Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 223

Two users, User:David.moreno72 and User:Gilliam are repeatedly insisting on inserting these links into the article on Siri, a high-importance iOS article. The site that the references link to would seem to have never been a reliable source and does not even exist anymore, if one attempts to actually look into them.

Could I get some peer review as to whether these garbage references should be repeatedly inserted into key articles? 203.109.212.42 (talk) 09:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

This is frankly a bit silly and I didn't even bother to research whether akufu.com is reliable or not (judging by the name i'd guess it's not), because the dispute is about rather harmless and largely uncontroversial content that easily can be sourced by other sources (quick googling provides reliables sources right away). So don't waste time on pointless bickering but simply use an alternative source (I went ahead and added 2 already).--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:19, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Opinions welcome at Talk:Muslim Council of Britain#Policy Exchange. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:12, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Although, this is not a question about whether a source is reliable, it seems the best place to ask the question regarding how to properly cite non-English sources:

I looked around and could not find much information on how we handle citations for foreign sources. There is

. In particular, it seems to me that a citation should include the correct non-English title -and- the translated title, and even better we should include a link to Google translate of the article. This should probably be done by template, but I don't see any. Are there any? Are there any articles filled with non-English sources that have done an excellent job in their citations?

I did find this template which is what I am hoping to find for a citation template to a foreign source:

{{Expand German|Wikipedia|date=March 2017}} becomes:

You can help expand this article with text translated from the corresponding article in German. (March 2017) Click [show] for important translation instructions. View a machine-translated version of the German article. Machine translation, like DeepL or Google Translate, is a useful starting point for translations, but translators must revise errors as necessary and confirm that the translation is accurate, rather than simply copy-pasting machine-translated text into the English Wikipedia. Consider adding a topic to this template: there are already 9,113 articles in the main category, and specifying|topic= will aid in categorization. Do not translate text that appears unreliable or low-quality. If possible, verify the text with references provided in the foreign-language article. You must provide copyright attribution in the edit summary accompanying your translation by providing an interlanguage link to the source of your translation. A model attribution edit summary is Content in this edit is translated from the existing German Wikipedia article at [[:de:Wikipedia]]; see its history for attribution. You should also add the template {{Translated|de|Wikipedia}} to the talk page. For more guidance, see Wikipedia:Translation.

I asked this same question here: Wikipedia talk:Citation_templates#Non-English sources. --David Tornheim (talk) 14:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

One conversation in one place please. I have given a first answer at the other location. Conversation should continue there.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

A correct citation afaik doesn't require any translation, i.e. you can simply provide the original title and/or its transcription. Offering a translation or a google translate link are optional and just a convenience addon to the actual reference/citation.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

• (I'm responding to the OP comment and nothing else. I have not read much of what followed.) Non-English sources are allowed, and in some cases their use is preferable to English sources. The preference for English-language sources assumes all other factors (reliability, relevance, etc.) remain equal. Giving translated titles is nice, but in many cases does not add anything: for example, one of my main sources for the Li He article was the one I called "Ueki et al."; but, to someone who doesn't read Japanese, knowing that the title of the book translates to "Encyclopedia of Classical Chinese Poetry" and the title of the chapter translates to "Lives of Poets and Poems" does not make the content any more verifiable. Seen from another point of view, providing a translation of the title of the source instead of the untranslated title would get in the way of verifiability; yes, since the names of the authors and editor, the publication date, and the page number are all clear, it would still be possible to figure out what book I was citing, but giving the original published title is far-and-away preferable to giving a translation.

Since Wikipedia does not have a uniform house citation style, any of these methods of formatting the refs would be theoretically acceptable in a given article.

If a source has been published in English translation, giving the title of the published translation when the original edition was what was consulted would be a clear violation of our sourcing policy; I would say don't even give the title of the English translation unless said translation is the source you consulted.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Is the defunct liberal news site US Uncut a reliable source for straightforward statements of fact? It is currently used this way in several articles, such as Salman of Saudi Arabia and 2017 Women's March. Based on US Uncut#Criticisms and my general impression from other sites that discuss US Uncut, I'm inclined to think it's not reliable for these kinds of statements, but I'd like to get other editors' opinions before I remove the citations from those articles and others. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

You would get more responses if you would provide actual bits cited to it. Jytdog (talk) 07:05, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

For example:

• this is used to support the statement "During March, Sanders raised $44 million from a donor base roughly twice as large as Clinton's." at
  Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, 2016
• this is used to support the statement "His mother stated that he aimed to be a lawyer when he finished studying." at Ali Mohammed Baqir al-Nimr
• this is used with other sources to support the statement "On August 10, 2015, in accordance with Shkreli's business plan, Turing acquired Daraprim (pyrimethamine), a medication approved by the FDA in 1953, from Impax Laboratories for US$55 million." at Martin Shkreli

—Granger (talk · contribs) 14:04, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for providing examples. I would avoid that source like the plague, as it is the website of an activist group. We can do better.

• i would avoid making hard comparison on numbers of "unique donors" as they are hard to track per this; that source and this one did make it clear that Bernie had raised way more $ from small donors than Clinton had by March. "She has raised only 18 percent of her money from donors giving less than $200, giving her a narrower fundraising base than Sanders. Sanders’s campaign has raised 66 percent of its money from donors giving less than $200, according to The Hill’s analysis of FEC figures." That is very supportable, from better refs. But if you really want the "roughly two to one" thing, this WSJ article says "" Josh Schwerin, a Clinton spokesman, said a recent surge in contributions put the campaign over the one-million-donor mark a few weeks ago. Sanders campaign officials said they have received contributions from about two million donors."
• for the ali mohammed al nimr, the reference does not support the content. the reference says that it was a friend of the family, who said that the mother said, that he said that if he got the chance to live, he would want to become a lawyer or political activist. so the content is no good. i don't know that our article should report 3rd level hearsay this way. I didn't find any other sources for it.
• if there are other sources already, ditch this one, assuming that the others are stronger.

There you go. Jytdog (talk) 05:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Not a reliable source for the reasons outlined by Jytdog. We can do (much) better. Neutrality^talk 05:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• Many thanks, Jytdog and Neutrality. It seems my initial impression was right. I'll start making some edits accordingly. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I write about Florida historical topics; specifically ghost towns. I sometimes do find it is quiet hard to get information and this website here [ghosttowns.com]. (

Hi

Cassini127, I took a look around the site, and I'm not entirely encouraged by what I see. Two of the staff members are college professors. However, their site encourages public submission of ghost town information. It is unclear what measures the staff takes to verify the content of these public submissions. Therefore, I would say that ghosttowns.com would not be a reliable source, as there is no evidence of oversight for the user-submitted content. Howicus (Did I mess up?)

18:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I think their is a few people that do submit quite reliable entries. A lot of them are questionable. (

Cass

) 21:11, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

... here: User talk:Jimbo Wales#Suggested fix.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I.e.: Is

Benjamin E. Park, who reviews him here: "The Mormon Council of Fifty: What Joseph Smith’s Secret Records Reveal" (Religion & Politics, September 9, 2016)? Please chime in on a way to determine such questions in a much more consistent manner than at present...here: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Suggested_fix.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk

) 19:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

He's giving notice of a discussion occurring elsewhere and inviting participation. Keep your hat on. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:40, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

The text contains pro-Soviet phrases: [19]

It allegedly reviewes Robert C. Allen’s Farm to Factory: A Reinterpretation of the Soviet Industrial Revolution.

The last phrase is “To say that socialism doesn’t work is to overlook the fact that it did work for hundreds of millions of people.” by Parenti. There is however no Communist country in Europe. Xx236 (talk) 09:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Please could someone post an opinion at Talk:ZE:A#Remove_mentions of disbandment to help gauge consensus on this issue? Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Is https://books.google.ch/books?hl=de&lr=&id=JEbLBQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA105&dq=%22acay%22+monzonite+OR+%22nevado+de+acay%22&ots=zROHz7o04V&sig=ieXZ02i6dfEN7oid2YwFw-omXbc#v=onepage&q=%22acay%22%20monzonite%20OR%20%22nevado%20de%20acay%22&f=false a reliable source for the establishment of a protected area? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Same question but for https://books.google.ch/books?hl=de&lr=&id=Y6ql7CIbJV8C&oi=fnd&pg=PA26&dq=%22acay%22+monzonite+OR+%22nevado+de+acay%22&ots=na7ZoBx9Nr&sig=OKGjs7-ul5ESNizZ8bmppfFgbbM#v=onepage&q=acay&f=false and for that hydrographic map. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:57, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

That first one is incomprehensible, or I forgot how to read English. Is it a machine translation or something? First Light (talk) 17:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

...yeah, it kind of looks like a machine translation. Prolly not a good source then. (At the risk of overloading: https://archive.org/details/memoriadescript00solgoog and https://archive.org/stream/memoriasobrelas00bertgoog are also things I am wondering about) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm writing you to receive guidance in how to deal with a dispute I have with the editor Zefr regarding my contribution to the High-fructose corn syrup article. I have attempted to resolve this using the High Fructose Corn Syrup talk page and Wikipedia’s third opinion, with little success and now would like to turn to you for help.

In the past weeks or so I have tried to contribute multiple times (March 8, March 11, March 14) to an article about

He recently redid the entire section changing the name from “manufacturing contaminants” to “safety and manufacturing concerns”. He has added the Duke Citations to the text twice, with a preface that HFCS is safe for consumption, and has added text that is not supported by citations. He won’t allow me to add peer-reviewed studies with relevant information to this article.

Why is

The issue here is not sourcing, but interpretation. Other sources also note the contamination but say that it isn't significant. You are trying to suppress this and emphasize sources that omit that assessment. Mangoe (talk) 20:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@Thatwhoiswise: Your logic looks sound to me. I reviewed Zefr's analysis that said the studies should be excluded because of determinations of safety by the FDA and CDC. That makes no sense--those agencies are highly influenced by industry. We use top quality secondary sources by independent scientists. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

As Mangoe points out, the sources are reliable (including FDA and CDC), this is the wrong place to discuss them, and the issue is interpretation. To summarize, tiny amounts of mercury have been found, but these do not appear to pose a threat to health. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

There is a difference between quantifiable/significant and "health threat". It would be

Mobile phone radiation and health, where I know the E.U. has much tighter standards. I have not looked up the standard in E.U. compared to FDA on Mercury, but I have a hunch the FDA's permissible level on Mercury is significantly higher. Consider for example, the highly politicized Mercury issue with Bush [25]EPA Ignored Science When Regulating Power Plant Mercury Emissions. Again, the regulatory agencies are highly politicized. --David Tornheim (talk

) 09:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not hard to find the EU information, and I note that they conclude that "Taking into account the outcome of the SCOOP-task 3.2.11, EFSA concluded that the levels of mercury found in foods, other than fish and seafood, were of lower concern." (from here) In another publication they say, "Food sources other than fish and seafood products may contain mercury, but mostly in the form of inorganic mercury. Based on the available data the contribution to methylmercury exposure from these foods is considered to be insignificant." (See here) There's no reputable source that says the mercury contamination is significant. Mangoe (talk) 13:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:SOAP and use other sources (one merely an opinion comment) to reference the same finding as the one analytical source used. Lastly, I agree this is the wrong forum for discussing these issues. No one is disputing the reliability of the current sources used in the HFCS article on safety and manufacturing concerns. That the CDC and FDA do not discuss safety risks from manufacturing of HFCS means the product is safe to consume, plain and simple. --Zefr (talk

) 14:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The absence of a statement about safety risks from the CDC or FDA does not mean there are no safety risks. (You can't prove a negative). I support the idea that CDC and FDA are not going to be significantly influenced by corporate measures and thus are generally high reliable sources, but their absence of mentioning manufacturing risks should not be taken that there aren't any. --MASEM (t) 14:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Disagree. When there is a safety concern about elemental mercury in the food supply, it is quantified (usually by the USDA), then reported to the FDA who make a safety statement to consumers as exists for mercury in some seafoods. In the HFCS article, we cite the FDA's statement on HFCS where no mention is made about mercury risk. That is the main point of the current manufacturing of HFCS is safe and not mercury-contaminated. --Zefr (talk) 14:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I would need time to review how the FDA or CDC present safety information about food safety and if it is done in a standardized way, as the closest think I can compare to would be MSDS sheets for chemicals and the like, and here there are "required" elements to be considered a proper MSDS sheet, such as known LD50 information, for instance. In such cases there is strong clarity (or at least, there should be strong clarity) between where an LD50 value is not yet known because such tests haven't be carried out, or where there is no LD50 value because the chemical is safe at extremely high levels. But in either way, the safety relative to LD50 is addressed. What I am reading from this discussion is that neither the FDA or CDC reports address the safety, even if just to say "there are no known safety issues with the manufacture of HFCS", which I would expect that if they had a standard form/template, would be included. So the absence of these statements does not allow us to presume that the FDA/CDC have concluded there are no safety issues; that's basically SYNTH research. (Also just trying to search, there's clearly an issue with junk science around this based on a 2009 study, and claims the FDA is hiding this).

