Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 224

I have a few general questions about good sourcing for politicians, especially when running for office. I have been comparing

Here are my questions:

(1) External links:

Are external "official campaign" links acceptable, as those found here

• John Cranley for Mayor
• Rob Richardson for Mayor
• Yvette Simpson for Mayor

either on that page or on the page of the candidate who is running?

(2) For links above, is there anything from these campaign self-published sites that might be acceptable for material in the candidate's article? Like birthdate, high school, residence, age, degrees, clubs, orgs, endorsements, etc.?

(3) For links like these that are published by in .gov about the elected official:

• http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/mayor
• http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/simpson/

which are provided by the government administration, which I believe are written and/or controlled by the office holder. My guess is that they are still somewhat promotional but a little less POV than the similar .coms.

I have the same question as (2): is there anything from these campaign self-published sites that might be acceptable for material in the candidate's article? Like birthdate, high school, residence, age, degrees, clubs, orgs, endorsements, etc.?

(4) regarding questions (2) and (3), I asked a related question here: Template_talk:Infobox_officeholder#website_parameter

--David Tornheim (talk) 02:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll take a crack at it based on my own experiences and thoughts.

For (1) I think those kind of external links are generally OK, but not mandatory. The problems are: (a) after the campaign those websites usually go defunct or are switched over (to some new campaign for a different office); and (b) for elections with a large number of candidates, it is unwieldy to list all of the candidates — or alternatively to decide what minor candidates to exclude.

For (2) on the use of campaign websites, the general five criteria in the policy on "self-published sources as sources on themselves" (

WP:SELFPUB

) would control. Refer to that policy for criteria.

For (3) I would still consider these self-published, so

WP:SELFPUB would also apply because these official bios are usually written by the office-holder or his/her aides. Note that this doesn't necessarily apply to all governmental biographies; for example, I would not consider the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress and the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges to be "self-published sources as sources on themselves." But for "mayor of Smallville John Doe" then it would be. Neutrality^talk

20:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@Neutrality: Thanks for the feedback. That's helpful. That was my inclination on the answer to all of those questions, but I wanted to be sure. I have always been a bit leery about self-published claims--especially from politicians--about facts such as participating in various orgs, since the author might not remember the dates correctly and could exaggerate their role and/or under-report on controversial involvement. I have certainly seen politicians do the later two. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

• mlwerke.de: 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 site is very web 1.0 and looks like a personal project to me, but my German is not great (I only know about trout, the Lutheran Bible and linden trees). Is it an appropriately neutral resource or should we be pushing to get these replaced by links to PD texts on Gutenberg and the like? Guy (Help!) 10:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I know the Daily Express is to be "treated with caution", but if The Daily Mail is to be banned as "unreliable", I feel that a newspaper that publishes articles like this should follow suit: https://www.express.co.uk/journalist/122435/Jon-Austin (Example headline: "Aliens CREATED GOD… and now they want him back - shock claim of how religion began") Thoughts? Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 16:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

The author specifically covers aliens/conspiracies etc and most of the articles are posted in the 'Weird' section where you would expect them to be. As an example this article labels claims 'bizarre' and 'shocking', attributes them to 'conspiracy theory' websites, uses scare quotes around 'evidence' etc as well as 'alleged translations'. Its clearly not even pretending the story is real. Its just covering weird conspiracy junk in a tabloid manner. The problem with the Daily Mail was that it presented its fake crap as real, while *making stuff up*. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that the Express does publish made up stuff.Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Unlike the Daily Mail it doesnt systematically present it as true. Covering conspiracy theories and made up gumpf *while calling them conspiracy theories* etc etc is fine. Per parity you could get away with citing the express when it calls something a conspiracy theory! Look, we get that people who like to read the cancer-scaring, immigrant-hating, tabloid rag-of-choice of small-minded people are upset because wikipedia has said its not reliable. Pointing out that other organisations are sometimes also not reliable is not going to make the Daily Mail look any better given its sustained track record of shite. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

The author is credited as "Online science reporter" for the Daily Express. Although these articles are published in the "Weird" section, they are pure fiction presented as fact. I don't know of any other "serious" newspaper that does this, but maybe I'm not paying enough attention. Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 10:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

They are not presented as fact. They are attributed 'claims' and clearly labelled as such. Granted they do not have a giant banner stating 'THIS IS ENTIRELY MADE UP' but then most people do not actually need that to understand when someone writes 'it is claimed' it does not mean 'this is a fact'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Everything you've said is true about every other news article that features quotes from someone. It's how the Express, and every other newspaper, reports stories. Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 13:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

The Mail is probably the bottom of the barrel, but the Express, Mirror, and Sun aren't far off. If we see a cite to any of them, it is generally a good idea to replace it to a cite to more reliable source. If no such source exists, and if a given statement is only seen there, then editors should carefully consider whether to remove the text at issue entirely, because coverage only by low-quality tabloids that's a pretty strong signal that something is not encyclopedic, would be given undue weight, etc. But of course a lot of this is based on context / case-by-case. Neutrality^talk 16:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• What sold the Daily Mail "ban" was numerous examples of egregiously made-up articles (fabricated stories/interviews/etc.), not mere clickbait/poor fact-checking, and none could provide another reasonably widely-read newspaper with such a track record. Unless you have the same with the DE, I doubt a similar "ban" would pass. (This is a comment on the politics, not on the merits of banning the DE.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 18:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
  • From my experience the Daily Express has a *worse* record of making up stuff than the Mail. AusLondonder (talk) 19:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• for pete's sake. The RfC on daily mail happened because we kept having the same discussion over and over (Q: "is (article X) from Daily Mail reliable to support (content Y)?" A: "No") and all that the RfC did, was confirm what every editor with a clue already knew from those many discussions here -- namely that the Mail is rarely a reliable source for encyclopedic content. That is all that the RfC did. Clueful editors also know already that Express etc are also rarely reliable. If there is a better source, use the better source, and if there is no better source, think five times before using Express et al and be ready to explain why the content is DUE and the content is reliably sourced. Enough with these efforts to legislate clue. Jytdog (talk) 20:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I don't have a firm view personally on whether a RfC is necessary. I agree most editors would already approach the Daily Express with caution. However, I disagree that the Express has a better record than the Mail when it comes to fabricating stories. For example:
  • In late 2015 the Express was forced to issue a correction by the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) after it made up a story alleging that the English language was "dying out" in schools in England. However, IPSO found the allegations were "completely unsupported by the data the newspaper had cited" which meant the paper breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice.
  • The paper has been criticised for making up numerous fake and contradictory stories concerning the weather
  • Our article about the paper notes the conspiracy theories the paper has published suggesting that Princess Diana was murdered
  • Our [reports] the paper was successfully sued for libel for alleging
    Madeleine McCann
    was murdered or her disappearance covered up by her parents
  • In February this year IPSO again ruled against the Express twice. One incident related to a misleading "poll" another related to a misuse of statistics to present an entirely false impression

This is just a sample - whether a RfC happens or not, I find it hard to see circumstances in which this paper should be used as a source. AusLondonder (talk) 21:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I find it hard to see circumstances in which this paper should be used as a source. Well, I suppose if they made up a bizarre enough concoction that it captured the public interest, they'd be useful for sourcing the things they wrote about it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Toward the above evidence by
  Madeleine McCann article) or hyperbolic exaggeration (the English schools incident), are not quite the same as having a reputation for blatantly fabricating entire interviews, as the Daily Mail has done on numerous occasions. It isn't a great source, but largely the Express can be dealt with through editor judgement with regards to reliability of a given article. The problem with the daily mail is that outright fabrication of otherwise plausible stories made it impossible to judge if they were lying or not in some cases, which was one of the primary reasons for the 'ban'. — InsertCleverPhraseHere
  22:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

