Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 228

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

In the article

Recently there has been an increase in cow vigilantism in India, especially after Narendra Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government came to power in 2014.

To support this passage, I have cited these sources:

• New York Times: "Cow protection groups, known as gau rakshak, have proliferated in recent years, since the Bharatiya Janata Party of Prime Minister Narendra Modi came to power. These vigilante groups have carried out violent attacks on Muslims and, more rarely, low-caste Hindus suspected of slaughtering cows."
• Reuters: "Hindu hardliners and cow vigilante groups have been increasingly asserting themselves since Modi's Hindu nationalist government came to power in 2014."
• The Sydney Morning Herald: "Ever since Narendra Modi and his Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) came to power in 2014, Hindu cow vigilantes have been in the news."
• Deutsche Welle "Many observers believe that the extremists were boosted by the election of Indian nationalist Narendra Modi in 2014."
• Huffington Post: "Such attacks on religious minorities have increased across India since Narendra Modi was elected prime minister in 2014, backed by the Hindu nationalist BJP."
• Asia Times: "Ever since Narendra Modi became India’s Prime Minister three years ago, attacks from so-called “cow vigilantes” have been increasing, with the victims mostly Muslims or lower caste Hindus."
• BBC News: "Vigilante cow protection groups have mushroomed. They claim to have a strong network of informers and say they "feel empowered" because of the ruling Hindu nationalist BJP government in Delhi."

Vice regent misrepresents my concerns and the issue, though correctly acknowledges my comment about primary news sources. I have proposed the following alternate which primary sources support:

Media groups state that cow vigilantism in India have increased after Narendra Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government came to power in 2014.[55][56][7] Many cow vigilante groups say they feel "empowered" by the victory of the Hindu nationalist BJP in the 2014 election.[39][54] The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) is another Hindu nationalist group active, with a history of cow protection-related vigilantism.[39]

I object to the following and related paragraphs Vice regent has created:

Recently there has been an increase in cow vigilantism in India, especially after Narendra Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government came to power in 2014.[65][66][67][68][8][69][excessive citations] The frequency and severity of cow-related violence have been described as "unprecedented".[70] (...)

The version by Vice regent includes conclusions and statements, relying on primary news sources / opinion columns, that secondary sources / peer reviewed scholarship do not support and contradict.

WP:Primary sources can be reliable but need care in their use. If we use opinions in primary sources, we must quote exact and attribute the opinion to the source, not imply that it is generally accepted statement or mainstream conclusion based on secondary sources. We can mention post-2014 recent events, but any analysis, causal connections, anthropological/religious and historic claims need secondary sources. Please see page 161 of the Judith Walsh source, for example, for evidence why the opinion articles / newspaper articles such as Al Jazeera / Atimes.com / etc are not reliable source of history / anthropology / etc. Please also see this section for further concerns and comments on RS and NPOV issues created by Vice regent edits in that article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk

) 14:40, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

MSW said above that "The version by Vice regent includes conclusions and statements, relying on primary news sources / opinion columns, that secondary sources / peer reviewed scholarship do not support and contradict" (emphasis added). Can you provide any secondary sources that actually "contradict" the content I have added?VR _talk 17:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Read the reply above for the link with the page number! I already explained this earlier on the article's talk page. See the other peer reviewed scholarly sources I have added for more. I can't help if you refuse to read the sources, or keep cherrypicking sources or content guidelines. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:51, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

page 161 of the Judith Walsh source talks about cow-protection violence happening the 1800s. It doesn't contradict (or even talk about) cow-protection violence increasing after 2014. I don't see where the contradiction is.VR _talk 02:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

It does, and it is strange that you don't see the Walsh discussion on the severity of 1880s and 1890s cow-related riots. See the Thursby source at pages 79-88, and other sources in the article for more. You wrote above "given they are talking about recent events (post-2014), most of the sources on this topic will be newspapers and magazines". But for anything beyond the simple quoting of basic info about alleged attackers, alleged victims and alleged motives from primary news sources, why can't we wait a few months or few years till peer-reviewed RS – e.g. journal articles or books by academic publishers – become available? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 06:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

"why can't we wait a few months or few years..." Because that's not how wikipedia works!! If there was a notable event yesterday, then wikipedia will have an article on it today. Most articles on recent events have absolutely ZERO books or journal articles as sources and rely entirely on newspapers. Take

2017 Bahawalpur explosion, for example.VR _talk

07:26, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - "Unprecedented" is either rhetorical, in which case it has no reason to be duplicated on Wikipedia, or it is a historical claim, for which news sources are not reliable. In either case, it should be thrown out. Other than that, there is not much here that is of relevance to RSN. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:25, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

• Indeed, that is exactly my point, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:35, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

So this can be resolved by removing one word... "unprecedented"? Blueboar (talk) 13:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

...and similar rhetorical / historical claim language or words! That is what the replacement para tried to do, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:28, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

• Wait a second. The "unprecedented" part is actually sourced to a journal article in Politics, Religion & Ideology, which is a scholarly source. Kautilya himself called it a "good quality" source. @Blueboar: The use of the term "unprecedented" was only one of MSW's objections. The other objection is whether we can state the following sentence as fact: "Recently there has been an increase in cow vigilantism in India, especially after Narendra Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government came to power in 2014." VR _talk 00:59, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

If the rest of the article is sourced from journal articles, well founded books, etc. - qualifying the statement by "some news reports" or "some media groups" would be in order - to differentiate that this isn't as well founded in comparison to the rest of the article due to this being a "currentish" event count.Icewhiz (talk) 13:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Most of the article is not from journal articles and the contemporary cow-protection violence can't be expected to be from journal articles, because it documents very recent events.VR _talk 00:59, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Icewhiz. The article is in a flux! in this version, if I counted right, the majority is peer reviewed RS. As Kautilya3 hints above that we need reliable sources, and the talk page discussion suggests the same, despite some opposition, we are trying to get more peer reviewed, high quality RS into the article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

The sources Ms Sarah Welch is referring to are about facts that have occurred long ago. For example, Hinduism's stance on the cows, the Cow Protection Movement of the 1800s, the legislation of various Indian states with regards to cattle slaughter etc. But the truth of the matter is that there are very few, if any, books or journal articles on recent cow protection killings. And one of the journal article I found did call the violence "unprecedented", something that MSW removed in her edit of the material.VR _talk 14:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Then attribute the "unprecedented" to whomever said it - don't put in WP's voice. It needs to be qualified - unless you have actual studies and this is a clearly established fact accepted by all major researchers. Recent events are indeed mainly covered by news articles - the question is how reliable they are in relation to a wide-spread phenomena and measuring its rate (and historical references - news sources don't always look 200 years back for comparison). Some of your sources only claim that "groups have proliferated" - but not that actual acts have. It seems from quick look at these sources that you could easily say "multiple media reports indicated an increase is cow protection violence" - but it would be best to qualify this.Icewhiz (talk) 14:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Just want to clarify that there are two claims being discussed here. #1 is that violence increased after election of BJP (2014) #2 is that current level of violence is "unprecedented". Obviously claim #2 requires a more scholarly source that can look back at history, whereas for claim #1 current newspapers should suffice.