That said, there do appear to be legit papers that warn that mercury could enter into the production of HFCS via the caustic soda. [www.academicjournals.org/journal/BMBR/article-full-text-pdf/41CAC0411547^{[predatory publisher]}], and the 2009 study at least is a data point to be made that one test in 2009 found several sources with trace mercury levels. It's also probably necessary to point out what the manufactures said in response to the 2009 study (Eg [26]) that they have switched away from the chlor-alkyl source of caustic soda to one that would be mercury-free. What I can't find is any recent study to affirm if current products of HFCS have mercury or not, with most all relaying on the 2009 study. Hence, this is an area to take caution: It would be improper to say HFCS is factually safe, but it would also be improper to say all HFCS contains mercury. It is probably best to take a median ground here. --MASEM (t) 06:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Masem: FYI, that source is unreliable - academicjournals.org is a predatory open access publisher. Guy (Help!) 14:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

We do not have the absence of a statement: the EU source I cited specifically denies a significant risk. Basically the argument here is around substituting lay fears and analysis of the result for competent, official sources. We don't do that. Mangoe (talk) 12:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, not really. First, that EU report was in 2006 (if I'm reading it right), and it doesn't specifically call out HFCS so while not as much an OR violation as assuming absence of safety warning = safe, it's still making some assumptions; the report that sparked the issue (which I'm not saying is necessarily right) was 2009. I think it is factually appropriate to say that HFCS made from caustic soda that is produced from chloro-alkyl plants may have mercury in it, but organizations like the EU have said that the levels are well below risk levels in humans, and that the manufacturers of HFCS have switched off chloro-alkyl caustic soda to further eliminate any possible mercury contamination. And then discussion the 2009 "scare" from the IATP report. --MASEM (t) 13:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

• This is a mess. Reviewing the OP's OP and the three diffs they cite, it seems that they want to add content about mercury in HFCS, and the dangers of that mercury, based on the following four refs, which I have taken the liberty of formatting with pmid etc to the extent they are available.:

• • Dufault, R; LeBlanc, B; Schnoll, R; Cornett, C; Schweitzer, L; Wallinga, D; Hightower, J; Patrick, L; Lukiw, WJ (26 January 2009). "Mercury from chlor-alkali plants: measured concentrations in food product sugar". Environmental health : a global access science source. 8: 2.
    PMID 19171026
    .
  • Wallinga, David (2009). "Not So Sweet: Missing Mercury and High Fructose Corn Syrup" (PDF). Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy.</ref>
  • Rideout, Karen (21 July 2010). "Comment on the paper by Dufault et al.: Mercury in foods containing high-fructose corn syrup in Canada". Environmental Health. Retrieved 14 March 2017.
  • Dufault, Renee (2015). "Blood inorganic mercury is directly associated with glucose levels in the human population and may be linked to processed food intake". Integrative Molecular Medicine. 2: 166–179. Retrieved 8 March 2017.

First ref is a primary source that is 8 years old. Not MEDRS.

2nd ref is a white paper by Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, an advocacy organization. Not MEDRS.

3rd ref is a letter to the editor. Not a MEDRS source.

4th ref is a primary source published in a journal put out by a

predatory publisher. ("open access text" was on beall's list

). It is also not MEDLINE indexed. Not MEDRS by miles.

None of that is OK. Maybe there are other sources i missed. Jytdog (talk) 05:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, checking above, the 2nd ref is rather key - even if it is not MEDRS, as it started this "scare" of mercury in HFCS in 2009. It needs to be mentioned in that context, but it can't be used to state factually about mercury content or the lack thereof in HFCS. --MASEM (t) 06:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

so if somebody wanted to add content that the white paper kicked off a controversy, they would need a reliable secondary source (not MEDRS) for that.. ideally a NYT article or the like. The white paper itself couldn't be used to support that it itself started a controversy. Jytdog (talk) 23:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• This whole situation is descending into a sticky mess. (I know how corny that is and I really don't care.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:41, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I made that crack at ANI last week . Come up with your own material, smartyPants. EEng 11:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Stealing jokes is a longstanding tradition among comedians and internet jackasses. Besides, I added to it with the parenthetical. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Is

As far as I am aware Inquisitor is a news aggregator and does not produce any original content itself. So any source used should be from where they stole borrowed it from. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Strangely, the link that the Inquisitr provides doesn't confirm the cast member. The user that listed the source has been trying to add the cast member to Hellraiser: Judgment for a while now. Do you think I should remove it again or add a "Better source needed" template? DarkKnight2149 13:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Information not supported by source? Remove it. If it was a case of just badly sourced, you can be justified in asking for a better one if its not really contentious. If the source itself doesnt support the information at all its essentially unsourced. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Given the actress concerned has only one ref and links to IMDB and facebook on her biography, I feel better sources may not be forthcoming. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I meant that the Inquisitr says it, but their source doesn't. Does that qualify as the source supporting it, or would it be better to still remove it? DarkKnight2149 20:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind. She's listed on the cast at Rotten Tomatoes. I'll just use that. DarkKnight2149 15:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi I attempted to add a quick line on Kate Mulgrew's reuniting with a child she gave up for adoption. User User:Bbb23 keeps reverting the line out though I added one citation and then 2 more. This is my last edited page on Mulgrew, [Kate Mulgrew; personal life section]. Another user User:ScrapIronIV has since edited the line out as well. The information is no secret, she mentions it in a memoir in 2015 so it is public knowledge. Koplimek (talk) 21:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Is an IOC President reliable when he prizes Olympics co-organized by the IOC?Xx236 (talk) 10:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the question. Presidents of large international organizations are only reliable for statements of fact in a narrow range, such as "my organization has X number of employees" (and maybe not even then -- it depends). Presidents of large international organizations are notable, so their opinion in various things might be worth stating, depending on what it is, as an opinion. "My organization is a fine thing and its outputs are great", probably not. "Over my years as a notable person in this field, I have sadly seen such-and-such trend grow", quite possibly. If this doesn't help, perhaps you could be more specific? Herostratus (talk) 19:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

The President said that he organized fanstastic Olimpics. The statement is quoted here as reliable. I would prefer neutral opinions about the Olimpics.Xx236 (talk) 05:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Again, please be specific. At least mention the Wikipedia page where this is quoted, because it's impossible to discuss this without any context. --bonadea contributions talk 07:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Russia#Sports Commentators evaluated the Games as having been an overall success - is an IOC President a commentator?Xx236 (talk) 07:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

2014 Winter Olympics#Concerns and controversies Xx236 (talk) 08:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Sochi Olympics postscript: The whole thing was a fake Xx236 (talk) 08:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• This edit is probably the relevant one. The 'successful' comment was referenced with this and this. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

There are hundreds of sources about corruption and doping at Sochi. Hello!