That may be true, the Mail Online and their celebrity "churnalism" is probably part of that. Given questions about the suitability of BuzzFeed I was amused to see an article by them pointing out an instance of the Express taking stories without attribution and then drawing their own rather malicious conclusions from the statistics - not to mention actually stealing and taking interview quotes completely out of context. AusLondonder (talk) 22:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Maximilien de LaFayette claims to have written over 2500 books .[1] His own website[2] shows that he specialialises in UFOs, Sitchin type fringe, etc. His 'dictionaries' and many of his other books are self-published by Lulu or CreativeSpace. He doesn't seem to claim any credentials (saying this on the basis of his Amazon site where he dismisses them) but does say "In 2004, as an expert linguist and a lawyer (Int'l law, French Law, Comparative Arabic Laws, and Islamic Law), de Lafayette was commissioned by Yale University, School of Law to translate from English to Arabic, The White House Draft of the New Constitution of Iraq. He is internationally known for his expertise in the history and languages of ancient civilizations & social-legal studies of the Middle East, with a strong emphasis on tribal dialects, comparative social systems, laws & Islam. In addition, he wrote & produced numerous musicals, screenplays, documentaries & world premieres around the world. He wrote about so many subjects, encompassing Opera, Divas, Hollywood, Cinema, Jazz, Afro-American influence on American music, pioneering work of legends in showbiz, cabaret, fashion, history of art and civilization from 7,000 BC to the present day, extraterrestrials, aliens spaceships, UFOS, mysticism, spiritism, channeling, earth energy, healing, metaphysics, quantum physics, parallel universes, languages, Mesopotamia, international law, Islam, religions, cubism and abstract art, theology, anthropology, world literature, French history, American history, food and beverage, leadership, you name it." I think he may have some books that aren't self-published, but I can't see him as a source for anything. Doug Weller talk 15:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Some of these sources (which can be translated easily by those using Chrome) seem dubious. The one about her nickname is a blog. But I'd like a 2nd opinion. Doug Weller talk 18:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Is this a neutral, reliable source without serving a political agenda? The organization behind claims to be "informing the population about racism and xenophobia". The magazine publishes content criticizing right-wing political parties and politics, e.g. [3]. Its founders and editors, i.e. Tobias Hübinette, Stieg Larsson et al., are public far-leftist figures in Sweden, Hübinette being notorious, for instance, for stating that "to feel or even think that the white race is inferior in every conceivable way is natural with regards to its history and current actions. Let the Western countries of the white race perish in blood and suffering." --176.23.1.95 (talk) 23:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

See

WP:QUESTIONABLE. The quote you attribute to the founders doesn't necessarily mean the publication exclusively reflects their views, but if it does, this would squarely fall under the category of "extremist". General Ization ^Talk

23:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Washington Exec is used as a bio/corp source in articles about some topics I'd consider marginal. Inspecting the source, despite sounding like a print magazine title, it appears to be in fact a two-person blog: https://www.washingtonexec.com/about/. Examples:

• Andrew Sherman (lawyer) - softball interview Andrew Sherman Publishes His 21st Book, Harvesting Intangible Assets: Exclusive Interview
• Intelligence and National Security Alliance (lobbying group?) - EL Ambassador Joseph DeTrani Named President Of INSA
• Leslie Bradshaw (advertising exec) - softball interview Q&A With Leslie Bradshaw of JESS3: Data Visualization At Its Best
• solutions provider) - charity giving NJVC Brings In Over $25,000 In Golf Tournament For USO
• Sanju Bansal (IT exec) - charity giving Global India Fund’s ‘Invest in Girls, Invest in a Stronger Future’ with Ashley Judd Raises $150K

All in all this looks indistinguishable from paid placement I've seen in promotional articles before. What does the community think? - Bri (talk) 00:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I would not count this as an RS with regard to notability; interviews generally don't count. Would not source anything beyond simple facts from it - no great achievements. Jytdog (talk) 22:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes scholarly content is published on web sources that we would normally consider unreliable (for instance, questions or answers on

Reliable sources occasionally fall for unreliable information. That's a strike against it. On the other hand, other reliable sources verifying and using information from a normally unrecognized source can add credence to that unrecognized source.

WP:USEBYOTHERS is pertinent. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions

) 19:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:USEBYOTHERS is what I was looking for (and I don't know how I missed it before posting this). Thanks! —David Eppstein (talk

) 22:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

David, I agree entirely with your last sentence. Scientists (and presumably some other scholars) are taught the reverse of what is recommended on WP. We are taught to go back to the original, primary source for fact checking, and this is the source we cite in journal papers, not a textbook or a web-page. On WP, I tend to rely on primary sources, probably more than some editors would like. However, if I use a secondary source, I trace back to the original source and if I can, I cite this as well. I feel this is only fair recognition for the scholars that generated the knowledge. DrChrissy (talk) 22:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I also agree with David, but when I discussed a particular source finding only positive reviews (with none offered suggesting otherwise), I was subsequently taken to ARBPS#Discretionary sanctions, and topic banned. It seems that consensus trumps

WP:USEBYOTHERS and all the sources available. --Iantresman (talk

) 22:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

• David, I would be slightly careful of taking Dr Chrissy or Iantresman as authorities, since both have a history of sanctions for promoting pseudoscience. MathOverflow and ArXiv are both interesting edge cases for
  WP:RS and I think would need to be taken case by case. Guy (Help!
  ) 13:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

• Ouch Guy, resorting to comments that try to discredit other editors? Why don't you
  WP:CIVIL. --Iantresman (talk
  ) 16:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

• No. Sometimes source analysis can require some sophistication but this sort of "reaching back" through an RS to an SPS is not OK in my view. Why not just cite the RS itself instead of reaching back to the SPS? Jytdog (talk) 22:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I wonder if anyone could advise whether this website (the publishers also produced a bi-monthly magazine, would be considered and independent, verifiable source for notability of a specialist publishing company?

http://www.inpublishing.co.uk

The references I wish to use to support a profile of my company Green Star Media Ltd are as follows:

http://www.inpublishing.co.uk/kb/articles/media_innovation_awards_2014_green_star_media_1366.aspx

http://www.inpublishing.co.uk/news/articles/green_star_media_secures_venture_capital_funding_7539.aspx

http://www.inpublishing.co.uk/news/articles/green_star_media_acquires_two_brands_from_electric_word_7609.aspx

http://www.inpublishing.co.uk/news/articles/trevor_goulwheeker_joins_green_star_media_as_chairman.aspx

All assistance gratefully received Rugbyboy2 (talk) 20:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Those are all blog postings on the website of a

trade rag. People are not going to find them very compelling with regard to notability; they may be OK for content once notability is met but use with care. Jytdog (talk

) 22:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I would be extremely reluctant to use it. Even if that's completely reliable, it's still a

original research. If some other reliable source were to reference it, we could cite that, but I don't think we should cite it directly ourselves if nobody else has done so. --Aquillion (talk

) 01:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Aquillion. Oddly, I would be okay with this source if her surname were widely attested because at that point, it's just a relatively minor detail. But if that's the only source, then I'd hold off on adding a surname to the article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. It's a BLP issue to some degree.

WP:BLP tells us to give "due regard to the subject's privacy" and "Material from primary sources should generally not be used" and "include only information relevant to their notability". It's mostly talking about stuff like what they paid for the house or their DUI, and actual legal name is different, since it's a basic vital statistic that we or any any encyclopedia usually include. But still. I would at least wait for a good secondary source to put the cat out of the bag first, and even then it'd something to discuss from a BLP angle. Herostratus (talk

) 02:58, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

What they said. We went through the same circumstances with the somewhat higher-profile case of

Iridescent

23:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Recently, I started expanding the Etymology section of the "Pasha" page. Here I stumbled across the phrase; "According to Etymologist Sevan Nişanyan, the word is derived from Turkish beşe ('boy, prince'), which is cognate with Persian baççe (بچّه).[5]".

According to the Wiki page of the gentleman in question, he is a "intellectual, travel writer, researcher and polymath". Apart from some information on his website, ("A graduate of Yale (BA 1979) and Columbia (MA 1983), he taught linguistic history at Istanbul’s prestigious Bilgi University. His Etymological Dictionary of Modern Turkish (first ed. 2002, currently in 3rd ed.) is the main work of reference in its field.") I couldn't really find more precise info about his relations to this field of scholarship.