Discussion on claim #2: "unless you have actual studies and this is a clearly established fact accepted by all major researchers." What do you mean by studies? When historians write history they don't actually conduct scientific studies they conduct literature reviews etc. Secondly, how do I go about proving something is accepted by "all major" researchers? If by that you mean, that no major researcher disagrees, then yeah I agree. And in this case, please note that there really aren't many journal articles on this matter, I have found a grand total of 2 (one of which I'm still trying to get access to because it was published only a month ago).

Discussion on claim #1: "historical references - news sources don't always look 200 years back for comparison". But the sources are not making claims about 200 years ago. They are only making claims about the last 5-10 years. Would you say that BBC News, New York Times, Reuters etc are reliable sources for making claims about cow protection violence in the last 5-10 years?

"Some of your sources only claim that "groups have proliferated" - but not that actual acts have." Ok, then we can say "Recently there has been an increase in cow vigilante groups in India, especially after...". That's merely a difference in wording.

Ultimately the issue is that are newspapers reliable sources for recent events? I very strongly argue yes. If newspapers weren't reliable sources then we wouldn't be able to write articles on recent events.VR _talk 03:46, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Source: https://koreaexpose.com/racism-seoul-bar-failed-multiculturalism/

Article: Racism in South Korea

The Korea Exposé was removed from the article. Is the source reliable or not to verify the following deleted information: "As a result, it is common for people to be denied service at business establishments due to their race, with such incidents occurring as recently as [of] 2017"? --George Ho (talk) 04:57, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Well it seems to have an editorial team, but they also list an intern (which seems a bit puffery like to me). I also note the owner is also editor in chief, so I would be a bit dubious.Slatersteven (talk) 09:00, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Someone recently added some citations to a news satire website in this article. Can these citations be replaced with something more reliable? Jarble (talk) 22:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Looking for feedback on the sources in this addition to Harley-Davidson, which says that the Prague Harley-Davidson club is the oldest such club in the entire world. There are six sources cited here:

• [1] This is a self-published source by a European organization. Where does it say "Many Harley-Davidson Clubs exist nowadays around the world"? Is it independent, and reliable? How is the writer of this web page in a position to make this claim?
• [2]
  ITN Source
  is a film library that sells clips. The summary of the clips for sale here is an uncritical rehash of the self-published claims the Prague club makes about itself (below)
• [3] This source is the root of all the others. The Harley-Davidson Club Prague is boasting about itself here, with no independent verification. The club was founded by a Prague Harley dealership to promote its products
• [4] Here is some other Harley dealership which has a copy of a press release from the Prague dealership. Again uncritically parroting the source.
• [5] A TV station making a routine announcement about a club event. It quotes the president of the club, making the usual claims about itself.
• [6] An auto website, with a direct quote from the Harley dealership sponsoring this club, making the same claims

Superlatives like "first" or "oldest" rest on proving a negative about every other club on Earth, which is not easy. How are the club president in Prague, or the staff of a Harley dealership in Prague, able to investigate the history of every possible club for the last 100 years in every other place on the planet outside of Prague, and be sure there were no other clubs in existence before 1928? Aside from their conflict of interest, are they even in a position to know what they claim? Since Harley-Davidson, a global company, is heavily invested in promoting its brand heritage and history, and has never been shy about claiming to be the first at many things, why doesn't the company itself ever mention the Prague club? H-D promotes rider clubs connected to its brand, and is known for pioneering this marketing strategy; see Harley Owners Group. Is it plausible that the company would ignore the oldest continuously operating owners club?

Perhaps its all true, but it's the kind of extraordinary claim that requires quality sources. Organizations like Guinness World Records (with all their flaws) exist to carry out the kind of independent research necessary to establish superlatives like this, but we have no evidence of anything of the kind here. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

You still do not believe me? Ok, here you go-another ones: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Is it enough? Jirka.h23 (talk) 18:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

1. Source: Sommer, Allison Kaplan (May 17, 2017). "Explained: 'Alt-right' Using Cruel Seth Rich Conspiracy Theory to Deflect From Trump's Russia Scandal". Haaretz.
2. Article: Murder of Seth Rich (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
3. Content: [Just the second (italicized) sentence; first sentence added here for context.] "Conservatives and members of the
   revealing highly sensitive information to Russia’s Foreign Minister and Russia’s Ambassador to the U.S., and having urged Comey to drop the FBI investigation of former national security adviser Michael T. Flynn. According to Haaretz
   , the timing of the these broadcasts about the Seth Rich conspiracy theory was most likely intended by Pro-Trump outlets as a distraction from the negative news concerning President Trump."

There are two problems here. First, "several observers" fails verification. Second, the content is relying specifically on the "deflect" language in the source's headline, which oddly enough isn't supported by the source's body. The body says that the Seth Rich story was "aimed at undermining the credibility" of the Russia scandal, which is consistent with other reliable sources. It does not say the Seth Rich story was intended to distract (or deflect) from the Russia scandal. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

It's pretty standard to employ headline writers who develop headlines that will grab readers' attention. In other words, not written by the author of the article and too often not accurately reflecting the content. If the newspaper article doesn't mention it, we shouldn't. Doug Weller talk 18:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

While Haaretz is generally a RS, with a pronounced leftward bias, it is not the greatest source on news on US politics unless they are Israel or Jewish related. They usually just rehash other sources in general US items, often to an audience that is not into the details. I will note that Haaretz has done some superb non-Israel reporting, e.g. their coverage on the ground in Crimea in 2014 was unique and ground breaking. But for US non Jewish/Israel/ME related politics there are usually better sources. And their English headline editors are not great - the English side is a small outfit, they have had some English headline gaffes, particularly on translated items. Icewhiz (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Since Dr.F has made corrections, I would ask the previous commenters @Doug Weller: & @Icewhiz: to review the changes. Sorry for any inconvenience this may cause. DN (talk) 22:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Newspaper headlines are not reliable sources. Their role is to describe the information in the article and may be misleading. In this case the title says that the 'alt-right' is using the Seth Rich murder to deflect from Russiagate, although the article itself does not say that. I am always suspicious when dubious sources are presented for stories that have extensive coverage. If the information is sufficiently reported, it should not be necessary to glean it from headlines. TFD (talk) 21:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Concur. Even the most reputable newspapers use headlines which don't match the body, or they are misleading. Few years ago The New York Times or The Washington Post (or both?) profiled their web readers and served different headlines for different users, which suggests that headlines have other purposes than just conveying the clearest possible message to the reader.