Xx236 (talk) 05:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

The next step

Olympics History Rewritten: New Doping Tests Topple the Podium

has been removed being allegedly part of irrelevant addition containing errors.Xx236 (talk) 06:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't call the IOC president a "commentator". Also, to present one POV, that the games were a success, without including mention of the doping scandal, probably violates NPOV. Felsic2 (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Not a disagreement, but: the problem is not so much that the IOC president is or isn't right to say the games were a success (that's NPOV and balance issues to make sure that the conclusion is shared by an overwhelming majority of RS). The problem is that the IOC president will never say the games were a failure, because he is not an independent "commentator". If a well-known editorialist wrote the games were a success using exactly the same words, it would be a proper source, but the IOC president is not. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Right, which any reader would realize if they were given the information. In fact, I think anyone who wrote this properly, such as saying, "The IOC president called it a success", would immediately rethink the issue. It's OK to say it, but it's so obvious that it's essentially pointless. The more Wikipedia way would be to include both POVs. Something like, "The games, called a success by some, were marred by a doping scandal among Russian athletes." Felsic2 (talk) 16:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

At Caucasian race I am discussing whether Rachel Caspari, who is a physical anthropologist and current president of the American Association of Physical Anthropologist, is a reliable and objective enough source for describing the general view of contemporary anthropologists regarding the use of the typological view of biological race.(Caspari, R. (2003). From types to populations: A century of race, physical anthropology, and the American Anthropological Association. American Anthropologist, 105(1), 65-76.) Another user is arguing that since she represent the world's largest professional organization of physical anthropologists her summary of the status is likely to be biased in against race. I argue that it is absurd to propose that a professional distinction could be used to disqualify a scientist, and that she is of course entirely able to describe the development of the discipline in a neutral and objective fashion (the article is a review article of the history and the changing positions of the American Anthropological Association). ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

A president of a scholarly association is a good source for the state of scholarly opinion in the relevant disciplines. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• "Another user is arguing that since she represent the world's largest professional organization of physical anthropologists her summary of the status is likely to be biased in against race." You are right, that is obviously absurd. It essentially requires that you think the professional organisation is biased for some reason in the first place, or has some underlying monetary interest in pushing a particular viewpoint. If there actually is evidence the AAA has a view that is different from anthropologists (outside the US) in general, this might be an issue, but as far as I am aware they do not. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

...and citing the DEA goes the wrong way. Start here... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mitragyna_speciosa#DEA_not_a_reliable_scientific_source Kolyvansky (talk) 21:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

This source has been questioned, is it subject to pertinent questioning? 187.104.26.6 (talk) 03:23, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Don't know what you mean by "pertinent questioning," but that source doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards for Reliable Sources. It is not neutral, objective, has no reputation for fact-checking and reliability, etc. It's just one of many extremist partisan websites on the internet. If the statement that you are trying to support is true, then there will be reliable mainstream sources that support it. Please read

WP:RS if you want to know how Wikipedia works regarding sourcing. First Light (talk

) 03:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree with First Light - it is absolutely unreliable. It's a shadowy website that advances various fringe ideas and conspiracy theories; has none of the traditional characteristics of a reliable source. Neutrality^talk 03:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Consider naturalnews.com: 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, by common consent, one of the most unreliable sources of health information on the net. I check special:Linksearch/*.naturalnews.com periodically, it takes an age, for reasons which will be obvious when you click the link.

For a brief while we had the ability to filter link search by namespace. It went away again. I think the habitués of this board would agree, being able to filter by namespace would have immense utility. Or am I wrong? Guy (Help!) 00:00, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

The ability to filter linksearch by namespace would be immensely helpful. Neutrality^talk 22:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

oh heck yes. pinging the liaison for WMF discovery, User:CKoerner (WMF) Jytdog (talk) 05:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, thanks for the ping. This looks like a common request. I just discovered it was in the top 50 of the Community Wishlist for 2015. I'll see if I can find the right person to help. I added a note about this request to the existing phab task on this subject. The good news is that the API already allows this, but the Special:LinkSearch feature does not expose that via the UI (due to performance concerns). CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 16:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the pleading at the phab, and your reply here. Jytdog (talk) 06:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@Guy: Meanwhile, if wanted I could use a script I have to list articles where naturalnews.com is used. As you are doing that periodically it may not be particularly convenient, but I'm happy to do it, say, once a week. If wanted, where would I post a list? A subpage in your userspace? Johnuniq (talk) 07:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes please, user:JzG/HealthDanger - or send me a copy of the script, that would be very handy. Thanks.

I created the page; there are currently only two articles. I'll update it each week or so, or ping me anytime, particularly if I forget. If there are more links you want to monitor, add them here or to the page (which I'm watching) and I'll add them. The script is based on stuff I have developed over several years and is not easy to package for someone else—let's see how this goes for a while. Johnuniq (talk) 04:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

In this edit summary a Ripoff Report link is removed with a reasoning that (to me) makes no sense in a Wikipedia context. It looks very much like a representative of the company named in the report wanting to remove the bad rep. The same editor had changed the reference to a different Ripoff report - but when that was reverted, the user suddenly started claiming that Ripoff reports are not useful at all.

However, even if this is is an attempt at whitewashing, it is possible that this particular link is not in fact the best source here. The information being sourced is "The great majority of the complaints and discussion about companies that cold-call and offer "technical support" report them as being not merely incompetent or ineffective, but actively dishonest, doggedly trying to convince the victim of non-existent problems by trickery, and when possible damaging a computer they gain access to." and the reference is this one. I don't think ripoffreport.com is a poor or unreliable source (and the "rebuttals" on the Ripoff report page are a bit silly), but is it really consistent with good sourcing practices to use a report about one specific company to show something about complaints and reports in general? The same thing probably applies to another reference for the same sentence, namely this one. Thoughts on this? Something obvious I have missed, perhaps? --bonadea contributions talk 09:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

The Ripoffreport is the place where everyone can register and leave any opinion without any evidence needed. The Wikipedia should not use it as the trusted source or reference. The Ripoffreport URL added on Wikipedia with the title wording may also be confused and seen as a misleading information of the company among other references.

Furthermore, the Ripoffreport page is clearly not a customer review or a trusted review:

1. Everyone can leave an opinion on Ripoffreport even a malicious-on-purpose one without any evidence backed; Ripoffreport is very controversial website; please see the Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ripoff_Report

In 2015, the United States District Court for the District of Utah stated that, although the Ripoff Report homepage shows the tag lines "By Consumers, for consumers" and "Don't let them get away with it. Let the truth be known", the site allows competitors, and not just consumers, to post comments. The Ripoff Report home page also says: "Complaints Reviews Scams Lawsuits Frauds Reported, File your review. Consumers educating consumers", which allows a reasonable inference that the Ripoff Report encourages negative content. Moreover, Ripoff Report's webmaster affirmed that positive posts about a company are not allowed in the website. Therefore, the court concluded that the website's owner is not a neutral publisher, because, through large fees that companies must pay for the website's advocacy programs, it has an interest in, and encourages, negative content.

2. The Ripoffreport (as well as the one Bonadea just posted) can most likely be a fake one:

  * the user leaved opinion without any screenshot,or order#
  * the user can't provide further details after the employee rebuff with 'No Davy' agent in the company & asking for the order# on this case
  * the user is leaving an opinion for the service offered in the company's physical operating location, however the company is providing services online only (when publishing on Ripoffreport, there are options whether it is for physical or Internet online; the html title of the page is with the company's physical location while not the 'Internet' wording); both of the reference links on that Wikipage as well as the newly one just posted by Bonadea are left with the opinions on the physical location 
  * there are good reviews also left by other users on this page
  * the user will be offered with a full refund if the issue can't be fixed on this page.