I'm therefore wondering, is he a reliable source on matters pertaining to linguistics and/or etymology? Thanks - LouisAragon (talk) 13:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

In the article List of highest-grossing films in the Philippines, there's an issue whether news articles that comments on press releases be considered as reliable sources. These sources are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and many more. These news articles use box office grosses that came from the film distributors. Here is my revision including these sources: Special:Diff/775469427/775468578. Another user disagrees with my sources and sees Box Office Mojo as the only source for box office grosses. My argument is that BOM doesn't track all-year round in the Philippines. To include highest grossing films that which were not tracked by BOM, I've used news articles that comments on box office grosses released by the film distributors as the primary references. Janbryan (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

The sources do not say what the actual figures were but just state what the producers said. So we cannot state as fact those were the actual amounts. It is possible that they were preliminary results, which could contain estimates, errors and omissions. You could exclude the figures and note in the list that it did not account for the most recent films or you could include them and add a footnote that the figures come from the producers. TFD (talk) 19:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Last week "credible," fact-checking outlets including the The New York Times claimed that the

So, do you have any CONCRETE proof -- other than "an anonymous somebody told a reporter at Business Insider" -- that this is true? And no, putting the word "credible" inside scare quotes when referring to the New York Times doesn't make it true. --Calton | Talk 16:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm dubious of the BI article as a definitive source. It's sorely lacking on detail. If anything, we should say that sources disagree about how much the bombs cost.- MrX 16:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

"Cost of one bomb" is also a slippery concept. One way to arrive at it is to divide the entire cost over their lifetime of the various projects to design, develop, and manufacture the bombs (and you could also add some share of the overhead cost of maintaining the various organizations that store, maintain, and deploy the bombs) by the total number of bombs made to date. If you do that you will arrive at a high number. If you just look at the line-item for the amount paid to a contractor for just one bomb, you might get a lower figure. Neither figure is necessarily "better", they are different ways of answering the question "how much do these bombs cost us?".

The Guardian says "Each Moab... costs $16 million out of a total programme cost of $314 million which produced about 20 of the bombs". So there you have it. The $314 million is the total cost of the program (which presumably goes back years). The $16 million is the total cost of the program divided by the total bombs produced (so far). The $170,000 might be the check cut to the contractor for delivery of each bomb, ignoring millions of dollars of R&D subsidies paid to that contractor and others, and all other costs. Which one is "right"? Search me -- the $16 million I guess. (Note that the cost-per-unit is a variable figure and will drop quite a bit if a lot more are produced, which is normal with manufactured goods.) Herostratus (talk) 17:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually this is one of those rare projects with no independent contractor. The bomb was produced in-house entirely by the Pentagon. The Atlanta-Journal says 15 were produced. which isn't too off. Still The Guardian is citing a figure that is identical to the program cost of a different bomb, as I said before. To me it sounds like just another circular reference, particularly because The Guardian doesn't cite its sources. The Daisy Cutter, a very similar bomb, costs $27,000 according to The Guardian. Business Insider's figure sounds just about right to me.

To be clear, this is a admonition of using sources that have a reputation for fact-checking in specific cases where the article isn't up to snuff, not necessarily an endorsement of Business Insider.

talk

) 17:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Since it was apparently built in-house, the cost is whatever the AF accountants decide to include in that cost; which is probably not a meaningful number. Probably cost more than $170,000 just to store it for the 14 years since it was built. No reason to include this in any article here. Objective3000 (talk) 17:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

...not necessarily an endorsement of Business Insider.. Yes it is. You started with the assumption that BI was right -- you explicitly chided the New York Times for NOT "issu[ing] a correction", then completely replaced the Los Angeles Times reference with a text not actually supported by the BI citation: it's not "the Air Force" that says this, it's a claim by someone at BI that an unnamed USAF person told the BI reporter this. You decided -- alone -- that certain well-known and time-tested reliable sources weren't "up to snuff" and that Business Insider -- without evidence -- was.

It's time to start thinking of reliable sources on a case-by-case basis. Congrats, you just reinvented the wheel. --Calton | Talk 16:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Reading the headline, I thought this referred to the blind repetition of US Army PR claims by press agencies and their customers - e.g. US-Megabombe tötet Dutzende IS-Kämpfer (US mega-bomb kills dozens of IS fighters), obviously without any fact-checking with respect to numbers or kind if victims - per the old adage "every dead Vietnamese was a Viet-Cong"). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:01, 17 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 over 5,000 links to marxists.org, many of them as sources in articles, most of them on the face of it being hosted copies of PD books. I believe there is consensus that linking PD books on websites promoting an ideology is poor practice, and we should cite the book not the website, and if people want an online copy they should copy to Wikisource.

There is some content such as works by Lutsky, e.g. from 1969, which are probably still in copyright. I can't find evidence of release. That's a bit of a problem. Guy (Help!) 12:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

There is an archived discussion, from only a week or so ago here. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

The Marxists Internet Archive is not a political organization promoting a particular ideology, but rather an independent, non-profit archive that collects and preserves historical primary sources on Marxism (largely texts by deceased writers). Some parts of the archive do include some contemporary synthesis and analysis, though the Archive's charter requires this to be "clearly differentiated from primary sources". The Archive is independent of any political party, and its volunteers come from a variety of ideological backgrounds, including many that are unrelated to or even opposed to Marxism. It has been operating for nearly 30 years and has a volunteer staff larger than many traditional publishing houses.

The MIA's goals, operational structure, and editorial/quality controls are not unlike those of Wikisource, and for this reason I see no problem linking to the archived, free-content, primary sources it contains, particularly when those sources are not already available on Wikisource. (In fact, it may be even better to link to MIA than to Wikisource, since it may give readers easier access to related primary sources that Wikisource lacks.) With respect to the original material it contains (such as its Encyclopedia of Marxism), I think that it's sufficiently reliable to use as a source for basic factual and statistical claims. I'm not sure that I'd use it as a source for contemporary analysis, except when such analysis is contributed by a named subject-matter expert. (This is the same exception given in

WP:SPS

, though I hasten to add that I don't consider MIA to be a self-published source.)

I should note that this RSN entry arose as a result of my objection to the OP removing references and external links to the MIA from several articles. Even if the outcome of this discussion is that the MIA is not a reliable source, it is not appropriate to simply remove existing references to it wholesale—these need to be replaced on a case-by-case basis. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd rather have the link to the PD text, and choose whether to look at the source, than have someone decide for me. To call a link to a source "promotion" is somewhat cynical. Every source and every article could be considered "promotion", but public access to information is far more than that. --Iantresman (talk) 21:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not a link to a source, it's a link to a copy of a document on a website promoting an agenda. There are three reasons why this is in appropriate: First, it misrepresents the source (some of the links identify MIA as the publisher, for example). Second, there is an editorial bias in what is presented around the content. Third,

FUTON bias means that the documents the site selects to promote because they find them ideologically pleasing, so this produces an imbalance between easily available ideologically consonant sources and less accessible sources that may well be more representative of the preponderance of opinion. Guy (Help!

