Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 232

@Slightlymad: I can't see any discussion on the talk page about this. Or a notice that you've asked the question here. At the top of the page it asks for "The exact statement(s) or other content in the article that the source is supporting." It's hard to answer a question about those two sources in a vacuum. You're wrong about Buzzfeed though, see this[3] recent discussion. It's got professional staff running it, but of course it depends upon what on Buzzfeed is being used to support what in the article. Doug Weller talk 10:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Apologies, it's my first time posting in this noticeboard.

^mad

10:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

If you look at the top, generally you need 3 things to get an effective answer. 1. The article, 2. The source, 3. The information the source is being used to reference in the article. Not all sources are RS all the time. Some may be RS on some occasions etc. Buzzfeed is one of those ones that needs to be judged in context because they do have an editorial staff and have been (in the last couple of years) doing genuine journalism work. They also print a load of clickbait fluff. So it needs context. Amazon itself is unlikely to be used as a reliable source for anything other than as a primary source on Amazon. Its pretty reliable for what it sells for example. Its about the context in which a source is used. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Buzzfeed is a source for journalist-style information, an editorial board, and a decent reputation for accuracy. Though it has been known for deleting material which criticize the companies which advertise on it, in particular Unilever, Hasbro, Microsoft, and Pepsi.

Amazon.com is a company's website about the products it has on sale. It is not a third-party source. It does not provide in-depth coverage on anything, does not have a reputation for accuracy, ans it is rather light on facts. I doubt that it is even close to a reliable source. In which articles is it used for sourcing? Dimadick (talk) 12:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I've seen it used as a source, and agree that it is not appropriate----except, and this is where it gets tricky, it sometimes republishes (with permission) the entire text of reviews in Booklist, Publishers Weekly and Kirkus. As a source for those reviews, I don't know. Coretheapple (talk) 17:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Amazon.com should be treated as a

I haven't found any discussion of Amazon as a republisher of RS reviews. I agree that it's verboten for user reviews or publisher-supplied "blurbs," but it does reflect the often-unfavorable reviews books get in these publications, and publishes them at full length. I've run into a situation where it is the only source of some such reviews. Yet, on the other hand, we don't want to link to advertising. Coretheapple (talk) 18:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I would not use amazon.com for reviews. I link the website on Wikipedia here only for release dates where I cant find them anywhere else. In some cases the official website for the said book will only link to amazon for the release info. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

If there's a useful review on Amazon we still need to find the original source and not use Amazon. Doug Weller talk 18:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Not always available, at least on the web. Kirkus is pretty good, the rest less so. Coretheapple (talk) 19:44, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi everyone. i wanna ask for this article, despite we don't know names of writers of this article, is this article reliable for Sarmatians studies ? can we use it for articles in wikipedia ? does president of Encyclopædia Britannica give permission to everybody (whom didn't passed academic course) to edit and change content of such this articles? --Rostam2 (talk) 13:13, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Generally considered RS, and I would assume for

WP:TERTIARY source.Icewhiz (talk

) 13:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the right noticeboard, but it's ref-related nonetheless. At Ken Norton and Muhammad Ali vs. Ken Norton, an editor has inserted content—sources, apparently—but none of it is formatted correctly, or at all for that matter. It's just bare text, and some of it even instructs the reader to use Google of all things: [4], [5]. It shouldn't be up to others to fix formatting for mass edits like that. Should I revert and point them to a guideline? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

yes.

prokaryotes (talk

) 19:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

The question arises on Itamar, an Israeli settlement on the occupied Palestinian West Bank. ARIJ states which Palestinian villages have had land confiscated from them, to be given to Itamar.

I added the info, link, but it was removed, with the edit line "A polemic think tank is not a RS." As people can see: The webpage I tried to add is funded by the Spanish Agency for International Development Cooperation.