These are my concerns regarding this reference link, which could be a fake/not trustable review on the controversial Ripoffreport website.Johnwiki23 (talk) 11:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Random online user-inputted reviews or complaints are pretty much never going to be a reliable or authoritative source for anything, and should rarely if ever be cited on WP pages, surely. Even if they were, in this case, as noted, there's the additional problem that one such review is being used to support a generalised statement about what typical criticism consists of. N-HH talk/edits 13:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, the Ripoff Report reviews/complaints are (purportedly) vetted by the website staff so it's not just some general forum or Wiki style website with no editorial oversight. I think I'd still prefer to remove that reference and the mywot one (my second link above) simply because they only discuss individual companies. The remaining reference should be sufficient, I think. --bonadea contributions talk 13:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Possibly cursory "vetting" or checking of online content submitted by anonymous/pseudonymous members of the public is not the same thing as fact-checking and formal editorial oversight of professional, expert writing, which is what the RS policy generally calls for. Neither Ripoff Report nor mywot appear to be much of a step beyond a forum tbh. Even if there are other reasons for removal here, that point shouldn't be dodged, for future reference. N-HH talk/edits 14:11, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• This is a clear exclude. The link seems designed to crowbar in mention of YooCare, whicih Dr. Google informs me is indeed an amazingly bad company, but this article is not about YooCare. Guy (Help!) 10:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

An editor wants to include two references to

Tyler Cowen is a notable guy and his blog is notable, if you want to include his thoughts about possible solutions to the tullock paradox based on the blogpost, then quote him somewhere (with attribution that these are his thoughts) somewhere in the body. More weight should be given to published peer-reviewed research on the topic, and there's no reason to cite MRU or MR for uncontroversial stuff like the defition of the paradox when better sources available. NPalgan2 (talk) 20:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Bleacher Report is a content farm that produces content just to be SEO Optimized, with no regard for the truth. Editors are encouraged to use hyperbole and misleading headlines to get more views on their writing. There are thousands of Wikipedia articles using them as a source, and these are either junk sections that should be removed, or news that should have an actual, reliable, source rather than Bleacher Report. http://www.bleacherreport.com

Chin_(combat sports) -- This article is chock-full of click-bait "listicles" about "fighters who have good chins" from Bleacher Report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warshington (talk • contribs) 06:31, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Could I ask opinions please as to the use of:

Source

Rivington web page. A site dedicated to the Rivington and it's history, a village of Rivington, Lancashire.

Booklet published by David Owen M.A Rivington And District 1823 To 1865

Article Rivington

Content

Three engineers Thomas Hawksley, Mr Cubitt and Mr Rendel were employed to draw up proposals in 1846. (section Reservoirs)

Also

The early 16th century chapel was rebuilt in 1666 and internally altered and restored in 1861. (section Religion)

--Pennine rambler (talk) 18:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

rivington.byethost.com is a wiki set up on a free web host. Editing appears to be restricted, but I can't find any information about who actually is editing. So

WP:SPS

applies: I don't think that this should be considered reliable. However, it does have references at the end of every page, so it might be useful for finding actual reliable sources.

Rivington And District 1823 To 1865 is a collection of extracts of newspaper articles which mention the town, as far as I can tell. The clippings themselves may well count as

WP:PRIMARY sources, so are suitable for citing simple statements of fact but not anything requiring complex interpretation. I haven't checked any of these clippings, so you would also be going on faith that the transcriptions are accurate, though I can't see any reason why they would not be. I would cite them in the form: "$Newspaper, $Date, quoted in Rivington and District 1823 to 1865

".

I can't see any support for your first statement in the newspaper quotes, but the restoration in 1861 is mentioned, so you could use it as a source for that. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:11, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

• marxists.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

We have a lot of links to this website, almost all of which seem to be material that was collected and published on the website but did not originate there. The site clearly advances an agenda, though there is less of the overt editorial advocacy than some comparable sites. Is this a problem? Is it link spamming? Should we be citing the books themselves, and not the mirrors on the MArxist site? I would certainly argue the last. Guy (Help!) 19:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Paging

Iridescent

20:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

It's a fantastic resource. Obviously we usually cite the text itself but can add the Marxists.org URL for convenience. I don't think there's much blogging. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly the right play. If there's no easy link to the book at Archive.org, putting up a link to the html text at MIA is a good second choice. Carrite (talk) 01:46, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

• (Full disclosure: i'm a volunteer at MIA.) Marxists Internet Archive is a one-stop source for writings by radicals of all stripes (and even a few conservatives). It is completely non-commercial just like Wikipedia is non-commercial, so I wouldn't be worried about link spamming — there is no financial motivation. There's no "agenda" beyond the fact that volunteers at MIA (50 to 100 around the world, working in multiple languages) tend to be......... Marxists. I'd guess that probably half or two thirds are Trotskyists of some stripe or another; I'm a left social democrat; there are Stalinists and Maoists who have been there, Che Guevarra enthusiasts, and so on and so forth. So there's really no "political" agenda in terms of promotion of a party or any specific ideology. Now, putting on my Wikipedian hat. MIA is to a large extent based on the transcription of books and articles and the best footnoting would certainly footnote back to these original hardcopy works, perhaps with a link to the MIA text if there are no linkable editions of the source in question. If one has energy, going through there and improving the links would be a good thing, just so long as we're not losing weblinks for unlinked books, if you follow me. Carrite (talk) 01:38, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Regarding copyright: MIA's entire wealth in this world is something like $6,000 (which is probably what WMF spends on company lunches each month) so we are very, very careful not to get sued over copyvio. There have been one or two instances in the last decade in which a copyright holder or claimed copyright holder has grunted at us for this reason or that and the contested material is made to go away very fast. So it is not a warehouse for copyvio material — one lawsuit and MIA dies, gotta be careful. Not stupid megahyperovercareful like Wikimedia Commons, but follow-the-law-of-the-United-States careful. Carrite (talk) 01:52, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the situation is as simple as Carrite implies. The website contains short biographies and summaries, apparently written by the site's volunteers, with no clear statement about who wrote and checked them and where they got their information from. These are not RS. The website contains English-language versions of texts originating in other languages. Some of these translations were made and published in the past, and presumably would qualify as RS if accurately transcribed, and some appear to be newly made by site volunteers, in which case they are not RS. The website contains web versions of English language texts. If these have been validated against the source material then they could be used as RS. However the process of conversion is unclear and hard to assess (there is no mention of the specific edition or copy used, the method of transcription, the name and date of the process, what QA checks were carried out). So if there were a quotation drawn from the text on the site, Wikipedia editors and users could have no certainty that the wording as presented was in fact an accurate reflection of the printed text. Martinlc (talk) 13:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I think we can use MIA with the important proviso that the note must specify both the original source and the MIA link, not just the original title. I agree with Martinlc that there is some risk, but this is also true with printed sources. On balance, the risk is acceptable. ch (talk) 21:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Is Bakitzur, apparently published by the Mateh Yehuda Regional Council, a RS? I think not, but User:Davidbena disagrees. It was suggested used on Husan, a Palestinian village on the occupied West Bank, to source this, Huldra (talk) 20:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Our co-editor, Huldra, is referring to an edit in the Wiki article Husan, where it was written: "In the months of January and February 2017, regional highway 375 nearest Husan was again the scene of frequent stone-throwing at passing-by Israeli motorists with some injuries reported, which prompted the IDF to take measures to ensure the safety of all motorists." The source given was: Bakitzur - Mateh Yehuda Regional Council Weekly, Issue 387 (16 February 2017), p. 22 (Hebrew).