) 21:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Two of your reasons have nothing to do with whether or not MIA is a reliable source as we define it. Only the editorial bias issue is relevant. It's one you keep repeating, though it's one which runs counter to the archive's charter, and one for which you haven't yet offered any evidence. Are you sure you are not confusing editorial bias with objective selection criteria? Did you ever submit to the archive a historical article by a Marxist writer, and have it rejected on the grounds that the editors found it ideologically displeasing? If the site promotes a particular ideology through the selection of its articles, how do you reconcile this with the fact that archive contains articles that are ideologically incompatible with each other? —Psychonaut (talk) 07:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Psychonaut That's nonsense. Wikisource is politically neutral, it has no ideological bias. MIA only includes sources it likes. Some are by authors whose opinions should not be on Wikipedia at all because we have no evidence they are considered reputable scholars. Guy (Help!) 21:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Guy, if the document/book is mentioned, we should link to it so we can check the facts (statements) being presented. --Iantresman (talk) 23:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Marxist.org is probably not a reliable source in the sense that it would lend reliability to something simply by publishing there; however, AFAIK we don't apply

WP:ELNO, so I don't think removing it wholesale is appropriate, provided it's not being over-linked or over-represented or anything. --Aquillion (talk

) 16:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

The site is non-partisan and a great resource for students of Marxism. Whether or not a source should be used depends on the original publisher. Linking to MIA allows readers to see cited text in full, which is a benefit. TFD (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Are rulers.org and worldstatesmen.org reliable sources? I know this may have been discussed before but I cannot find a consensus or anything. They are currently used for a number of articles (Derog Gioura, Kennan Adeang, Government of the Ryukyu Islands, List of rulers of Kwêna among others), and I've been trying to use the latter as evidence William Worth is deceased. Although they may be self-published at least WorldStatesmen give the authors' names and the sources they got the info from in the Contributors page (and none of the sources are Wikipedia itself), so I'm not sure why it would be unreliable. In fact, if I remember correctly, WorldStatesmen requires more confirmation to add in info than rulers. EternalNomad (talk) 22:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Worldstatesmen does not give "the sources." It has a random list of related books that does not help you one bit find the source for any particular information, and indeed represents in no way the actual sources. And (in contrast to Rulers) it does most definitely copy from Wikipedia (which of course it won't admit) so for that reason alone it cannot itself be considered a valid source. (For one example, check how it lists a 1987 death year for

Jack William Pithey - an error that clearly originated on Wikipedia.) There is really no reason why you would begin to consider it reliable; there are plenty of indications to make this out as an incompetent vanity project. It began by just ripping off the bulk of Rulers, then pilfering Flags of the World, and keeps just copying stuff from anywhere without distinction, just for "quantity," not being able to evaluate sources nor to interpret them correctly nor to even copy information without often adding errors. How can you take an informational site seriously that calls itself an "encyclopedia" while abounding in typos and randomly including a "9/11 memorial"? Mewulwe (talk

) 00:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Is BBC One – Antiques Roadshow a reliable source? It's cited on the Spandau Prison article as proof that there's a surviving brick from the prison that was demolished in 1987.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

In the specific context it is used, yes. It is used as a primary source for the statement that the brick appeared on the show. In fact, the most reliable source possible for the statement "X appeared on an episode of Antiques Roadshow" is the episode of Antiques Roadshow where X appeared.

That said... I am not at all sure that this bit of TV trivia is worth mentioning in our article on the prison. Blueboar (talk) 20:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks; it's about to become history.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 20:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

A link on 1UP.com feature about an original Street Fighter dev team is no more available with a "Service Unavailable - DNS failure" response. Gleb95 (talk) 06:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello RSN,

We have an RFC discussion concerning al-Masdar at

Just to further qualify Étienne Dolet's notification, the RfC is essentially a blanket proposal to use

reliable source for that article (and, implicitly, that it should be used as a reliable source without any form of attribution for that topic area broadly construed). --Iryna Harpy (talk

) 20:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Today I noticed while editing a page that a user @Huldra: was citing an odd website for many Palestinian villages. In fact, all Palestinian village articles Huldra writes cite this website. Now granted, this website does present legitimate info on little-known towns or villages that would probably be almost impossible to find elsewhere but, do you notice something off about this website?. Here's a picture of the front page of the website, I highlighted everything showing clear bias. And for the sake of being thorough, I went and checked some of these links.

• The piece called The Spartan Jew - which says the Holocaust is nothing but an excuse for Zionists to use to justify militarism

• The "Zionist FAQ" which is so disgusting I can't fit it into one image

• Numerous citations of straight-up lies, this one is my personal favorite.

• Obviously unfounded claims of ethnic cleansing, which speaks for itself in these pictures.

So yeah, I don't think this is a very neutral source. Yet, it's largely the sole ref for most of Huldra's pages. BedrockPerson (talk) 21:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The one information I use from the palestineremembered.com site is citing for the Village Statistics, 1945 data from this book:

• Hadawi, Sami (1970). Village Statistics of 1945: A Classification of Land and Area ownership in Palestine. Palestine Liberation Organization Research Center.

....which happens to be hosted on the palestineremembered site. There has never been any suggestion that the palestineremembered has falsified the Hadawi book. In any case, I also link to

• Department of Statistics (1945). Village Statistics, April, 1945. Government of Palestine.

....that is hosted by the Israeli National Library, so anyone can recheck that the info is correct. Huldra (talk) 21:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Huldra: Yeah, on that note actually, I really do want to stress the part in my initial post where I stressed "this website does present legitimate info on little-known towns or villages that would probably be almost impossible to find elsewhere", and it's clear Huldra cited this aforementioned legit info. So, IDK if this is really no issue or if the otherwise unfit info that can be found on the website somehow detracts from the legitimacy without exception. Again, IDK. Just wanted it brought to attention. BedrockPerson (talk) 21:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@

WP:EL link, though (there are many great pictures there, which we cannot see anywhere else) Huldra (talk

) 21:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Huldra: Actually, I just checked. In 244 archives of this page, this website is not mentioned once. This is the first time it's been reported. BedrockPerson (talk) 16:38, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@BedrockPerson: How did you miss, say Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_91#palestineremembered.com? Huldra (talk) 19:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@Huldra: The same way you thought one mention somehow means it was "discussed many, many times" BedrockPerson (talk) 21:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@BedrockPerson: Sigh. It is discussed many times, search for palestineremembered. (I get 8 hits when searching for that, while you get 0?) I just linked one example, to show the most relevant. (And we don't really need more than one example, do we?) Huldra (talk) 21:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@Huldra: I swear, I've looked it up on the search bar on this page, the search bar on top, only result is this one. Every time. BedrockPerson (talk) 23:38, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@BedrockPerson: 1 is still not 0. And it is also mentioned, say at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 34. But again, we really only need one discussion of it, don't we? Unless new opinions form. Also, it has been discussed many other places... say here. Again, the established consensus is that we don't use it as source, except for the Hadawi figures.Huldra (talk) 23:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@Huldra: No, you don't understand, I should've clarified: this page was the one result that showed up. There were no others. Just this one. BedrockPerson (talk) 13:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

There are in fact more results in the archive, but under "palestineremembered.com" rather than ".org". Try using "palestineremembered prefix:Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard", although that brings up a few results related to a user of the same name. Alcherin (talk) 19:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The reference

"Pie And Mash Shops". h2g2.com. Retrieved 30 December 2012.

is cited three times within the article

You nailed it per their "contribute" page. Should not be cited in WP. Nice catch. Jytdog (talk) 04:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Jytdog. It looked cut and dried to me, but I wondered if I might be missing something. -- Hoary (talk) 07:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Is Roadside Thoughts a reliable source? It was used as a source at

The site appears to use data from reliable sources, but Wikipedia has never, as far as I know, decided whether "automated sources" are, in fact, "reliable." "Personal opinions" are not found on this site, though it does have ads, so I would rule it out as "commercial" at best. Collect (talk) 13:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• vladtv.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

The website vladtv.com is used as a reference on over 100 Wikipedia articles. It seems to be used to support claims that are mainly celebrity gossip. This website is described at

• oh hell no. Yes this is a tabloid. Kill it with fire everywhere it is used. Nice catch. Jytdog (talk) 04:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll start working on removing it, and any associated inappropriate content, but it may take awhile. Deli nk (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I did some reviewing/replacing and that is a walk on the ugly side of Wikipedia. So much gossipy trash content about celebrities. ugh. Jytdog (talk) 02:27, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

In a new article about Kinda Hanna, there is an editor who would like to source content about her place of birth and date of birth (the latter a sensitive BLP issue, at times), to the following 3 sources:

• الموت يغيب والد الفنانة كندة حنا
• وفاة والد كندة حنا
• وفاة والد الممثلة السورية كندة حنا

Are those sources reliable for that content? (we have looked and don't have any English; these are what are being proposed) Thanks Jytdog (talk) 06:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Would be super helpful to get feedback. thx. Jytdog (talk) 03:55, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

crickets. There is a dispute here and input would be helpful. Jytdog (talk) 02:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't see evidence that there are more than casual opinion pieces perhaps sourced from the subject. Doug Weller talk 06:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, the first one looks like a regular news site. It says she was born in Kafrahem-Hama in 1984 (no exact date given).

