almost never accepted as a reliable source. Adding to that, it is not really even a political news site, it looks more like a glorified blog. Web videos are rarely accepted as reliable sources, YouTube being the obvious example. If we don't accept that we are certainly not going to go with this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Could the video be faked, or what? Benjamin (talk) 17:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

It's maybe not faked, which still doesn't meet standards here. Partisan sources can do more than fake a video. Does a reliable source state that this was really a BLM event? Does a reliable source state that this person was part of the event, rather than a random person with a megaphone? Even if she was part of the event, was she speaking on behalf of BLM? What is the name of the person? Is she notable in the BLM movement? You see, there are so many things wrong with this video according to WP policies. It's also a primary source, until a truly mainstream reliable source reports on the event, who this is, etc.. Even then, is the event or she notable? Probably not. You really hit it out of the park with this one :-0, touching ever single base along the way: non-reliable source, non-notable, primary source, and maybe a touch of WP:BLP. Home run! First Light (talk) 03:04, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

No, not for that video's content - or for opinions about its content. An non-RS source commenting on an unnamed individual with unspecified connections to BLM (beyond being at their rally) voicing their personal extremist opinions makes for nothing usable for Wikipedia content. Of course, based on the way Wikipedia seems to be working these days, if it were the other way around - an unnamed individual with unspecified connections to Trump (beyond being at a supporters rally) voicing their personal extremist opinions - then it would be considered a verbatim repeating of Donald Trump's policy position and the position of everyone who voted for him! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Not even reliable for the video. What's the possibility that this video was faked? Who knows. But I don't know who the woman is, where, when or to whom she was speaking or what connection if any she has with BLM or any other group. Even if it were reliable, you would need to show relevance. Some guy who likes Donald Trump on Facebook just killed 6 people in Quebec City. Is that reflective of the typical Trump supporter? TFD (talk) 18:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure there will be Wikipedia editors who will be claiming it is reflective, and content on it should be included in some Trump election aftermath article for that reason. I recall we had Mike Tyson and his conviction mentioned in a Donald Trump article for no other reason than Tyson is a convicted rapist and Trump had some business sporting interests in boxing and Tyson seemingly is a Trump supporter. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Can we stay on topic please? No one is (or should be) talking about trump here. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Not reliable for any purpose on Wikipedia, simply put. Even if it is a real person being their real self at a real BLM event. It's my consistent observation that about 1% of humans are certifiably insane. It is a common and boring tactic of sensationalist and ideologically motivated "reporters" to seek out the craziest person in a crowd of any size, then post that online, and hope people take it as representative. Given my observation, this is quite easy to do. It's just another reason we need to rely on secondary sources and apply due weight with care. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Could the video be faked? - even though context, possible editing etc. should be taken into account, there is much worse. Peter Cushing, dead in 1994, "performed" in a film that was shot in 2015 and most viewers did not realize that. It is therefore a reasonable guess that a few government or private agencies have the means to produce 100% fake videos. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The source is an article from Rai 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 article is a GA nominee so I need an answer for the source's appropriateness. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:27, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I also don't speak arabic so i'm going only on what google translate gives me. From the get-go it seems pretty POV, so unless it's absolutely critical for GAN, and you think it will stand up there, then I would remove it. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

@

WP:BIASED, "... reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." Moreover, the mentioned part is well attributed to the source for maintaining the overall NPOV. --Mhhossein ^talk

22:01, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Abdel Bari Atwan is the editor-in-chief of Rai al-Youm, meaning that the paper has an editorial board. The fact that the source is referred to by other reliable sources adds weight. Besides the sources I mentioned in my previous comments, see how MEMRI has based his article on the report by Rai al-Youm. You can also see that the website is described as "the Arab world’s first Huffington Post–style outlet." --Mhhossein ^talk 06:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Doug Weller: Could I have your opinion on this? You can consider my comments, too. Thanks. Mhhossein ^talk 08:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Masem's view is respected, too. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