Needless to say, this is straight in the middle of

Feedback from outsiders will be appreciated, thanks! Huldra (talk) 20:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Dunno about that but you can use human rights watch and attribute it as a Palestinian claim. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, that source says noting about where the Itamar land was taken from, AFAIK. The ARIJ have made studies of most of the Palestinian villages on the West Bank (There are one or two Governorates which are not yet finished), on each of them they give the amount of land which has been confiscated for which Israeli settlement, or other Israeli purposes (like checkpoints, military bases, settlement infrastructure, etc). So yeah, the answer here could potentially be important for a lot more articles than only the Itamar one, Huldra (talk) 21:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

There has been nothing advanced to show this small (they do list the entire staff on their site, including janitors) Bethlehem (despite the name, it is not in Jerusalem) org is anything but propaganda. They do not provide citations or even specifics (when, what, how, why) of their claims in this regard.Icewhiz (talk) 05:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Im not sure the size is relevant, after all, single scholars can be

WP:RS. That they do "not provide citation" is a rather strange objection to someone who thanks "Palestinian officials in the ministries, municipalities, joint services councils, village committees and councils, and the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS) for their assistance and cooperation with the project team members during the data collection process". Now, I can understand that some don't want to trust Palestinian statistics, but we have no more reason to distrust that, than we have to distrust Israeli statistics. Huldra (talk

) 21:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

An NGO with 37 employees, many with relevant university education, is not "small". Icewhiz' argument, basically "they didn't tell us how they know, therefore they don't know or are lying", is simply bad logic that would exclude a large fraction of all sources that we use. I think that all NGOs in the I-P domain should be attributed as a matter of principle, but no valid reason has been advanced to exclude it altogether. Zero^talk 03:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

They are reliable for their own words like any

WP:NEWSORG.--Shrike (talk

) 10:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

ARIJ is not a

WP:NEWSORG. "What's Good For the Goose Is Good For the Gander", etc. Huldra (talk

) 21:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

What is the

use by others? Not finding much on Google News. Coretheapple (talk

) 22:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, I get 365 hits for "Applied Research Institute" Jerusalem, including

ABC Online: [6], The New York Times: [7], The Christian Science Monitor: [8]. Also often used by Ma'an News Agency Huldra (talk

) 22:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Mainly Ma'an, which is the Palestinian official news agency. Sparse apart from that. Seems like a POV source, I think we can and should do better. Coretheapple (talk) 16:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Have you any indication that the statistics they have given have ever been wrong? Huldra (talk) 21:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

It's not our job as Wikipedia editors to investigate whether sources convey "the truth." We evaluate sources based upon the criteria set forth in the policy, and I just don't see this cutting the mustard. Giving the sensitivity of the subject matter I think we have to reach for the highest quality sources, and not use ones that appear to be pushing an agenda. Coretheapple (talk) 15:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

The problem is, though, is it possible to have a source which spells out who the Israeli settlers land used to belong to, without it being challenged as "pushing an agenda"? Sorry, but I cannot see that. This is a work funded by the Spanish Agency for International Development Cooperation, is it a partisan source? Again, I cannot see that. Huldra (talk) 21:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Huldra hit the nail on the head. Every source that has negative information about Israel is judged as pushing an agenda and therefore unusable. Every Palestinian source is subject to such attacks. Fortunately, NPOV requires us to use sources with multiple viewpoints. If Coretheapple can point us at a higher quality source that examines the same issues, we'll be happy to use it. Zero^talk 00:23, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Not a subject-matter expert by any means but I believe that better sources track settlement activity and would be usable. If this is the best we can do, I would omit. Coretheapple (talk) 12:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I think the issue can be handled by careful phrasing and attribution. Itamar, like all settlements in the West Bank, is illegal under international law. We don't need the ARIJ to tell us this part. We can attribute to ARIJ the claims by Palestinians that it took over land from nearby villages. Other sources which flesh out the details are this B'Tselem source, and this article (from 2003) might also be useful to describe the evolution of Itamar: according to the story, until the Second Intifada, Itamar existed alongside Palestinian villages, but didn't directly take over the land from Yanun. However, after the violence after 2000, the situation changed. It quotes some Palestinians as saying that armed settlers prevented them from harvesting olives. It also quotes a spokesperson for Itamar. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

This book also goes into a little bit of detail on Itamar. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:39, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: I might be missing something, but those 3 sources while mentioning various other issues (e.g. building permits issued retroactively) do not mention, per my possibly flawed reading, land confiscation in regards to Itamar and the adjacent villages.Icewhiz (talk) 06:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

The issue is there is academic consensus that king Narakasura's is of Mithila (region) (Videha)(India) origin. Paromita Das (2005) andis faculty in Gauhati University, India; has hardly written any academic works before. In her chapter "The Naraka Legends, Aryanisation and the "varnasramadharma in the Brahmaputra Valley" in 'Proceedings of the Indian History Congress' of 'Indian History Congress' she wrote that king Naraka is a local chief from Brahmaputra Valley region of India and not from Mithila. The relevant discussion is at Talk:Bhauma_dynasty#Naraka's origins.