The second one looks more like a clickbait-news site. It says she was born in Kafrahem-Hama on December 16, 1984.

The third one looks more like a culture-news site, or but it might be a gossip site. It also says she was born in Kafrahem-Hama on December 16, 1984.

I dunno. Do you have any reason to believe that she was not born in Kafrahem-Hama on December 16, 1984? If you do, what it is it? Are there other sources giving a different date or location? Then let's look at those. If there aren't... what's your objection to these sources? Herostratus (talk) 07:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

All 3 are very short, very gossipy in focus (how sad she is about her dad's death), and out of the blue, throw in this dry biographical background. None have a byline. The last two are almost identical to each other. The three, are almost like someone is trying to get content on the web so someone can cite it in Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. The first one looks like it at least covers international news generally. However, that proves nothing, it may merely aggregate.

The sad fact is, especially for facts noted in passing, all sites are mediocre (I might make an an exception for Der Spiegel and a very few other AAA-level operations). If the New York Times gives someone's birthday in their obit, you may pretty much rely on it. But for some passing fact (including a birthday) on some thing or person that is not the main focus of the article... my sad experience is that they don't necessarily double-check each statement as rigorously as we think or would like. And that's the New York Times, let alone Breaking News Syria. And wrong info (such as wrong birthdays) does get passed on a lot, so you're right that three sources means little, they may be copying each other or single flawed source.

So if the general question is "are any sources truly reliable?" and "can we really know anything with true confidence?" the answer IMO is "not really" and "not nearly as much as we think, at any rate".

There's certainly an argument on that basis for "let's just not include people's birthdates as a general rule. Even birth certificates have been shown to be wrong at times, as have subject's avowals, let alone downstream sources. It's just not something we can ever really know." It'd be defensible, but very strict, to take that approach.

However, if we're not going to take the approach (which we're not)... here you have:

1. Three sources, which while probably not very good, are not just an internet forum or something either.
2. And no indication whatsoever that there is another date out there which might be correct instead.
3. And no reason advanced for anybody to lie on purpose about it (which does happen, a lot -- people wanting to be seen as younger or older than their true age).

So I would use it. I assume that "December 16, 1984" came from somewhere, and wasn't just made up by somebody who needed a random date to put in. Since it came from somewhere, it probably is accurate, absent any indication to the contrary. "Probably" maybe means "499 times out of five hundred it will be accurate" or something on that order. Is that good enough? I don't know... It's a philosophical question, and my personal opinion is yes, that's good enough, for my part. But your call (unless there are other editors involved). Herostratus (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

An interesting question has (I think) been raised over at BI.

Let us say that an RS cites a source we have decided is not RS, is that cite not unreliable?Slatersteven (talk) 08:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The answer depends on a)the information and how it is presented, b)the article/area, c)the sources themselves. Unreliable sources may be reliable for some information. If a source we would describe as unreliable has a story picked up by say the BBC, depending on how the BBC presents it, we might use it because it is expected the BBC (as a usually reliable organisation) will have done some diligence on their end. If however the BBC reports 'The Daily Mail has claimed a woman gave birth to a dog', the best we could use it to support is the Daily Mail has claimed a woman gave birth to a dog, not that a woman has given birth to a dog. And given that particular claim would be almost unusuable anywhere anyway, the point shouldnt come up that often. In short - please provide A, B and C as requested at the top of this noticeboard in order to get an accurate answer. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

It would be hard, as the sources that raised this question does not in fact (apparently) even mention the non RS source. Thus this was more of a general question really. This was the edit [5] by the way. Slatersteven (talk) 08:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

As a general answer: sometimes. For that particular reference, I would want to read the section/page in context to see how they use Orr. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

For whatever reason there are some editors that don't think this is a reliable source. However the reasons given don't make any sense. First it's not a website that anyone can edit. They have a physical address and contact information if you want to contact them. They have a whole list of their staff of editors, writers, managers and many more. It's not a fan website, which is what some editors have claimed. Here are some links to check it out. http://www.famousbirthdays.com/team/. As you can see all employees mentioned have bios and they all appear to have college degrees, which is more than can be said about wikipedia editors. I don't see any reason as to why they are not a reliable source.AllSportsfan16 (talk) 02:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Having college degrees is not really an indication that the employees are a reliable source. Because this site is being used as a source for WP:Biographies of living persons, they should be held to the highest standards of fact-checking and reliability. Their request for facts from readers of the site is a bit concerning: "Help complete pending profiles by submitting missing info" ; "Suggest an update to an existing celebrity profile" (http://www.famousbirthdays.com/about/). I'm a bit dubious. Can you show any mainstream reliable sources that use this site to cite information on birthdays and the like? First Light (talk) 03:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Yep. Basically, this is no different than IMDb, which has been consistently ruled to be

WP:USERGENERATED. --IJBall (contribs • talk

) 03:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

No you're wrong it is not user generated information. It's not like wikipedia you can't edit the page and they do say people can make suggestions, but it doesn't says that they are just going to post everything that they get.AllSportsfan16 (talk) 04:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

My point is that they hire editors and researchers. It says suggest and update or help complete, they are not requesting anything. I'm sure they check to see if the information is accurate before they post it, why else would hire experts. There is a contact us link if you have questions or concerns has anyone thought of using that. In an earlier discussion an editor suggested that they don't fact check, but there's no indication of that. No I don't have a way of confirming any mainstream sources that use it. From the bio of the Director of Operations it sounds like they reach out to celebrities personally for the information. It sounds like they have huge team gathering information and there is nothing wrong with asking the public, but it's not like wikipedia where anyone can edit the pages.AllSportsfan16 (talk) 03:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)AllSportsfan16 (talk) 04:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

This is no different than IMDb – IMDb also has people that "check" submissions and either approve or decline them. But the editorial control and fact-checking is insufficient to be considered a "reliable source" for the purposes of Wikipedia, especially for BLPs. Famousbirthdays.com is in exactly the same boat... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, this is not a reliable source of birthdate information. VQuakr (talk) 04:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

In the bio of the head of operations it says As director of data and operations, Nate helps the marketing team connect with celebrities and he also helps data scientists and writers profile celebrities. So no they aren't just checking people's submissions. They are doing there own research look at how many editors, writers, researches, data scientists and others that they have hired. You don't hire that many people unless you are doing research why pay that many people if there just excepting fan submissions. Unlike IMDB you cannot create an account on famousbirthdays, while you can submit suggestions it doesn't just add them. So basically everyone that's saying it's an unreliable source is saying that they hire researches, writers, editors, data scientists and others just to spend money, meanwhile they just accept all fan submissions as true and post them. You're thinking is ridiculous. Employees cost money, companies don't hire them to do nothing.AllSportsfan16 (talk) 04:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• ugh, no. Celebrity gossip site with user-submitted data. I recognize that it can be difficult to find RS for birthdates but this is not the way to go. Jytdog (talk) 04:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, how many times do I need to say that they DO NOT rely on user-submitted data. Look at their team page they have hired lots of researchers, editors, data scientists. A company does not hire people to have them do nothing, employees cost MONEY if they were just relying on user submitted data they would not hire that many people. Sure you can suggest submissions, but they are not automatically excepted like wiki sites are.AllSportsfan16 (talk) 04:47, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I do hear you saying that - the many, many times you have said it. Not buying it necessarily. There is no sign where they do get their information or how they check it. Claiming to have lots of bodies means nothing. Jytdog (talk) 02:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Since you addressed me, let me ask you. Why are you arguing so fiercely for this? Why does this source matter so much to you? Jytdog (talk) 02:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I used it for one article, but was told it wasn't reliable so I wanted to prove that it was. It also makes it easier to cite birth dates for younger actors that their might be less information on. I did find another source for the article, but it did have the same date as famousbirthdays.AllSportsfan16 (talk) 04:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

You have not proven that this website is a reliable source. There is strong consensus here that is does not meet Wikipedia standards for sourcing, especially for Biographies of Living Persons. First Light (talk) 11:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Correct, there's no indication that they use user-submitted data. Inviting readers to help by "submitting missing info" or "suggest an update" simply leads to an email form. That could be marketing (and the email goes in the bit bucket), but more likely it is a rational and functional avenue to receive suggestions (which they can then vet) in case they have something wrong or missing. Would you prefer if they say "We don't publish our email address, since we don't care if you think anything on this site is wrong."