Politrukki (talk

) 18:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Headlines are generally written by "headline writers" and often do not actually make accurate claims as to what a journalist actually wrote. This has been discussed, with some editors insisting that the headline is "part of the article" but the fact is that actual newspaper editors admit that the headlines are the equivalent of newspaper "clickbait" and have been so for many years. Collect (talk) 21:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Collect: This article is under DS regarding American Politics. Please redact your comment. @HJ Mitchell: @Bishonen: SPECIFICO talk 01:18, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello - I have added some information to an article and given a source but another editor keeps removing it: [8] [9] [10] [11]

Can someone please help because this true information (I gave the source twice to this guy) should be in the article and not deleted. I don't understand why he's being so

You added no source. See

talk

) 17:49, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@

Alexbrn: I put a source!!! Look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_Savile_sexual_abuse_scandal&diff=prev&oldid=788817080 Read it. I put the source. BBC News. I put it. Also it isn't a bLP because Jimmy Savile is dead. Amisom (talk

) 18:00, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Why do trolls like this have rollback rights?? 32.218.44.102 (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Probably needs to go to ANI.

talk

) 18:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

No you did not add a source. You added your text behind an existing source which means that there was no apparent connection to it, because sources always need to be given at the end of a statement. And while Saville may be dead, Fiona Woolf is still alive so any edits regarding her activities are also subject to our BLP rules. BLP applies to any living person and not just to the subject of the article. That aside, the fact that Woolf resigned had already been mentioned before in the article's text: "but on 31 October 2014 she too resigned from the role." So your edits were totally pointless. De728631 (talk) 18:11, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@De728631: What? I was writing that Lowel Goddard had resigned. Not Woolf. And I listed a source from BBC News saying that Lowel Goddard had resigned. What is the prblem here? Amisom (talk) 18:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

You've been told. You only added a statement which had no attached source. You were also edit-warring.

talk

) 18:15, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@

Alexbrn: I don't understand, I did attach a source. Click here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_Savile_sexual_abuse_scandal&diff=prev&oldid=788817080 and look for it (search for "bbc.co.uk" with control-F if you need to). Amisom (talk

) 18:17, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Lowell Goddard is alive; BLP applies. And no reader of the article is going to or should be expected to look in your edit summary for a source, nor should you expect other editors to move it from your edit summary to an inline citation purely to indulge your apparent laziness.

WP:BURDEN is written as it is, calling for inline citations, for a reason. General Ization ^Talk

18:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@

fix it ("Fix problems if you can ... Instead of removing content from an article, consider adding a citation yourself") then? Amisom (talk

) 18:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My fault, you were in fact referring to Goddard, but General Ization is right: sources like this belong into the main article text and not into the edit summary. De728631 (talk) 18:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@

help me fix it instead of calling me a troll, giving me warnings and being genrally hostile? Amisom (talk

) 18:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Because that policy isn't referring to fixing problems that editors who know or should know better create and persistently refuse to correct themselves when it is pointed out to them. Our method of dealing with that is generally to block the editor in question. General Ization ^Talk 18:24, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@

WP:PRESERVE does it say that? Because I can definitely see the bit where it says, "Fix problems if you can ... Instead of removing content from an article, consider adding a citation yourself". Which bit are you referring to? (And if you really want to block me for adding truthful information and listing a source for it then go for it - oh no wait you're not an administrator at all.) Amisom (talk

) 18:28, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

PRESERVE is actually irrelevant in this case. At the latest at this point when you wrote in the edit summary "I literally just provided a source. ...]" the responsibility of fixing this fell back to you, even more so since Bbb23 had also told you that "sources don't go in edit summaries". De728631 (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@

fix it yourself. But no. Did you or @General Ization: even bother to ask if I knew how to an inline citaton? No you didn't. Thanks for nothing guys. Amisom (talk

) 18:37, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@

try to help? Bloody hell. Amisom (talk

) 18:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, here, I'll help. See in my response above where inline citation is highlighted in blue? Click on it, and follow the instructions found there. General Ization ^Talk 18:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Sarcasm ≠ help. Sarcasm ≠ welcoming. Sarcasm ≠ an attempt to teach someone smoething in

good Faith. You don't want to be nice? Fine fuck you, I'll take my efforts elsewhere. Amisom (talk

) 18:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

There was no sarcasm in my response. The link to the Wikipedia discussion of citing sources is, and already was, at the link I pointed out to you, which should have been very helpful if you were genuinely interested in being helped. General Ization ^Talk 18:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I went and researched the issue and added two different BBC articles citing Dame Goddard's resignation and the survivor group's reaction. Hopefully, this satisfies. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for that. The article is unquestionably the better for your thorough summary of the cited content. General Ization ^Talk 19:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello. The following sources mention Israel's involvement in training/funding MEK against Iranian government, specifically targetting its nuclear scientists. My question is whether I am allowed to remove the word "alleged" the way I did in this edit

• Rock Center with Brian Williams (6 December 2014). "Israel teams with terror group to kill Iran's nuclear scientists, U.S. officials tell NBC News". NBC News. Retrieved 6 December 2014

• "Report: U.S., Israel helped train Iranian dissidents". Haaretz. April 7, 2012.

• Time Magazine(Nov. 30, 2010), "The assassination carried the signature of Israel's Mossad"

• Independent(December 11 2010), "The attacks have all the hallmarks of Israel's secret service, which has carried out many such assignations in foreign countries over the decades"

• Spiegel(August 02, 2011), "Mossad Behind Tehran Assassinations, Says Source"

Thank You--Kazemita1 (talk) 05:24, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

The same discussion has occurred at Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Notice your first source says, "U.S. officials tell NBC news." We should follow what reliable sources do, which is to say who made the claim and who denies it, and avoid stating it as a fact. And note that excessive qualification of the allegations should be avoided too. TFD (talk) 06:06, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

So you mean to keep the word "alleged" wherever possible?Kazemita1 (talk) 06:24, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - When I was researching, I found a lot of his NPR "Song of the day" articles. 1, 2, 3, among others. While I don't know if he should be included in the review box, if a someone wanted to add things like his song of the day and put it in a critical reception section of a song, I wouldn't have any problem with it - because it was published by NPR. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 21:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Exactly, but his time at NPR, though not sufficient to give him any sort of free pass, does make him more important than just any self-published source in my opinion, especially considering how influential he has become since.

?

22:11, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Again, as explained before, that "established expert" clause is meant for your high level Siskel and Ebert types, not "Minor-NPR-contributors-that-start-up-YouTube-channels". Sergecross73 msg me 23:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Maybe, but that isn't specified in the clause, so I don't see why it doesn't apply here. —

?

14:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh yeah, it's not that all Fantano content itself is marked as non-reliable - it's fine if he is published through a legit RS like NPR. The issue is TND, the stuff which has has no review from a editorial team with an editorial policy. Sergecross73 msg me 1:03 am, Today (UTC+2)

I wouldn't use him more than sparingly either. He remains self-published. If an established source is available, that source should always be prioritised. —

?

22:14, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Is "an up-and-comer" really a good description for him, though? He's been active in the field for a decade, and he has a million subscribers on YouTube, which is the highest amount for any music reviewer on the site. Sure, he's self-published, but he isn't an up-and-comer. Far from it, I'd argue. —

?

22:18, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't thinking in terms of how long he's been at it, but mainstream exposure and other sources' coverage of him.

talk

) 23:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, he's got mainstream exposure, doesn't he? —

?

23:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Nah, I don't think he should be used. At some point, a line has to be drawn that prevents any kid with a semi-popular
  Mark Fisher, David Stubbs, Jeff Weiss) have their own blogs/radio shows/self-published content on the internet, and we don't really treat those as reliable sources. I'm generally suspicious of arguments about "reliability," as they're often used to reinforce a hegemonic media landscape, but Fantano doesn't add any meaningful insight beyond his (frequently dull and conventional) opinion. Leave him to the geeky music forums that provide him most of his fan base. gentlecollapse6 (talk
  ) 00:43, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to act like this is a war against old media vs. new media, because I don't think that it is. I just think there are some instances when Fantano's insights are relevant to the article at hand. Also, I wouldn't be trying to defend him purely because he's popular. Popularity isn't really related to reliability. I think he meets Wikipedia's qualifications for a reliable self-publisher, and - if he does - then I think that having his reviews on articles could be beneficial. ThrillShow (talk) 01:11, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Frequently dull and conventional, huh? When did this become about opinions?