Huldra contends that a publication published by a government-sponsored Regional Council in Israel is not reliable. Of course, we disagree with that view. Then again, there are other sources as well. You may wish to check this one, here. Then, you have this article: IDF Protects Israeli Drivers in West Bank. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I would say it's ok for that. It's similar to a police blotter.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:35, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Do other editors think that Congressweb (specifically, this link) is a reliable source for BLPs about politicians (specifically,

Dear editors: I have been working on expanding and improving stub articles about Canadian bands. There are a lot of these from the early days of Wikipedia. I frequently come across reports of these bands in an online magazine called Chart Attack. The older articles are quite gossipy and don't name the author of each article. The site's "About" page indicates that there are regular staff as well as volunteer contributors. They also say they accept press releases, but don't say if they print them or just use them for story leads. Because the magazine focuses on stories about local and regional bands, it often contains articles about early concerts and recordings of bands that aren't covered by newspapers until later in their careers. Is this a reliable source? Is some of it press releases, and if so, is there a way to pick these out?—Anne Delong (talk) 10:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Does the website/magazine indicate editorialship? If not, generally unreliable. If you can't distinguish between the staff contributions, and the press releases and volunteer contributions, it's probably also unreliable. Cases where you can isolate the article authorship to the staff, can you say that those cases are high-quality? --Izno (talk) 12:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I've done some research into chartattack.com using the Wayback Machine. It was started in 1996. A version of the "About" page from before 2011 makes the claim that the website is "the premier Canadian music content supplier to The Canadian Press", although that's not a neutral evaluation.

Yes, Izno, the publication has an editor. Their current "About us" page says that they have a staff writer, a photographer, "freelancers" and "contributors". I misspoke by calling them "volunteers", as I don't know if that's the case. There is a request that potential contributors send samples of their work, so they don't publish just anything people send in. It also says that they will read press releases and watch video streams, but doesn't indicate that they will (or won't) publish them or rely on them.

In 2011 the company which owned chartattack.com was sold and the people operating it had to reboot with new web software, causing the older pages to display badly. By reading to the bottom of the page and ignoring some funny characters, I have discovered that most of the articles do have the author's name. This makes me feel less leery about citing them because I can do a web search to see if the author has a COI. So far I haven't come across any instances of this.

About quality of the articles: They are rather chatty and do contain opinion ("Band Q's dreadful screeching..."), and a lot of information about upcoming events ("Band X is gearing up for a tour of New Zealand" or "You can catch them at the Pickle Club on Thursday"}, but it's easy to avoid citing stuff life that and concentrate on facts ("Their third album "Hopscotch" was released last week.", "Band Y played the opening set at the Flooglehopper concert, to a sold out crowd."). The articles are pretty good about using quotation marks to indicate information that has come directly from band members, etc. I think I will continue to cite Chart Attack as a source for non-controversial facts, and to show general notability, but not rely on it for anything that may have BLP issues.—Anne Delong (talk) 12:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

We've got an article about it: Chart Attack. It's a former print magazine. It's listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources, and I've cited it a few times myself. I'd say it's generally fine, but it never hurts to be choosy when you're writing BLPs. If you don't like Chart Attack, Exclaim! is a good source for Canadian bands. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:10, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

This one. I am not finding much commentary on the publisher. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:10, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

It depends on context. Which article are we talking about, and which specific statement within that article? A source may be reliable in one context, and unreliable in another context. Blueboar (talk) 11:43, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I am thinking mostly of the geological information on the Olca volcano, as well as the geothermal information. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

In the lead on Anti-Fascist Action is the claim "It was notable in significantly reducing fascist street activity in Britain in the 1990s", sourced from the anarchist publisher Freedom Press. Justeditingtoday reverted me, calling it "perfectly reliable", which seems laughable: surely on a group from 20 years ago in Great Britain there is a scholarly source not from a biased niche publisher? Will we end up using Neo Nazi publishers as "perfectly reliable" sources for the "success" of Combat 18?

There have been prior queries over this reference, all of which have been ignored so I came here. There's also a reference from Red Action on the article: not only were they a violent extremist group but they were a major part of AFA. I haven't removed that reference but if I did and it got reverted I would be...perplexed Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 13:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

They are a RS for what they believed, on the whole, but any subject is rarely in the best (or any) position to gauge their own effect on events or their broader influence. Having said that, the question here is to what degree the Birchall book lacks independence or distance from its subject matter. —

^{velut luna}

13:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• Given its age and pedigree, Freedom Press seems to easily pass the bar to be considered "published", so we can cite them; however, they are also very obviously a
  WP:RS one. --Aquillion (talk
  ) 00:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

If 1) fascist street activity in Britain in the 1990s really was significantly reduced, and 2) the entity "Anti-Fascist Action" really did contribute materially to that, then the Guardian or the Economist or the BBC or whomever ought to have reported on that, and I want to hear it from them, not an interested party. Herostratus (talk) 07:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Buzzfeed had repeatedly been found to not meet

I've restored the Buzzfeed Citations. I suspect they were removed in response to User:Maineartists saying "...the sources (such as Buzzfeed) are not that reliable" at the BLP noticeboard. However, as noted above, while Buzzfeed may be low-quality in general, this specific article appears balanced and also links to the filing, which would be useful to people interested in further reading. I would argue that specific should be preferred over general, and thus the citations should remain in this instance. Finally, citation removal is contrary to WP:NOCITE Inkypaws

I would like to suggest that a "content guideline" does not and can not override "policy." Nor does

Buzzfeed has improved in the last year or so with regards to its editorial practices - to the point where some articles are useable depending on content, material being sourced etc etc. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• I would always be surprised to see Buzzfeed "home of the clickbait list" passing WP:RS, but this does seem to be one of those rare cases [31][32] when it's trying to play being a real news site. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

This cite is reliable for this statement. Buzzfeed News has (kind of shockingly) developed a legitimate news operation in recent years, with actual journalists, separate from its better known listicle/clickbait side. Notwithstanding its reputation for "light fare" (which does reduce reader' trust levels, see this piece in Columbia Journalism Review):

1. Buzzfeed has a professional journalistic staff (editor in chief is
   Pro Publica
   , and a Pulitzer Prizer-winner).
2. Buzzfeed received its first-ever
   National Magazine Award in 2016, in the public-interest category (see here
   , also mentioned in the CJR piece)
3. They formed an investigative unit in 2013 and has done original reporting, with a fairly robust
   WP:USEBYOTHERS: see, e.g., Associated Press (meeting between U.S. senator and White House official "first reported by BuzzFeed"); CNN (layoffs at Guardian Media Group "first reported by BuzzFeed"); USA Today (customer data breach at Saks Fifth Avenue "was first reported by BuzzFeed"); Washington Post (controversial USDA science non-disclosure order "was first reported by BuzzFeed"); LA Times
   (authenticated leaked Colin Powell emails "were first reported by BuzzFeed News").