Second of all, what's their business model? Based on their name, it is "providing correct birthdays", at least as a start. And indeed in this interview with the founder (which may be equivalent to a press release, I am not familiar with that site -- but no matter, it is a statement from the founder either way) he says just that. And they have a staff (unless they're lying and all those portraits are stock photos -- which is not impossible), so they seem to have sufficient bodies on hand for somebody to do fact-checking, if they want to.

So if "providing correct birthdays" is their business model, not caring if they get their birthday data correct or not would be a quick way to go out of business, n'est-ce pas? So they probably want to get the data correct, although it's possible they're too stupid to do so.

But if they're not lying or stupid (which they could be, but of course that's true of anyone), then I would think that at least for birthday data they would be somebody to consider.

Sure, they look like the kind of site that you would tease your sister for reading. But so? What does that have to do with how rigorous their fact-checking operation is or is not? Herostratus (talk) 05:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Previous discussion at WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_153#Is_famousbirthdays.com_a_reliable_source_for_personal_information. I see same issues as with IMDb, they don't say where they get their information and what process they use to validate it. Mostly just "trust us". I expect they may just go to IMDb to get whatever IMDb says as a first pass of research and publish it but, again, who knows as they won't tell us their process. They may go to Wikipedia for all we know. I expect they do a basic web search for their information and populate their database with what they find. Might be an automated web scraper. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

↑ THIS. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah maybe. A lot of this is really just guesswork though, I think. What'd be good would a compare-and-contrast between the information-acquisition and fact-checking operation of this site and say People magazine. Info like that is hard to get though. Herostratus (talk) 02:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I've been closely looking at famousbirthdays.com since January. If you want to see the quality of their work, I suggest editors compare http://www.famousbirthdays.com/people/alicia-grimes.html with the press releases and other poor sources offered for Alicia Grimes by Iamterrell5 (talk · contribs) who is the contact person for some of the press releases. Whatever editing and fact-checking famousbirthdays.com is doing, it's obviously poor. I am also under the distinct impression that marketers like http://www.evancarmichael.com (which clearly Grimes and Iamterrell5 are working with, if Iamterrell5 isn't an evancarmichael.com employee) are recommending that people use Famousbirthdays.com as a marketing vehicle because of the ease of getting them to publish profiles.

Famousbirthdays.com appears to be a go-to-website for attempts to promote people. Famousbirthdays.com does not divulge their sources nor their criteria for inclusion, but they apparently have very low standards for both. We're getting at least a few additions each week, all in poorly-sourced BLPs.

http://www.famousbirthdays.com/terms/ : We don't warranty the accuracy or suitability of the information found on our platform for any particular purpose. We acknowledge that such information and materials may contain inaccuracies and we thus absolve ourselves of any liability for any such inaccuracies to the extent permitted by law. We do encourage our users to contact us regarding any potential inaccuracy found on our platform. --

If someone would like me to stop my regular cleanup of this source, please note it. --

Sounds like regular legal terminology to cover themselves, in case of any errors. It's a statement any organization would make because it is so easy to sue in the United States. Also just to be clear I'm not supporting using this source for creating bios on Wikipedia, I'm just supporting using the birthdates, because according to the company's CEO and founder that is their main goal anyways. I haven't seen one instance where they have incorrectly published a birth date.AllSportsfan16 (talk) 04:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

No, it's great. This is valuable insight from an editor who has actually investigated the site over time. Sounds like it is no good, and fine. With the spamming added in, I wonder if it is blacklist-worthy? Herostratus (talk) 21:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@

talk

) 14:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@

Ronz: That statement is not evidence of anything, I have a background in business law and any organization would have to have a legal statement like that absolving them of liability it would be dumb not to. I was forced to remove it otherwise I wouldn't have. How do you know if I've looked. With regards to just birth dates I've examined many of the people and all of them are accurate. No one on here has been able to show that any birth date on their website is inaccurate.AllSportsfan16 (talk

) 19:20, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@AllSportsfan16: I started a previous discussion about this site as I noticed a blatant biographical mistake identifying an Australian actress as being Welch so asked for opinions about the site being usable as a reliable source of bio info. They have fixed that particular error, but something that blatant should never have slipped through with any degree of reasonable fact checking. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Fischer, Louis (1964). The Life of Lenin. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.

• In 1964 many Lenin's texts were classified.
• Louis Fischer was a journalist, not a historian. He had emotional problems with Communism, first a supporter, later a critic.Xx236 (talk) 05:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
• Lenin was anti-imperialist, and believed that all nations deserved "the right of self-determination".^[1] - the statement misinforms. Lenin opposed foreign imperialism but he recreated the Russian empire. Georgia didn't have "the right of self-determination", so apparently Lenin rejected the idea.

--Xx236 (talk) 05:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Shub, David (1966). Lenin: A Biography (revised ed.). London: Pelican.

• The book was published in 1949. Shub was a revolutionary. Such text should be studied as a historiical source, not a contemporary book, Xx236 (talk) 08:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The subject is serious, please comment. Xx236 (talk) 10:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

As the editor responsible for getting the Lenin article to FA status several months ago (following both a GAN and a PR), I would like to explain a little further. Fischer's 1964 biography of Lenin is just one of many biographical and historical sources used in this article. It is, without doubt, a

If Fischer's work is so clearly an RS and has been accepted as a legitimate source through GAN, PR, and FAC, why is Xx236 so keen to be rid of it? The answer can be seen in Xx236's repeated WP:Advocacy over at the Lenin article and its talk page. Xx236 is passionately and openly anti-Lenin and anti-Soviet and has repeatedly attempted to reshape the article to reflect their own, deeply anti-Lenin stance. They have repeatedly expressed their views on the Talk Page and attempted to add additional (poorly referenced) information into the article; the latter has been removed. Their attempt to undermine Fischer as a source is because Fischer is not as passionately anti-Lenin as Xx236 is and does not reflect the image of Lenin that Xx236 wants to see projected. Their actions here are just further evidence of this WP:Advocacy. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The only legitimate argument I could see is that as an older biography it *may* (not is) be being used to source material that has been directly contradicted by later-released information. From looking at the article though, I cant see that it is. Is Fischer being used for anything that has subsequently been superseded? Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

If Fischer isn't important, why to quote him? Xx236 (talk) 06:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

^{semper crescis, aut decrescis}

06:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I have quoted (above) exteremely biased phrase attributed to Fischer. The authors refuse to cooperate,Three wise monkeys.

Xx236 (talk) 06:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

"refuse to cooperate" in this instance meaning expressing disagreement with Xx236's blatant WP:Advocacy. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I was reviewing the Little Mix article and I noticed a citation was needed regarding ancestry of one of the group members.

The article states that

Pinnock is of Barbadian and Jamaican ancestry.

. I found an online article [6] that was used to cite another member's [Thirlwall] ethnic background. The source was reliable for the cited quote because that particular member [Thirlwall] claimed her ethnic background but I am unsure if it will be reliable for my citation needed since Pinnock did not claim her ethnic background herself, but rather Thirlwall claimed that Pinnock had Jamaican and Bajan ancestry^[1]. Alanna.davis (talk) 16:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

If the statement was reworded so that it is clear that Thirlwall prvided the information it would be fine. Martinlc (talk) 15:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you so much.