If we have this specific article from this source of question at least being used as a source in works we do consider as RSes, then it seems reasonable we can source it to, but use attribution claims, as the quoted text above as done; I would definitely include the quoting RSes that use the article as part of our references to support it. One question I would ask would be if the English translation was done by an editor, or was done through one of the sources using the text like MEMRI. If we have the latter then it might be very worthwhile to frame this as "According to a report by Rai al-Youm, translated to English by MEMRI..." this "double-buffers" us from any chance of incorrect information (eg the claims being made by the people identified). It's okay if its not, though we do need to be sure the translation is right. --MASEM (t) 20:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

MASEM: Thanks for the clarification. This specific article is used a source/republished by Fars News Agency and The Truth Seeker. However, MEMRI, NYT and etc have used Rai al-Youm's reports as a source on other occasions (find the links above). The material used is well attributed to the original source. --Mhhossein ^talk 20:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@Masem: Do you think we can tell the story as "According to a report by Rai al-Youm, translated to English by Fars News..."? Here's a discussion on the reliability of Fars News. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:29, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think given the previous determination on Fars, that's reasonable. --MASEM (t) 19:53, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

On the BLP article for Jessica Yellin, this edit introduced the following content about her personal life:

Yellin keeps a low profile and keeps her personal life unknown.

The content is sourced to http://frostsnow.com/jessica-yellin.

Is FrostSnow.com a reliable source for this BLP content?

Thank you! SueDonem (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

"She does not bear (sic) a husband." There's something quirky about that page. Its general tone makes me think unreliable.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 21:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

What a dodgy website. When you click on the article's author link, which says "Journalist," it takes you to a page with photos of some well known journalists who obviously don't work for frostsnow.com. That and the bad English makes it look like a clickbait site based somewhere in the non English speaking world. This isn't a reliable source for anything, much less for BLP content. First Light (talk) 08:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Beyond the article in question here, I've gone ahead and removed it as a source throughout Wikipedia. As it was exclusively used in BLPs, I've removed the content this "dodgy" source supposedly verified. SueDonem (talk) 22:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Gmail contact address. Even a semi-professional outfit has its own email addy. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Why Progressives Are Wrong to Argue Against Cultural Appropriation http://observer.com/2015/11/why-progressives-are-wrong-to-argue-against-cultural-appropriation/ Is this a reliable source? Benjamin (talk) 08:07, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

It's an opinion piece so it depends how you want to use it. See

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk

) 08:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Are books that publish creationist theory automatically not RS (As seems to be being cleaimed here [30] and specifically in relation to this source [31] and it's claim that someone is a scientist?Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

They are reliable for stating the views of their authors, attributed as such. Whether the authors are sufficiently prominent to merit inclusion of their views is a separate question. They are not reliable for any statements of fact. So we could say "the opinion of Smith is that Jones is a scientist" or similar wording. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:45, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. So in essence, no it is not automatically not RS, it just has to be used with care?Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes. RS but only for certain limited uses. Use with care and common sense. Consider the following claim:

• "The Creation Museum, located in Petersburg, Kentucky, United States, is operated by the Christian creation apologetics organization Answers in Genesis"

That is a statement of fact that we put in Wikipedia's voice without any citation, but nobody would have a problem if we were to back it up with a citation to https://creationmuseum.org/about/ A primary source like that is fine for a non-contentious claim about itself such as an address. Unless there is some reason to suspect that they may be lying about where they are located.

Now Consider the following claim from the same website:

• "The evidence that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time is all around us." (Source: https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/humans/ )

That is an extremely contentious claim, and the only use we could make of that source is to support a claim like "Answers in Genesis believes that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time." The way we actually handle it in our article is "contradicting science, the museum depicts the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs".

Also, just because a source is allowed, that doesn't mean it should be used if there is a better source. Note that our article on Creation Museum which I just quoted uses reliable secondary sources to back up the claim that the museum depicts the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:24, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

See my question below?Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Now to add, as this is getting all rather nasty over at the talk page, is this RS for the claim he is a scientist? [32].Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

This is already under discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Fringe sources identify someone as a scientist. Please don't fragment the discussion by asking -- or answering -- the above question here. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Source: [33]

Article: American Legislative Exchange Council or to be within a new article

Content:

At ALEC’s 2016 annual meeting in July, the Convention of States was made a top priority. ALEC has adopted model rules for an Article V convention and gave its members model language for a resolution to call for a convention. The “State Legislators Article V Caucus” of the Balanced Budget Amendment Task Force (BBATF) is dominated by ALEC legislators, and pro-convention advocacy groups including BBATF and Convention of States are part of ALEC.