There are a couple sites on the list at the WikiProject Albums that I really don't think add anything to the music journalism landscape. I think The Independent is quite a shite newspaper, actually. I didn't think that was relevant to the discussion in any way, but since your opinion on Fantano's reviews has now apparently become a viable argument, I might as well throw it out there for good measure. —

?

02:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

So (it seems to me) the objective is to enable him to be used when he says something a user wants to include, and to be able to exclude him when he says something a user does not want to include, that seems to me the gist if this.Slatersteven (talk) 08:56, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

That would just get rid of the rule entirely. Why would we want to do that? He's still self-published, and there are still better options, but I don't think his reviews should be removed in every single situation without a case-specific analysis.

Do his reviews belong on most articles, where a couple of reliable sources have already been cited? Absolutely not. Can a review of his be relevant to an article? Yes. That still doesn't mean that we have to cite his review in such a case, but I'd argue that it's a better option than no reviews at all. —

?

14:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

An obvious fact that we seem to be skirting over is that Fantano primarily does opinion-based reviews. The exception on self-published sources basically says it's fine if they're adding something useful, but the guy isn't doing significant fact-based reporting or interviews or research or something that would add to anyone's knowledge of a subject. He's giving us his opinion, which....well, we all have opinions don't we? I've written for professional publications in the past, does that mean all I need to consider my blog or YouTube channel a reliable source is to hire my roommate as editor?

And it's always been about opinion, pal. In case you smarties who fancy yourselves "objective" haven't realized it yet, there's no purely rational justification for preventing anyone from being a "reliable source" on this website, the guidelines around self-publishing and the editorial setup are an arbitrary distinction that bears no relation to the quality and usefulness of a source. Again, what's to prevent me from considering myself as valid as him in that regard? An "editorial staff" of my friends?gentlecollapse6 (talk) 11:59, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Sure, it's always been about opinions, but at least I try to approach the subject in an objective manner. I enjoy his reviews, but I still don't think he's a "reliable source", because he's self-published. What I'm trying to fight here is that the current rule, at least when it's applied to Fantano's reviews, causes his reviews to be purged from the encyclopedia pretty much automatically, which I don't think is fair. Sometimes there are no reviews from major, established sources, but the album does have a Wikipedia article and Fantano has reviewed it. This does happen, considering that he also reviews lots of underground music.

Angelic 2 the Core is a prime example of this; until a few days ago, the §Reception section was limited to a reference to Sputnikmusic

, a user-based review site, and now the section is gone entirely. Sure, Fantano's reviews might have limited editorial oversight compared to established sources such as Pitchfork and Rolling Stone, but he still has an editor and reviews music professionally, so I don't see the problem with citing his review here. In most situations, a more reliable source with more editorial oversight is available, and Fantano should not be ref'd, but on an article such as Angelic 2 the Core, this rule pretty much serves to deny people relevant information.

And don't you think that "all I need to consider my blog or YouTube channel a reliable source is to hire my roommate as editor" is quite a gross underestimation of Fantano's situation? His YouTube career spans 7+ years and over a million subscribers (which does make him the most popular music reviewer on the platform), and SPIN called him "today's most successful music critic". Does that mean he should get a free pass for anything? No. He's self-published and thus a less trustworthy source. But I'd argue that it does make him more important than your average self-published source. —

?

14:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, Fantano might not do any "significant fact-based" reporting or interviews, but that some of the established sources do interviews on the side doesn't mean that their reviews are anything but an opinion either. Reviews are inherently opinionated, regardless of how much research you present along with them, and I don't see what makes any of the established sources' opinions superior to Fantano's. —

?

14:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

• Unreliable - per user Sergecross73's argument. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 18:58, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
• Reliable SPS are always reliable as sources for the opinions of their authors, while reviews wherever published are rarely reliable sources for facts. Similarly reviews published in mainstream media are always reliable as sources for the opinions of their authors, while rarely reliable sources for facts. Fantano is a well known and influential critic, he studied journalism and worked as a music critic at a radio station before building his youtube channel. SPIN published an article about him, "How Anthony Fantano, aka The Needle Drop, Became Today’s Most Successful Music Critic." So I would treat The Needle Drop as just as reliable as any other music criticism published in mainstream media. TFD (talk) 00:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: The main problem about Fantano is he use YouTube to post his reviews, which is a self-published website that should be avoided. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

No. A YouTube channel can have an entire editorial team behind it (with full transparency).

?

02:33, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

He's still a self-published critic, though, which inherently makes him less reliable. He has editorial oversight from one or two people, which is nothing compared to most established sources.

I do support using him sparingly, but I don't think he should be held to the same standard as any mainstream media outlet. He's still not the best option if other sources are available, professional or not. —

?

02:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any prohibition on youtube. The only issue is that videos posted by third parties can be doctored, but that is not an issue here. Also, we do allow self-published articles by experts on the assumption that their postings should be accurate. But as with any source, whether or not to use it depends on circumstances. TFD (talk) 03:44, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

If he is the only person reviewing an album or band would that not be an issue with notability, thus why would we need to use him as any material he could be used to support (as "sole noticer") would fail on so many other levels?Slatersteven (talk) 09:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

The same could be said of any reviewer. TFD (talk) 15:22, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. —

?

15:43, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

True, which is why we do not tend to use SPS, if it is published by a third party then more then just the one bloke has noticed it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

…what? —

?

15:43, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

It's simple enough, if something is worthy of note (or even notable) more then one SPS needs to have noticed it to establish this. The issue thus becomes one of weight (and, depending on context, notability), why is this persons views worthy of inclusion if he is the only person saying it. This (at it's heart) seems to be the real issue here, not RS but rather trying to enable him to be used as a source when no others exist. So I have to ask, what is he being uses as a source for?Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I assume we're still discussing Angelic 2 the Core, correct? In regards to that album, there seems to be quite a few sources that discuss Angelic 2 the Core's existence and creation, but there are few that discuss it from a critical standpoint. ThrillShow (talk) 19:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

So this is about using it for one album, one that no one seems to care about? This seems (as I said) a weight and notability and not an RS issue.Slatersteven (talk) 19:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that that's true. Like I said earlier, there are sources that address the album's existence and creation, but the sources don't discuss it from a critical standpoint. ThrillShow (talk) 20:06, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Forgiver me but how can an album have received in depth coverage (enough to establish notability) if it has not been reviewed (critically)? Also why do we even need critical analysis, we an an encyclopedia not a music newspaper? I am failing to understand the need here, what are we missing by excluding this material, the opinions on one SPS music reviewer. Why is his opinion even worthy of note by us if it has not been deemed worthy of note by RS?Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Are you asking why reviews are allowed on Wikipedia? That is a much broader question. Reviews give readers a deeper understanding of how a piece of media has be received, which is incredibly relevant information. Also, I think that there is enough evidence to show that Fantano's reviews are reliable under Wikipedia's current guidelines.. ThrillShow (talk) 18:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