The reverser insists on taking the source without much argument. Is she reliable? 201.17.176.127 (talk) 00:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

The Oxford University Press has a reputation for fact checking and editorial oversight, so it is probablt=y a Reliable Soruce. However, if this is the only source to be found that supports the statement in the article, its inclusion may be UNDUE.Martinlc (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

The source does not support the statement that there was cooperation with the FBI, all it does is report one visit by an FBI official to Germany. The book, and presumably its author, is an authority on Nazi Germany, not the USA.Martinlc (talk) 15:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'm looking for clarification of the appropriacy of using IMDb as a sole source for the filmography section of an actor's article, in this case Erin Moran. I have read the advice at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_IMDb and at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Resources#Questionable_resources and I removed the filmography section as it was unsourced. Other editors have replaced it, claiming that IMBd is an acceptable source in this situation (discussion on talk page). Would appreciate some clarification. Thanks! MurielMary (talk) 08:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:RS/IMDB is quite clear on this. Use of IMDB as a sole source is discouraged due to its unreliability. It certainly shouldnt be used as a sole source for 'uncredited' appearances. Only in death does duty end (talk

) 09:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep in mind the reason it is used for released films & TV shows, is that as a primary source, the credits can be verified from watching said film/TV show. Which is why IMDB is more reliable for credited released films/TVs etc. Obviously if someone is uncredited, you cant do that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Exactly, "the credits can be verified from watching said film/TV show". 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:ADF3:C706:1C77:4C80 (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Not always however, and not for uncredited roles. And for some older programs/films its not possible to verify the credits as the primary source is not available, in which a reliable secondary source is required. Which IMDB is not. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

IMDb is a convenience source of information about released projects with the assumption that the people who added the info to IMDb faithfully transcribed it from the actual verifiable reliable source, the credits as embedded in the released project itself. If something is not in the credit we obviously can't check the credits to verify that the person was in the project but not credited so need something else. Basically for a list of credits it is implied that the listed project's embedded credit list itself is the reliable primary source so shouldn't be listing IMDb as the source. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Exactly, "it is implied that the listed project's embedded credit list itself is the reliable primary source". 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:ADF3:C706:1C77:4C80 (talk) 16:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

So where would someone find an "embedded credit list"? What is that? Do you mean the credits which appear onscreen? MurielMary (talk) 09:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes. This is why IMDB is used as a convenience issue for released media (and not upcoming etc) as the credits are embedded and finalised at that point. For games, films, TV I can go watch/rent/borrow/download/buy a copy and view the credits. As a primary source on who is involved in said media. Where you cant reasonably have access to anything (particular old TV series/films which have not been re-broadcast or are not available otherwise) you need a reliable secondary source. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• IMDb is a fine filmography source for credited roles in movies/TV/etc. - are there possibly even better sources for such information? Sure, but there's really nothing wrong with using IMDb as a citation for mainstream filmographies. Guy1890 (talk) 06:06, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

It surprised me there was no article for this person, so I started a translation of the German article on

In general, a radio documentary piece by a national public radio station of a country such as Ireland should be a reliable source. Sources don't have to be print or web only. That said, I don't know about RTE's specific reputation for reliability and fact-checking such news/feature pieces. It passes the smell test, at least in my opinion. First Light (talk) 12:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

As an editor who likes good RS in articles, I think this will likely be fine. Thank First Light ww2censor (talk) 13:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

INFLUX Magazine is a website that, based on a

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I think it may be reliable, but I agree that citing obscure websites is unnecessary when we've already got a wide range of opinions from mainstream critics.

WP:ONUS tells us that not all verifiable content belongs in an article. If there's opposition to its inclusion as unnecessary, I think that's legitimate. Too many reviews can overwhelm readers with unnecessary detail. But on an independent film where there are few published reviews, I think it may be more useful. That depends, of course, on whether one considers it a reliable source. It seems alright to me, but I recognize a lot of these smaller websites can come across as glorified blogs. NinjaRobotPirate (talk

) 15:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Is Mauce.nl a RS for news and information about metal bands. It was used as a reference here and I have seen it used a few other places. The footer says a bit: "the posts are property of the poster. Dates of new releases, agenda and in articles are not guaranteed. © 2006-2012 mauce.nl". First, that the website is user-generated and second, that the site isn't maintained (footer last updated in 2012). This particular piece of news was supplied by thrashboy who is listed as "Co-founder / Head-editor". No indication of editorial oversight, how retractions are made, or how the site is supported or influenced. My gut feeling is that it's not a RS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing. Not good. Jytdog (talk) 02:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I was adding this source from the UN website itself and the publisher is systematically reversing me. Would she be reliable enough to reverse it?. 201.17.139.175 (talk) 09:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

It looks like the concern isn't the reliability of that source, but what it says. The place to discuss that is at Talk:Nazism in the United States. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Re: Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)

According to an article in the

However, as is apparent from the ad itself, a copy of which is on the website of the Family Research Council, the petition said, "We, the undersigned, stand in solidarity with Family Research Council...that [îs] working to protect and promote natural marriage and family. We support the vigorous but responsible exercise of the First Amendment rights of free speech and religious liberty that are the birthright of all Americans." The reference to "character assassination" is part of a commentary added by the FRC.

Unfortunately, the ad received no coverage little coverage in any media. Should we rely on the description in a secondary source even if it is clearly inaccurate?

TFD (talk) 22:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

1. This question is under discussion at

WP:V for that supposition.) 4. I recommend that this RSN thread be closed. – S. Rich (talk

) 23:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

2. We have an ad supporting FRC, and FRC decides to embroider their own commentary on the ad with the bit about "character assassination".

WP:PRIMARY comes into play here with respect to statements of fact about the person or organization making the statements. I think this is distinct from someone recounting the story of their life (an allowable primary source) - it's the FRC saying the SPLC is engaging in character assassination, which they're not usable as a primary source to document. loupgarous (talk

) 23:52, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

NO. There is no evidence that the FRC did anything to the CSM copy. The CSM reference stands on its own, and (presumably) it quoted the ad correctly. – S. Rich (talk) 00:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I think we can assume that the FRC, which placed the ad, has presented us with a true copy. I think per

BLP we cannot assume that the Republican politicians signed the section that the FRC does not attribute to them. It's one thing to express support for conservative family values groups; it's another to recklessly attack reputable organizations. TFD (talk

) 01:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Come off it, TFD; of course the petition signatories knew it would be used for a pro-FRC/anti-SPLC ad. It was shortly after the SPLC had labeled the FRC as haters. Any record of any of any signers complaining afterward about being used to "recklessly attack a reputable organization"? I suppose CSM might have erred in naming the ad buyers, but this is much ado about little. As I said at the SPLC Talk page, some minor rewording should satisfy all but the ultra fastidious. Motsebboh (talk) 02:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: Motsebboh is a sock puppet of an indef banned user. Here is the relevant SPI.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

The question is whether the introductory text (included below) was originally part of the document that included the pledge or added later. Both the CS Monitor (which you quote) and the SPLC (which I quote below) suggest it was part of the original and implicitly endorsed by the signatories.

Introductory text:

• The surest sign one is losing a debate is to resort to character assassination. The Southern Poverty Law Center, a liberal fundraising machine whose tactics have been condemned by observers across the political spectrum, is doing just that.

SPLC Statement::

• This morning, 22 members of Congress and a large number of other conservatives signed on to a public statement attacking the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) for listing several anti-gay religious right organizations as hate groups. Published in two Washington, D.C., newspapers as a full-page ad, the statement was organized by the powerful Family Research Council (FRC) and other “pro-family organizations that are working to protect and promote natural marriage and the family.”