I had a dispute with 2 editors who question the reliability of the source, In These Times, as a longstanding socialist magazine. Help please.

It's certainly not what I would consider a broadly-accepted mainstream reliable source. I don't think it particularly has a bad reputation, but it certainly has a partisan/opinionated reputation, and I would be very careful about using it to make claims about political opponents. I would in-text attribute its reporting unless corroborated by a more mainstream source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:17, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

This is the source I'm talking about -- http://www.biblearchaeology.org/file.axd?file=The+Search+for+Joshuas+Ai.pdf --- it's a paper that was published to the journal of Critical Issues in Early Israelite History, a peer-reviewed journal. It has been cited multiple times in scholarly material, such as the 2014 book 'The Authors of the Deuteronomic History' by Brian Neil Peterson, page 94. It is also cited in the scholarly work 'The Israelite conquest : history or myth? : an achaeological evaluation of the Israelite conquest during the periods of Joshua and the Judges' -- in page 159. It is cited in this paper --- http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1179/0334435515Z.00000000044. These are a few examples to show it has been cited a number of times in many scholarly works -- all the sources that cite it can be found here in Google Scholar https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?cites=13627279837402623804&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en --- the author of the paper in question is Bryant Wood who has a PhD in Syro-Palestinian Archaeology and was the excavation director for the ancient site Khirbet el-Maqatir, which is a site that is part of the main discussion in the source that I'm asking evaluation for. In other words, the author of the paper is a PhD in the field, the paper is peer-reviewed and published into a respected archaeological and academic journal, and it has been cited many times in scholarly material. I think this easily qualifies

The edit itself, which Korvex doesn't challenge, is "although most archaeologists support the identification of Ai with et-Tell, there is some disagreement.

Bryant Wood has identified it with Khirbet el-Maqatir but this has not gained acceptance.^[1][2]

"

The paper in question, by Creationist archaeologist

Bryant Wood, is in fact cited in those two sources. He wants to add a link to the literalist website with which Wood is associated, containing a copy of the paper. Wood was indeed excavation director of a dig funded and organised by the biblical literalist grolup Associates for Biblical Research[34] where Wood is its research director. I'd say that in this article and similar ones we should never use Wood on his own. The question is whether to use the link. Is it required to link to the original source where your sources already cite it? Doug Weller talk

06:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

We should accept the judgment of the editors of the journal about the reliability of the article rather than second-guess them. The journal would not for example allow a creationist to present the world was created 6,000 years ago as a fact or even as a credible theory. However it seems here that the issue is not reliable sourcing but what weight to provide to an opinion expressed by the author which is not dependant on creationism. In that case, we need a secondary source that explains the weight that view has in order to include it. And if it has no weight, it should not be included. The fact the paper has been cited merely means that other others find its facts reliable, not that they endorse its opinions. TFD (talk) 06:58, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

@

TFD: I'm afraid you have been misled as it isn't a journal at all. Zero^talk

07:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Some corrections:
(1) Critical Issues in Early Israelite History is not a journal at all. It was published as a supplement of the Bulletin for Biblical Research, a publication of the Institute for Biblical Research, which "offer[s] to evangelical biblical scholars and Ph.D. students a venue for creative, reflective and serious biblical scholarship". I.e., it publishes articles by people who pass the right ideological test. The volume is the outcome of a weekend conference and I can't find any evidence of peer review.
(2) The paper http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1179/0334435515Z.00000000044 by a famous Israeli archaeologist definitely does not cite it, regardless of what Google scholar says. In fact it doesn't cite any of the 12 authors of Critical Issues for any their work.
(3) "The Israelite conquest : history or myth?" which Korvex strangely does not provide a URL for, is a Masters thesis, so not even citable itself.
(4) Assistant professor of Old Testament Brian Neil Peterson works with the Associates for Biblical Research (Bryant Wood's outfit), so he is hardly a supportive example.
Altogether the case for this source is very weak. Zero^talk 07:07, 28 January 2017 (UTC)