So it's not the New York Times or anything, but it is certainly usable in many cases. Neutrality^talk 16:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Check out the more recent threads in the archives here concerning it (here and here are just two of them): Yes, it's been found to be unreliable in the past, but the pendulum of consensus is slowly swinging the other way in recent months. I agree, it's shocking. Usually, we see RSes descend into unreliability, but wrt their actual news ventures, they're not all that bad these days. Even when they publish highly partisan stuff like that Trump dossier (for which they have been endlessly lambasted by the more mainstream press), they filled the subtitle with disclaimers about how unreliable the dossier was. That being said, I'd still be cautious and not use them for contentious BLP statements or the like, because while they're moving in the direction of reliability they haven't yet clearly established it beyond any reasonable doubt yet. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• Source: https://caucasustimes.com/ru/v-chechne-nabljudaetsja-vysokaja-stepen-r/
• Article: Chechnya
• Content: [Islam is] practised by 95% of the population [of Grozny] -- and any future content that other users may glean from the source and insert into the article.

Can anyone advise whether this is a reliable source for info like this? A newspaper poll, it seems? --BurritoBazooka ^Talk Contribs 23:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

no. The source says that 95% of respondents to a survey were practicing Muslims. That isn't the same thing as the statement above. Find an official demographic source for a statement like this. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 23:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

A reader contacted Wikimedia (OTRS ticket:2017041110014372 ) concerned that a recently added footnote (purportedly to support the birth date), also included home phone, home address and personal email address.

The article is Dimitri_Simes, the footnote is the first one. [edit - has now been removed by Kirill Lokshin]

Obviously, our policies do not permit the direct inclusion of that information in an article, but I do not know what our policy is regarding a footnote to a reliable source. (I plan to check into that separately, if anyone knows where I should look don't hesitate to let me know)

A separate issue is whether the site qualifies as a reliable source. I did a search and the site: superdataprofiles.com

did not generate any hits. Does anyone have knowledge of the site and whether it should qualify?--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

No way is that a reliable source. We also take care to not publish links containing the address and telephone numbers of people. Govindaharihari (talk) 16:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Article: the WD-40 article used to credit Norman Larsen as inventor of the product. This was recently changed to Iver Norman Lawson. The change was noted at the Reference Desk (permalink after April 13, 2017: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2017_April_7#Who_invented_WD-40.3F) by тнояsтеn, who asked for references in either direction.

Source: the Ref Desk found these sources in favour of Larsen:

• WD-40 company website [33]
• Two pre-internet books [34], [35]
• New York Times: [36]
• (these are in addition to the source the article had used in its former state: Bobby Mercer (March 18, 2011). ManVentions: From Cruise Control to Cordless Drills - Inventions Men Can't Live Without. Adams Media. pp. 181–.
  ISBN 978-1-4405-1075-5
  . Retrieved June 28, 2013.)

• Journal of San Diego History [37]

Question: Please evaluate these sources and decide what information should go in the article. If they are all reliable, both men should be mentioned, yes? That is how I have edited the article for now. Your help is appreciated. 174.88.10.107 (talk) 12:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't know. I can't make head nor tail of this.

None of those refs are really very good. Yes, you'd think the WD-40 official site would be good, but... we don't know when these are thrown together by an intern with no fact-checking. I was just working on Duncan Hines and concluded after looking at all sources that the official Duncan Hines website is just plain wrong on the name of Hines's wife/collaborator, a key data point. So...

The New York Times piece I consider an OK ref but not that good, because the article is not about Larsen but just mentions him in passing, and since there're apparently two possible names out there... I'm not 100% confident. If it was Larsen's obit, that'd be different: the Times is not going to get the wrong name for the subject of an obit. But I can't find an obit for Larsen anywhere.

Books are not usually good refs because trade books are not generally fact-checked. You're basically just trusting the author, who may be in a hurry and not much care about details like that. The other refs aren't too good either.

But... Googling it, there are a lot of refs using "Larsen", and they don't seem to be copying from each other, not mostly. Here is one, from the California State Library (which sounds impressive and is, but doesn't prove they've actually had someone check it). But it's the weight of all those "Larsen" refs rather than any one ref that makes me think "Larsen" is more likely

Against that, you have the San Diego History Center. Again, "Oooh a museum" does not mean they have anyone actually checking their facts. But they are out front: We are right, the internet has it wrong. And they cite some sources. They sound very confident and authoritative. They have details; it reads like they working from a real source.

And it doesn't look like to be just a typo thing: Larsen/Lawsen or whatever. We have "Norman Bernard Larsen" versus "Iver Norman Lawson". It appears that there are actually two different people here. "Lawson" may have been born in 1892 (San Diego Museum has that date) and "Larsen" in 1923 (we have that date). It's a head-scratcher and no mistake. Herostratus (talk) 00:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Read the history on the company website again, more closely... it does not actually say that Larsen invented WD40... it says that Larsen was the one who had the idea to put WD40 in an aerosol form. On that point, it actually agrees with what the San Diego Museum history says. Blueboar (talk) 03:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Maybe... it says "In 1953... Rocket Chemical Company and its staff of three [worked together to create WD-40]", then says "Rocket Chemical Company founder Norm Larsen experimented with putting WD-40 into aerosol cans". If Larsen was the founder, he must have been one of the "staff of three" so he's a least a co-inventor. According to that site, which mentions no person named Lawson.

It seems that it is possible that three people -- Norman Lawson, Norman Larsen, and a third person who I gather was name Ken East -- created the formula together. OK, I can see how "Norman Lawson" and "Norman Larsen" could get confused. Sand Diego Museum says the inventor was just Lawson, but also has "according to his family", which of course is a chilling passage you seldom want to read in a source when figuring matters like this. I think the "one man’s conviction that if he kept trying..." angle is suspect as being based on interviews with family members. Family stories are terrible sources.