No I am saying that it is not important, certainly no enough to warrant re-writing an RS classification to allow the use of one SPS when he is the only person reviewing it (how does that provide any kind of "deeper understanding of how a piece of media has be received", beyond "no one cared enough to review it"). All they do is provide us with one persons subjective opinion of the media, that can only be relevant when it is more then one person expressing an opinion, which is the exact opposite of the proposal here.Slatersteven (talk) 20:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

If there was another source that reviewed the album, then are you saying that including Fantano's criticism alongside it would be acceptable? In that situation, Fantano's review would no longer be the only point of view, which would make for a more neutral critical reception section. ThrillShow (talk) 21:05, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

No I am saying that a single SPS should not have it's criteria for being RS altered just because it is the only source. If anything that reinforces the notion it is not in fact saying anything worthy of note. I am saying this is not an RS issue, it is a notability and weight issue.Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I would say Fantano is pretty notable, isn't he? Sure, that doesn't make him reliable, but those things aren't mutually inclusive. —

Wait, hold on — were you talking about Fantano, the album, or both? I'm a bit confused by your comment tbh. —

?

15:26, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment – Agree with Dan56; use sparingly, and decide if he's relevant on a case-by-case basis. I also like what WOLF LΔMBERT said: He's still not the best option if other sources are available, professional or not. Ss112 10:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, this seems the most fair to me. —

?

15:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

• Never use. Reliable for its own opinion (but this would be undue); unreliable for statements of fact. The desire to use this source reeks of unencylopedic activities.
  talk
  ) 11:38, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Do elaborate. —

?

15:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Never use - This guy is clearly a media whore who cares more about his ratings than the quality of his reviews. In my opinion, a true music critic/professional would not have made a lame video to protest their ratings exclusion from Wikipedia. Having a fanbase does not make you a professional music critic! Robvanvee 07:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, historically, when people pull stunts like this, where they are clearly trying to force their presence onto Wikipedia (or incite that action from the fanbase), has not been been successful in reliability or notability discussions. I can't think of any success stories, honestly. Professional sources just don't do this sort of thing. (Make videos specifically for ranting about Wikipedia exclusion, making baseless claims about their own popularity, etc.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Who are you to decide what "true music critic" entails? And who says that he "cares more about his ratings than the quality of his reviews"? For fuck's sake.

If he really wants to have his reviews be cited in Wikipedia articles, this video was probably not the best way to go over this, but as he said in the video, he was responding to a question he gets from fans quite regularly (just search "Wikipedia" on the subreddit) on his second channel. This isn't a Needle Drop video, and it shouldn't be held to a professional standard. —

?

19:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

• Unreliable through his own website - SPS, if his opinion on music was notable it would be published elsewhere. If it is published elsewhere, then it may be used with the usual checks for opinion/criticism pieces. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:51, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
• Not for articles involving living people. It is against policy to use a self-published source who is talking about a living person. I have watched one of his reviews, and he does make comments about band members. His self-published material cannot be used in articles on living musicians. See
  The Needle Drop. And I think there is a credible claim that he can be regarded as an expert in music reviewing, so could be used on music articles which don't involve living people. But, no, cannot be used on articles involving living people until he is published by a reliable source with a reputation for fact checking. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time}
  17:16, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that's up for discussion. —

?

19:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

What exactly are you saying isn't up for discussion? Sergecross73 msg me 20:26, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Using his reviews in biographies of living musicians. (For the record, I'm the user you're replying to — I changed my username.) —mountainhead / ? 20:28, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

This stance would still be relevant to album reviews, as much of album reviews reference the musicians (living people) who create them. For example, I can't help but think that, his review about

WP:BLPSPS. I'd agree, especially due to his content's tendency for hyperbole and exaggeration. Sergecross73 msg me

23:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

The BLP policy applies to every page on Wikipedia, including this one, and including articles which are not biographies, but which mention living people. See the first sentence of

WP:BLP and the section Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Applicability_of_the_policy. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time}

06:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

• Use sparingly, but only for his opinions on an album – never as a source to support anything factual about music. That's the very most we can give him, although ideally I'd want to see more sources acknowledging his notability along the lines of the Spin piece. I've got to disagree with some of the comments made here about blogs/websites of [genuine] music journalists such as
  Mark Fisher. The individuals do have expert status and that makes their self-published writing reliable; I'd put Peter Doggett's blog and Graham Reid's website into the same category. I mean, someone like Stubbs has worked for just about every top UK print publication on music there's ever been (his page at Rock's Backpages merely scratches the surface). JG66 (talk
  ) 02:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the input JG66. I did a little reading, and I found several more articles positively acknowledging Fantano similarly to the Spin article. I'll link to them here: (1, 2, 3). ThrillShow (talk) 02:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I found his review of Trout Mask Replica both informative and entertaining, But I have no idea if it's reliable, dependable or notable. And no any idea how to determine that. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:09, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

That seems to be the big question. I think that Fantano's work can be considered reliable because he was a formerly published critic, and he currently employs editors. However, there are some instances where his reviews are more relevant to an article than others. If there's a massive surplus of reviews, then Fantano's review probably wouldn't take priority. If Fantano's review of an album is particularly pertinent to that album, then I think that mentioning that review is reasonable. ThrillShow (talk) 00:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• Source: White Huns
• Article:
  Hephthalite Empire
• Content: Used as a citation for these parts (bold texts):
  • There are several theories regarding the origins of the White Huns, with the Iranian[10][11][12] and Turkic[13][14]
  • For many years, however, scholars suggested that they were of Turkic stock.[14]

Is it reliable or could pass as an expert source for such claims? --

Hello, everyone. There is a discussion going on the talk page of Ehsan Sehgal regarding the reliability of the sources. Anyone interested could help us. Thanks, Greenbörg (talk) 12:07, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Daily Dharti

Numerous articles from this source have been used on the Ehsan Sehgal article, both to establish notability and to furnish biographical details (such as his army career etc). There've been multiple issues with other references on the page. One editor has stated they believe that the Daily Dharti does not constitute a reliable source as it's mainly an advertising paper. I'm looking for a second opinion on that. [Website is here]. Relevant footnotes in the article are 2, 4, 13, 15, & 17.

Thank you for any help.Landscape repton (talk) 13:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit: Apologies, I didn't see that the other editor had already made a request here. This is the same issue as that in the previous section, sorry for the duplication.

anyone can soon

i am not much familiar about wikipedia, i just want to sure about reliable sources, i am immediate family and i nominated article ehsan sehgal for removal because some people have hidden agenda to spoil article which twice was aproved notable, though, i nominated, i want to sure that the references are not reliable, because only that are not anymore online on newspapers website, but i have some links where can be seen the reality, can this helpful and these are reiliable? you can see the standard newspapers even dutch newspapers are being rejected because they are not online.