Are there sources which suggest it was not? James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 03:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

See the actual advertisement.[7] “Who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?” It's the same as if someone is wrongly quoted in a secondary source and we have an official transcript. While we might prefer the incorrect version, we should use the correct one. TFD (talk) 10:41, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I think you misread my post. My Introductory text section quotes the actual advertisement so of course I have seen it. We are agreed the text was not part of the pledge, the question is whether it was part of the document when signed. Both CS Monitor and SPLC suggest it was (SPLC's statement is: "22 members of Congress and a large number of other conservatives signed on to a public statement attacking the Southern Poverty Law Center") James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 17:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

The CSM says "signed on to a public statement," not that they signed on to a public statement knowing that the SPLC would be mentioned in the ad. We may guess what actually happened, but that's not allowed per

"No original research". Of course if the petition had any significance, it would have received media attention beyond one or two brief mentions and we would know. Which brings us to another policy, don't include stuff that has only trivial mention in relation to the topic. TFD (talk

) 05:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

JFC, the CSM is a highly respected MSM outlet. Please look at what they wrote and accept it as RS. IOW, this is not an appropriate issue for the RSN. – S. Rich (talk) 05:47, 7 May 2017 (UTC)05:55, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• Reliability does not guarantee inclusion. Not everything that appears in RS needs to be included in a Wikipedia article. If it does not represent the consensus among reliable sources, it should be omitted. If the secondary source misrepresents a primiary source, it should be omitted if the consensus among the involved editors agrees with that assessment. If consensus is absent, you can use an
  WP:RfC. (Please make your posts understandable to uninvolved editors.) -- Kautilya3 (talk
  ) 11:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

What is the article, contested material & source? As the big note at the top requires. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Who says its "official", as far as I know the "official" world record judger and recorder is the Guinness book of records, they are about as "official" as it gets.Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not asking in general, so direct me elsewhere if appropriate.

Why is a live stream unreliable?

Is it really reasonable to think it would be digitally manipulated, or otherwise fake?

I was also surprised to only find one mention of live streams in the archives. Has this question not been raised before? Benjamin (talk) 22:53, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

A live stream would have the same issues that a live speech or a live performance has... a lack of permanence. Something impermanent can not be used as verification (no way to check it after the fact).

For it to be permanent, we would need to create a recorded copy or transcript. At which point we are no longer talking about the source being the original stream, speech, or performance, but the recording/transcript of it... And that could be subject to manipulation by the publisher. Which is one reason that we look at the publisher when determining reliability. Blueboar (talk) 23:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, to clarify, I mean a live stream that was uploaded permanently, such as on YouTube. Benjamin (talk) 23:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

An uploaded live stream is just a video publication. whether than can be considered reliable and used depends on the reputation of the publisher and possible the reputation of people making statements in that video. The "defense" against manipulation aside from you own common sense and reviews of the video is reputation of the publisher. Say it is from a reputable news organization or journalist, then you probably can assume the video being with manipulation.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:02, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Is it really that common for a video to be significantly digitally manipulated, or would it be more of a matter of context and notability? Benjamin (talk) 00:08, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

It is not common, no. It depends. In a few rare cases I would suspect it. More likely is just fakery. A man in a studio saying "I'm so-and-so"... how do we know he is? If it was made under the aegis of the Los Angeles Times and that can be demonstrated satisfactorily (bearing in mind that anybody can make a fake LA Times logo for the background etc.), then it'd probably be OK in my book. If it's uploaded anonymously, it's no better than a blog post I guess. That doesn't necessarily rule it out, but the presumption is not to allow it. Herostratus (talk) 01:00, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

What about, for example, a video of a protest, or a speech, on the street, where the participants are clearly recognizable? Benjamin (talk) 01:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Usually, when an editor says something is "clearly recognizable," they mean "let's ignore WP:No original research just because I think that it's clear enough." Ian.thomson (talk) 01:08, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, it depends. Videos make poor refs for many reasons -- they're hard to search, hard to translate, not available in printed versions or on dialup connections, are subject to mishearing, are hard to verify, and so forth. They are allowed though I guess.

Yeah though I guess if it's blue-sky clear that you're seeing a person speaking in public or something, it's OK.

The point about original research is well taken. If a person is quoted in a formal interview saying something, that probably reflects his considered thought, at least at that moment, at least to some degree, and so helps the reader get a handle on who he is and what he thinks. Something shouted out at a street rally or (even worse) just caught on camera... not so much, necessarily. We are not interested in "gotcha" moments usually. And if that's really the only source for the fact... seems kind of sketchy. It would depend. A specific case to look at would help. Herostratus (talk) 01:24, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

If there were multiple live streams of the same event, from different perspectives, would that increase the reliability? Also, what if the video was streamed live, and then saved on a website that hosts videos? Would that be reasonable assurance that the video is not manipulated? Benjamin (talk) 00:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I presume there would also probably be issues with notability? Benjamin (talk) 02:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes right. The person is seen on camera making a speech, and not one single notable reliable print source saw fit to report on it. Why should we? Herostratus (talk) 02:32, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

(ec) By framing the question in terms of "reliability" and

WP:NPOV

) also frequently enters into it. Is an editor attaching too much importance to a bit of information extracted from a bit of ephemera?

If a particular claim or statement did not warrant coverage by a scholar or journalist in any other forum or format, is it rarely appropriate for Wikipedia and its editors to be the first outlet for such secondary coverage. In other words, the reason why the question doesn't come up very often here at WP:RSN is because it's not really a "reliability" issue (or, at least, the use of such sources tends to run aground on WP:NOR and WP:NPOV before it touches WP:RS). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:40, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

@Benjaminikuta: Look, you said at the top of this thread that you're not just "asking in general". We've pretty much exhausted the supply of guidance we can provide for a hypothetical case. Based on the questions that you're asking, it sounds like you're hoping to use one or more videos to construct an argument or support a claim or present an interpretation that hasn't been reported in an independent reliable source—and that's likely to be problematic for the reasons already noted.

If you have a particular video recording that you want to know how or if it's appropriate to use, just ask the specific question. Remember to follow the instructions at the top of the page (and which appear above the edit window) and provide the three key pieces of information: the source you want to use, the article where you wish to use it, and the article content you want to use it to support. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a typo, I am asking in general, but I know this place is for asking about specific edits. Is there another place for asking in general, or is that not something to do? Benjamin (talk) 16:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

It's fine. It's just that whevever you ask, if it is a general question, it's hard to answer. "Are blogs reliable?" "are magazines reliable?" and "are videos reliable" -- can only really be answered by asking another question -- "which blog/magazine/video, and for what material?". I guess we've answered probably as far as we can, regarding that type of video: "Probably not, but maybe, depending on various factors specific to the individual circumstances". Herostratus (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Is the website ww2today.com run by Martin Cherrett reliable for anything about WWII? Here is an article about him.

I was considering adding this as another reference for Ascq massacre and Walter Hauck, but since he appears to be a blogger, I am not sure he is sufficiently expert.

I see that his work is also reference in these articles:

• SS_Abukir#cite_note-25
• SS_Yoma#cite_note-WW2Today-32
• Parachute_mine#cite_note-1
• Mark_W._Clark#cite_note-21
• Jean_Goodwin_Messinger#cite_note-Voices_from_the_Other_Side-5

I will put notes on those pages informing editors there of this post, and also on the Military History Wikiproject.

--David Tornheim (talk) 17:08, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

As the moment I would say no, as he appears to just be a blogger. Has he any editorial oversight, has he a reputation for fact checking, has he been published by third parties? Frankly who the hell is he?

And besides, if he is in fact doing research (rather then say making stuff up) why not just use whatever source he uses?Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Googling Mr Cherrett doesn't turn up any references on his credentials, and he is not listed as the author of any books available through Amazon.com's database so I don't think that this website can be considered a reliable source. It appears to be the work of an enthusiastic, and competent from a quick review, amateur historian. Nick-D (talk) 22:37, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Adding to Nick-D's post on which I agree; it is a website by an individual which means, no editorial oversight. Kierzek (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. That's what I suspected. I'll plan to take out the citations from those articles per this discussion. Would it be appropriate to include the site in external links? I forget the rule on external links... --David Tornheim (talk) 16:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)