It's starting to sound to me like it was a three-person job, and we should credit all three. Or absent than, not credit anybody. Herostratus (talk) 04:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• The article posted by the museum is the best source by miles. It is from a bona fide journal (not a great one, but a real one), and by a bona fide scholar, Iris Engstrand ( i just created that :) ) But really people use should high quality sources and refrain from making shit up. The invention here, is the formula. The formula is a trade secret that belonged the Rocket Chemical company. Keeping it as a trade secret, means they never filed a patent on it, on which they would have needed to publicly list "inventors". If you want to give a definitive answer, say something like "The formula for WD-40 was created by founders of the Rocket Chemical Company". If you want to be more precise, you could add, something like "some sources credit the president of the company and a founder, Norman Larsen, as the inventor, while others credit another founder, the engineer Iver Norman Lawson, as the inventor and also say that the names got mixed up in the oral tradition" or the like. Jytdog (talk) 06:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I tend to to agree with your general conclusion, and solution: "The formula for WD-40 was created by founders of the Rocket Chemical Company" (who we can then list I guess), or something close to that. I think that's as close as we're going to get. It would take a real historian going thru source documents to truly answer the question, and that's beyond our ability or remit. We also need to bigly fix Norman Larsen (that lede, "[H]e had an insatiable desire to create things that would help make life easier for people. In his later years, his love of history inspired him to seek techniques to preserve antiquities, saving many treasures" actually made my eyeballs bleed).

I'm not as sold on the San Diego Museum piece. I don't see why you're defending it, since it contradicts what you're saying (it says "The history of WD-40... is the incredible story of one man's conviction... Iver Norman Larsen, the person who devised the formula..." and so forth). Iris Engstrand may be the cat's meow generally (and thank you for the new article!) but she dropped the ball here when she decided to give too much credence to the reminisces of family members, as shown in her footnotes. Family reminisces are generally bad sources, and execrable for statements of the nature "My pappy is the real hero of Event X, he told me so himself".

One thing I hope readers can take from this is: there is no such thing as a truly reliable source. Here we have the New York Times, the flagship of American news journalism, flat-out making the statement "Norm Larsen, the Rocket Chemical technician who invented WD-40...". I've had plenty discussions with editors who consider a source like that to be lights-out case closed: "The Times is a very reliable source, so our thinking job is over here: it's Larsen, period, end of discussion". But the statement appears to quite possibly not be true, not as stated ("the" inventor). Just saying. Herostratus (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

bigly! (it is kind of a sweet word)

i do think the SDJH ref is the most reliable and the author did go beat the bushes for primary sources which is what we look for historians to do for us (and yes footnote 1 is funny!) , but we cannot be the arbiters of Truth here. I would probably cite the SDJH rev for that view, and the NYT obituary for the other, and leave the other refs out of it. (with regard to the NYT even they are prone to mistakes on this kind of peripheral matter - you can bet they got nothing wrong about they subject of the obit. But you know what, i am going to email them to see if they are willing to correct that, on the basis of the SDJH history article!) Jytdog (talk) 22:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you all for your help, I learned a lot from this discussion. And the article turned out better! 174.88.10.107 (talk) 11:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you also from my side! --тнояsтеn ⇔ 17:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't really know whether it is right place or not but i still write here.

Source in question is this one: "Search Results for Mortal Kombat". Recording Industry Association of America. Retrieved 2011-04-19..

Articles affected are:

• Mortal Kombat (film)
• Mortal Kombat: Original Motion Picture Soundtrack
• Fear, Emptiness, Despair
• Grindcore
• Control (Traci Lords song)

Problem is next one: this link is DEAD.

P.S. Sorry for my not so good English Sincerely yours Gleb95 (talk) 12:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC).

Here is a newer version of the page: [38]. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 17:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to you. Gleb95 (talk) 06:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

• organicconsumers.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

We have a lot of links to this advocacy organisation. I do not think it is a reliable source for statements of fact other than about itself. Guy (Help!) 22:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes and no. Some of the links appear to be from articles that cover the anti-GMO stance - and an organic consumer organsation being used to say organic consumers dont like GMO's/why they dont like GMO's is perfectly reasonable. Even if the reasons they dont like it are misguided/bogus. On the other hand it is being used at Monsanto to say they (Monsanto) started manufacturing DDT in the 40's. Which while it may be true, they are not a reliable source for. Is there a way to filter out the user/talkpage links from the linksearch? As a lot of those are probably relevant in dicussion (but not in the article). Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure, but that would be a primary self-published source for anti-GMO comments, and should not be used. I think that if a reliable independent source has not covered the Organic Consumers comment on some aspect of GMOs, then we should not be reporting it at all. After all, the organic industry has long funded astroturfing to undermine GMOs and all other forms of industrialised farming. Guy (Help!) 10:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

• obviously unreliable for any assertions other than of mundane facts (and then decent sources should be readily available).
  talk
  ) 11:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Article in question: Russ (rapper)

Diff in question this one

Instagram was brought up at RS in 2016

Other editor's response: @L3X1: I have re-added the RIAA Gold certification because obviously you haven't checked the source and had instant doubt when you saw that the source was Instagram, literally Russ himself posted it on this account and its a verified profile, so its no excuse to remove it, thank you. Bloomdoom2 (talk) 22:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Is this an acceptable case of social media being used as an RS? L3X1 (distant write) 22:51, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

No, that's not RS. Material sourced only to the subject's own social media account would qualify as "self serving". If it made gold, there should be a better source for it somewhere. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

"Material sourced only to the subject's own social media account would qualify as "self serving"" Oh no...that is not self serving means.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, if this is an Instagram that makes a claim about themselves that is accurate, it is not what self serving means. We may use a subjects social media posts about themselves to reference information about the subject that is non controversial like date of birth current name they go by etc..--Mark Miller (talk) 06:20, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn't realize until after reading your reply I didn't write what I intended to write. "[Impressive claims] sourced only to the subject's own social media account would qualify as 'self serving'." We're not talking about the subject's birth date, we're talking about how well his singles have performed in sales and charts. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Someguy1221. It is ok to take personal biographical information from the self-published sources of a notable person (birth, family, education etc.) but not awards and recognitions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I suppose you could say "X has made this claim, but that is about it (and many still be pushing it a bit).Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

As long as the information is not self serving in that it makes claims about themselves, that only serve to promote their own self interests and is presented in a neutral manner, I could see this added next to any actual sourced information on the actual sales and chart information. It really comes down to whether the information is purely self serving like "Come see my next concert" or "Buy my latest CD". Sales and chart information is statistical and being commented on by the artist. There may be some encyclopedic value there...depending on how notable the information is and how notable the figure is.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, I don't know about "only", but claiming high sales figures certainly can be in ones own interest. And if the information really is of encyclopedic value, I would expect to be able to find sources other than the artist's instagram to support it... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• For uncontentious info only. Certainly not for statements about record sales etc. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
• OK for some noncontroversial detail like a birthday only. Not anything substantial. Please base substantial content on high quality sources -- if it is not in a high quality source it is probably UNDUE.Jytdog (talk) 14:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)