1 - https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/ssJsRE

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Moona Sehgal (talk • contribs) 08:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Earlier today I noticed that a quote from Gabriel during an interview with the AJN and sourced to the AJN had its source removed by User:Music314812813478 and a cn tag added.[31] I replaced it since it seemed sensible to use the interview itself as a source, and now a "better source needed" tag has been added and the quote changed from ""Every practising Muslim is a radical Muslim" to " "Every practising Muslim (Muslims who actually read and carry out what the Quran teaches) is a radical Muslim" (the material within the brackets isn't in the quote) with the edit summary " I clarified a statemebt to avoid possible confusion by the reader."[32]. None of this seems appropriate but as I'm also having problems with the editor on another article I don't want to revert at the moment. Doug Weller talk 17:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The AJN is definitely reliable for the transcription of the interview quote in the article. I removed the tag. However, the quote was inaccurate, so I added the accurate quote from the AJN RS. Dr. K. 18:09, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Trouting myself for not having adequately checked the quote. Doug Weller talk 18:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

You are very welcome Doug. Trout is annulled since you did the right thing and reported this to RSN. :) Dr. K. 18:34, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I have recently been given cause to reconsider the reliability of a source I have used: Great Adventure History. The site is a bit glitzy, and there is a phrase at the bottom that states "This is an unofficial Great Adventure fan site." However, this site is not a wiki. It does not accept input from internet users who stop by, but rather the operators of the website research the information presented and they solicit information and photographs from others for consideration. I believe this site is reliable, it's just not encyclopedic in itself.  — Myk Streja ^(when?) 17:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I left out the following information: the article using this source is Haunted Castle (Six Flags Great Adventure). The source was used through out the sections Operation and Construction and history. Sorry about the omission.  — Myk Streja ^(when?) 20:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Why not just use the official site?Slatersteven (talk) 18:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

The official site does not keep historical facts on attractions that are no longer being used and have been removed.  — Myk Streja ^(when?) 20:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Ahhh, so if it is noteworthy would it not be reprted e4lsenwere, rather then a fan site (which may not be all that accurate)?Slatersteven (talk) 07:53, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

And it is being reported elsewhere. Because others disparage a source does not make it unreliable. They call themselves fans, but they've been at it for ten years. Do you have a "hobby" that you think you can devote ten years to? I know I did: it's called a job.  — Myk Streja ^(when?) 08:11, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

No what makes it unreliable is not having editorial over sight (for example), thus it can include anything the author wishes. Just being in a hobby ten years ) I have been in at least two far longer then that) does not give you some special incite into (for example) manufacturing if the products (and I know people who are in the manufacturing side of it). What would make my views on my hobbies RS is people reporting what I say as authoritative. If the media do not care what this person thinks n why should we?Slatersteven (talk) 08:17, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Who says there's no oversight? There is obviously some sort of oversight, just look at the layout of the site. It's consistent throughout. I bet if you published a magazine about your hobby, you would get plenty of people to declare you an authority. Experience counts. If you however demonstrated yourself as a neophyte, you would be ignored. Think of the site as archeologists: they're digging up the past and preserving it.  — Myk Streja ^(when?) 17:22, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

It is not down to us to prove there is no over sight, it is down to you to prove there is some (and no being laid out consistently does not prove it, though grammatical and spelling errors can be seen as proof that there is no proper over sight). As to archaeology, there are a lot of amateur archaeologists out there, we do not use their work until an RS takes notice of it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

• Not reliable – As explained at
  WP:SPS, personal websites are self-published. If any of the material is worth reporting, it would have likely been published by independent reliable sources. Content that isn't reported elsewhere is cause for concern, as the potential lack of fact-checking is why most personal sites are largely rejected on Wikipedia. Anyone can build a website and claim to be an expert, or also claim to have thoroughly researched their content. Also, I question the overall presentation. There are a lot of grammar and punctuation mistakes, and generally poor phrasing in some areas. That really begs the question how many sets of eyes are really vetting the material. --GoneIn60 (talk
  ) 20:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment -Slatersteven: As you might guess, "Official Sites", usually being owned by the corporate entity which owns the theme park or attraction, are less than forthcoming about problems, injuries, lawsuits, disasters, and even things like attendance, income and bad reviews. We would never learn anything using the official sites, and anyway, they are unacceptable sources for most uses as they are self-published, first person accounts, most likely promotional in nature. Oddjob84 (talk) 15:30, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Wohhh, then I think we have an issue here. There is no way a SPS fan site should be RS for what would be litigious material. If it is not in RS why do we need it in an article? I think we really need to know what material you want to add.Slatersteven (talk) 18:34, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

We would never learn anything using the official sites, and anyway, they are unacceptable sources for most uses...

There are plenty of exceptions, so many in fact I'm not sure I would phrase this to mean "most uses". While press releases and other items tend to be promotional in nature, we often learn specific, factual details about new attractions including specifications, manufacturer info, themes, and opening dates. We may not repeat any

WP:ABOUTSELF. A first-person perspective on things is perfectly fine when the source is used in an article about itself. --GoneIn60 (talk

) 18:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Really? When was the last time you saw anything about ...problems, injuries, lawsuits, disasters, and even things like attendance, income and bad reviews.... on Disney or Universal's sites? I have personally caught errors in "official" park histories and timelines, whether willful or accidental I can't say, but there nonetheless. As to specifications and manufacturers, perhaps some of the small parks publish factual information, but the big guys don't at all, or deliberately distort it. I worked in this industry, personally know many companies and players, and actually saw many of these attractions designed and constructed. Marketing is always self-serving. And yes, I will stick with "most uses", see

WP:Rs#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Oddjob84 (talk

) 02:04, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Yet an amateur can get access to all this information?

Again, we cannot use an SPS for highly contentious material. If there are injuries or lawsuits we could go to more reliable RS who would report them.Slatersteven (talk) 07:58, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, in fact, you can get access to all this information. You just have to be skeptical and dig. You might also read the article in question. The editor is using the SPS to support the color of the paint and the existence of a spooky sound system. That is not "highly contentious material". The portion of the article dealing with the injuries and lawsuits is fully covered by references from the likes of the

New York Times and the NFPA, and is not the topic of the present discussion. Oddjob84 (talk

) 11:11, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

So why all the strawmewn about accidents and litigation then? I find the idea that they have s "spooky sound system" and odd thjing for the official site not to say, as to the paint, does the official site not have pictures?Slatersteven (talk) 11:22, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

It should be clear that I'm not saying one should expect to cite an entire article on a primary source. That obviously goes against policy outlined in

WP:ABOUTSELF. Material provided in reliable, secondary sources is always preferred over primary sources. My point was that there are situations when citing a primary source is valid, especially when it's in an article about itself. When the same information appears in a secondary source, cite that one as well (or in its place if the information there differs). Just wanted to clarify my position in case it wasn't clear before. --GoneIn60 (talk

) 11:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: The "strawmen" came about because a couple of editors jumped in with their opinions without understanding the nature of the discussion first. This discussion was never about the fire and litigation. As to official sites, I think you may have a fundamental misunderstanding of what they are. They are creatures of the Marketing and Public Relations departments. They are not about history, they are about selling tickets today and tomorrow. They quickly scrub yesterday's news. And aside from a "we are working with authorities to find the problem" they never acknowledge accidents and incidents. We generally have to depend upon "fan" sites at least as a starting point, to research anything which has closed and been replaced/removed. If you doubt me on this, I can give you a couple of very well regarded (famous, even) theme park shows to try to research. They might as well have dropped into a black hole. Oddjob84 (talk) 23:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

No we do not have to depend on fan sites, look at the pages already mentioned (how many fan sites are used on these?). What this boils down to is if a ride was famous it will have had RS report on its closure, if is was not then why should we mention the fact?Slatersteven (talk) 09:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment -Gonein60: -(First, a disclaimer: my remarks here apply specifically to pages on entertainment, in this case, themed entertainment.) Entertainment is seldom the subject of the scholarly or otherwise serious coverage which we would prefer to use. Worse, it is really ephemeral, dying out quickly in preferred sources, and often being the first material purged by the more serious publications. If not for the fan sites, many very worthy articles could not be researched at all. Yes, I absolutely agree that fan-like sites need to be carefully scrutinized and used very sparingly. I think the fact that all of the relevant Wikipedia policies I have read do make exceptions recognizes this. Sometimes the only available information is on a fan site. This faces the editor with making a judgement call, which is subject to peer review. Sometimes one can find several different fan sites which broadly agree. Sometimes a single site appears well curated. Sometimes the fan site agrees with patently obvious facts which are broadly agreed. My point here is that there is room for discussion, probably on a case-by-case basis. That is my input in this venue. I will take my comments on the specific article in question back to its talk page. Oddjob84 (talk) 15:29, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree. That's why we're having this discussion. I can see a fan site being permitted when it is referenced or cited by a

five pillars. We don't want to encourage fans to go creating their own personal websites in order to find a way to skirt policy here on Wikipedia, finding a backdoor way into getting their opinions and experiences through the door. There are plenty of other forums where this may be acceptable and even encouraged, but not here. --GoneIn60 (talk

) 19:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

The fact that this page didn't appear overnight just so I could use it should be in agreement with your statement. Its seniority should be considered as an argument in favor of reliability. Not as proof, just as a consideration.  — Myk Streja ^(when?) 17:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment The source being examined is not a fly-by-night website but is rather a labor of love. The editors there are doing the work because they have a great interest in the subject. They are currently celebrating their 10^th anniversary maintaining the site. how many sources can you name that are still good after ten years, and I don't mean archived pages. There's another site I have come across that is similar in purpose that is relied upon heavily: Roller Coaster DataBase. It does not proclaim itself to be a fan site, but then who is maintaining it? I know there is a large list of contributors, but that just means they kept track of who donated information or photos to the site. Is it any more reliable than, say, IMDb? They, just like the GAH site, ask for input from people who have visited the objects of the site. GAH is simply focused on Great Adventure. As the article the source is being used in is about Great Adventure, the source is rich in relevant data. The data is gathered from current and former employees, visitors to the park, documents issued by the park and newspaper articles, some of which are included in the site in their entirety. The site is a
  reliable source for the specific subject. I wouldn't try to write an article on military history based on this source, but then it wouldn't be relevant.  — Myk Streja ^(when?)
  20:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Valid question why is this other site RS?Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

RCDB.com has generally been considered reliable by consensus. There is a history of questioning its reliability, though I'm not sure it's ever been brought up here at the RSN. If you'd like to begin a discussion on that source, I recommend discussing at the WikiProject first to get feedback from other editors who may have been involved in discussions from years ago. Then if needed, we can bring it up in a new RSN thread. As for the source being discussed here, you defend it in such a way as I have to ask the question, are you directly affiliated with that site in any way? Are you one of the "maintainers" or have you ever contributed to it? You should provide that disclaimer now if the answer is yes to any of those questions. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I am not impugning RCDB here, rather, I'm holding it up as an example of how an "amateur" site can be considered reliable. I will not use emoji here, so I can only try to convey tone. Please don't get defensive, and you need to stop attacking me; I did not attack you. As for my affiliation with Great Adventure: my mother asked me to go get my brother and sister from the park the night of the fire. I was 22. I had no idea what was going on until the following day when I read about it in the Asbury Park Press. As I recall it, I was stoned that night. That's it. I think I'm allowed a passionate defense of something I believe in. I believe in this source. If I did not defend it, then why would anyone else believe it to be reliable. If I really were stupid enough to bring RCBD.com to RSN, you wouldn't defend it?

You mentioned a history of defending a source. This RSN is the start of that history. Well, actually, our discussions on the talk page started it... You know what I mean.  — Myk Streja ^(when?) 17:04, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I haven't attacked you. I just asked if you had any affiliation with the GA History site. I realize you feel passionately about it, and if that question offended you, I apologize. My understanding then is that you have no affiliation, but you care about the source. Fair enough. Thank you for clearing that up for me. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I don't see any way that this fan site fulfills Wikipedia policies on
  WP:RS: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Wikipedia:Third-party sources sources have "no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic," and "cover the topic from a disinterested perspective." And "A third-party source is reliable if it has standards of peer review and fact-checking." Notability is another common issue when sourcing entirely to a fansite. If the specific topics are notable, they will be covered in truly reliable sources. First Light (talk
  ) 02:55, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

So, any sources used by an article on

Model railroading that are based on references made in model railroad magazines should be discoounted? How would these "standards" be determined? Are you going to tell me that you are using the "I know it when I see it" argument? The source being questioned is not the only source, but it does go to the history of the article's subject.  — Myk Streja ^(when?)

17:40, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

As they would have been published by a third party source with an editorial team (and police available to see) possible not. Of courts "Berts big model railway fanzine" would most likely fail., publishing it on line does not stop it being a self published fanzine.Slatersteven (talk) 18:28, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

A reputable magazine (obviously with editorial oversight etc.) is a reliable source unless the article in question is, for example, a sponsored or paid review (aka an ad), then it would not be reliable for most purposes. That's was "no vested interest" means. Seems pretty straightforward. On the other hand, self-published sources that are not by established, published experts in a given field are not reliable. The standard is pretty clear. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

At what point does a magazine become reputable? That's the issue here, when does a source become reputable, and at what level? If it's good enough for certain applications, then it needs to be taken that way on a case-by-case basis.  — Myk Streja ^(when?) 22:19, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

A magazine becomes RS when it is demonstrated it has a reliable publication process and that it is recognised by its peers as an authority in it's field.Slatersteven (talk) 09:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• Not reliable per all of
  WP:RS. Any notable controversial or newsworthy information would be reported by real sources. You could use a fan site to find legitimate sources like news articles if it provides citations. Being a "labor of love" (???) does not make for a reliable source. Look at the sources for List of incidents at Walt Disney World. That is what we should expect for any such articles. "If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications." Has the creator of this site been published by reliable third parties in this field? —DIYeditor (talk
  ) 11:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment@First Light and DIYeditor: and other interested parties: The article under discussion can be divided into two parts; about a third is exposition to introduce the attraction and the following two thirds is about a fire, loss of life and subsequent legal actions. The larger section on the fire is fully sourced with 40 references from the likes of the New York Times, the NFPA, and the State of New Jersey. This section in not under discussion. The above discussion is about the expository section wherein the "fansite" is used to source things like the color of the paint and the existence of a sound system playing spooky music. I think we can trust them to provide that sort of information. Oddjob84 (talk) 11:38, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

• I can trust my brother to be a reliable source for certain things. That doesn't make him a reliable source by Wikipedia standards and for citing information on Wikipedia. This site is also clearly not a reliable source for information on Wikipedia, period. Read the relevant WP policies, which you are not addressing at all with your answer. First Light (talk) 11:42, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
• Not reliable for any purpose on Wikipedia. It is a self-published site which is not by persons who have, correct me if I'm wrong, been published by reliable third parties in this field. The exception to self-published sites does not apply. There is no clear situation of peer review, editorial oversight, or expert reputation in the field. —DIYeditor (talk) 11:44, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
• My "answer" above was not an answer, but an explanation of the point of discussion. I have, in fact, read all of the relevant WP policies, all of which make certain exceptions. My judgement is that this site does fall within the exceptions, for this article, particularly in that it supports only non-controversial statements about the attraction, none of which are otherwise available. Oddjob84 (talk) 20:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I have a hard time believing you have actually read

WP:SPS is part of a policy. Deviating from a policy would require consensus. —DIYeditor (talk

) 21:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

You may believe anything you like. I have read the relevant policies and guidelines and stated my opinion. I do not recall, at any time, agreeing with you that SPS applies at all. Oddjob84 (talk) 03:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you would like to quote the relevant section?Slatersteven (talk) 09:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Slatersteven: Your challenge to follow you WP:down-the-rulebook-rabbit-hole is simply a resort to obfuscation in lieu of honest discussion. Your post above is a personal attack which is both gratuitous and condescending. Oddjob84 (talk) 20:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

How is a request for you to post a quote so we can see what you are seeing what we cannot see a PA? You have said that you read policy to say X, we cannot see this and so it would be a good idea for you to actually post the policy section you think supports your claim.Slatersteven (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

A fan site is a type of personal website, and personal websites are covered in WP:SPS. I'm not sure why you believe it is exempted from this policy. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

GoneIn60: I find nothing in the policy which specifically makes all fan sites self published. I do not believe the site in question is self-published within the stated meaning of the term. Therefore, I do not agree WP:SPS applies. Perhaps we could, and should, get back to the actual discussion, which is on the use of, and appropriateness of, a single citation, used in a way that could not mislead a fourth grader. Oddjob84 (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

That's exactly the sort of site anyone can and did make. Who is the publisher if not the site creator? Who is the creator? Who are the editors? Where have they been published with editorial oversight or peer review that qualifies them as experts? Just because this is a fluff topic doesn't make the standards for something being "published" or by a "published expert" not apply. Do we even know the name(s) of the site curator(s)? If there are grammar and spelling errors as has been indicated why aren't there other errors? We are kind of going around in circles and you don't seem to want to offer any direct reference to policy to support your position. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

You have apparently missed a few useful facts. First, I am under no obligation to do your research for you. If you had bothered to actually access the citation, you would already know the answers to your questions. Secondly, I am under no obligation to educate you. If you want policy references, go look them up. I have, and am satisfied my opinion is adequately supported. Lastly, if you are tired of circles, try engaging me in a substantive discussion. Oddjob84 (talk) 00:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually you are under just those obligations. It is down to you to convince us with reasoned argument and evidence that this site meets the requirements for RS, it is us who have no need to do that. If people say they are not seeing what you see it is down to you to show why they are not seeing it. But I think it is clear there is no consensus (and pretty much a majority with the opposite view) that this site is not RS, and thus we can I think close this now.Slatersteven (talk) 09:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Among uninvolved editors here, mostly regulars who know RS policies, there is very strong consensus—perhaps unanimity—that this site does not meet WP standards for reliable sources. First Light (talk) 10:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Opps, I have altered the above to reflect what I meant (I created a double negative by mistake), a good example as to why spelling mistakes and poor grammar should be a warning sign that a site is not RS.Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

burden lies with the editor(s) wishing to retain material whose source is being challenged, not the other way around. I'm still baffled that you do not consider this fan site a personal website, and because the phrase "fan site" does not appear in WP:SPS, you are claiming it doesn't apply. If we can't agree on this much, then further discussion isn't likely to lead anywhere. --GoneIn60 (talk

) 12:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

GoneIn60 The others, and you as well, are incorrect. I quote from the policy: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". I neither added nor restored the citation under scrutiny; I am essentially an interested bystander, "uninvolved" you might say. So there really is not unanimity. The term fan site does not appear in policy, and is not defined. You yourself have allowed that not all fan sites are necessarily unusable. The point of discussion really comes down to the fact that I think this site is credible for this use, and you do not. That is a valid point of discussion, on which we may never agree. But the virtue of that discussion is that both of us have actually bothered to read the article and look up the reference. Oddjob84 (talk) 14:04, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

A closer reading of

Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references...

I simply did the courtesy of allowing the questionable material to remain, giving yourself and Myk_Streja time to either provide better references or to explain why you believe the source supporting that material is reliable. I was in no rush to remove it. Don't mistaken this courtesy for the fact that had I removed any of the material in question, one or both of you would have attempted to re-add it and defend the source as reliable. The burden ultimately lies on those who defend the source and the material in which it supports.

I'm not sure if you'll reach a similar understanding of the policies and guidelines, but I can assure you that these straight-forward interpretations have held up time after time. One thing that should be more obvious is the forming

Unless we are in Wonderland, the WP:Burden quote changes nothing. "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". I am not that editor, and am mystified how you have decided my dog is somehow in this fight. Unless you have three precogs in your bathtub, you have no idea what I would or would not have done. Further, I note you have used the word "interpretations". So the written policy is only a guideline? Subject to the whim of whomever can line up a claque? I am continuing to discuss this with you as you have heretofore demonstrated respect for the Fourth Pillar and some awareness of the Fifth.

As to the GAH site, I researched and supplied Myk three reliable references to replace it days ago. I am according him the courtesy of letting him make any edits.

I leave you with a Japanese proverb: Don't fix blame, fix the problem. Oddjob84 (talk) 17:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

That passage illustrates an example of when an editor may decide not to remove material that is being challenged, instead notifying whomever it may concern, giving them time to fix the situation (or defend it). That is precisely what led us here to the RSN. Notice was served! As for your precog comment, which elicited a grin I might add, I didn't need them. Your comment on the article's talk page exposed your intentions and placed your proverbial dog in the fight. So no, I wouldn't consider you an uninvolved editor. If you discount the three of us who debated on that talk page, then there are three uninvolved editors here, all of which have weighed in against the source. It's great to hear that better sources are being considered as replacements. If followed through on, this would become a moot discussion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Is this source:

• Breeds reported by United States of America: Horse. Domestic Animal Diversity Information System of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

reliable for a statement that the

Reliable for that particular statement? Yes. Is that statement a

'c.s.n.s.'

12:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

How so,

Ryk72? Would you care to expand a little? Justlettersandnumbers (talk

) 10:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Certainly. I suggest that the interpretation of something not being on a list to support a statement that it is not on that list is not

'c.s.n.s.'

00:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I would like to know if we can or can not accept assamtimes.org as a reliable source to support notability? As per their Join us page anybody can join them and share write ups and ideas which they will endorse according to their editorial policy but I can't find what their policies are. Thank you –

Some additional details on the editorial board at the About page. I would be inclined to consider the site as

'c.s.n.s.'

08:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your responce

talk|c|em

) 07:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• Inviting (
  talk|c|em
  ) 09:51, 15 July 2017 (UTC)