My question is how wikipedia treats isolated studies by non-experts when it goes against long established scholarly consensus among mainstream academicians. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 18:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Recent contributors to this noticeboard such as

prokaryotes, Icewhiz, Darkness Shines and others consider commenting here, because this and similar issues involves multiple articles including current mentioned one, which will be helpful in near future also. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak

17:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• Recuse I am currently topic banned from articles related to India/Pakistan. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:57, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
• Responding due to ping - I usually do not go into this topic area - but I will leave you with a metacomment after briefly looking both at the source, your comment, and the artile talke page. I believe the question you are raising is no so much a question in whether the particular source is reliable (it seems it is a peer-reviewed journal... but bear in mind that reliable does not mean infallible - premier sources do make mistakes and may be biased) - but what to do when different sources offer different opinions, speculations, or facts (and as a general note - in ancient history or mythology - one typically has opinion, conjecture, and scholarly consensus - but not hard cold facts) - this is a
  WP:WEIGHT issue, and the way to tackle this is assemble sources of the counterview(s) - and assess the notability of this particular claim. If you have one researcher saying X, and everyone else saying Y - X might not bear mentioning and in any event the scope would be limited even if mentioned. If it is a 50-50 split - both should be mentioned equally, 80-20 - you still have to devote some space to the 20, etc.Icewhiz (talk
  ) 19:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@Darkness Shines Oh i see, no problem. @Icewhiz You have made some important points which is interesting. Thank you. Your comments are helpful. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 15:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

A new editor has been persistently editing James Craven (American actor) to insert and reinsert unsourced information that contradicts the article's only existing source, such as that he was born in Canada rather than Pennsylvania and that he died about 20 years later than claimed — and their only "source" for the changed information is "I knew him" (which isn't convincing if we can't prove that who the editor really knew isn't some other person who merely happened to have the same name). But conversely, the article's only existing source is his IMDb profile, which isn't considered a reliable source either because it can also contain errors.

I've protected the article for the time being, but since the vast majority of his roles listed in the IMDb profile seem to be either minor guest roles or entirely uncredited appearances as unnamed characters, it's not even clear that he would pass

Following on this now-archived thread...

This is about a specific use of the "wiki what" ref in the T.J. Miller article as follows:

Todd Joseph "T.J."^[1] Miller (born June 4, 1981) is an American actor, comedian, producer, and writer.^[2]

This is citation #1 in the article. It is putatively a source for the spelling of the initials without a space ("T.J." not "T. J."), but as the NYT ref shows - which is already provided and plenty enough reliable -- the name is spelled without a space. Similarly every other ref in the article spells it without a space - a fact also noted by BrillLyle here. So this brings no value and is just refspam, and we should not cite it here.

Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 05:21, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Since there is no dispute about how the initials in the name are stylized, I see no benefit to adding a comedy show as another reference. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

What Cullen said. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:26, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• I think this specific instance is resolved, based on the above and this and perhaps this.

More generally, User:Kingsindian kindly offered to tee up a neutral RfC on "whether the many Esquire sources come under REFSPAM".

My sense of the RSN outcome was: a) telling me not to have a cow over this; b) the ref is a primary source, and ~might~ have utility as such, but secondary sources are as always preferred for WEIGHT and everything else; and c) it depends on the specific use. (I was kinda disappointed that more people were not as disgusted by this manipulation as I am... but I also can hear it that other people are not and that folks have been at least a bit put off by my intensity.)

This instance was in my view a clear instance of REFSPAM that added no value, which is why I removed it and felt pretty confident that most folks would agree with that. I've reviewed the other instances and had decided to let them be for now.

So ... I don't know that an RfC is necessary to prevent future drama and don't want to waste people's time. That said, i would be delighted with an outcome that said "yes this is refspam" and if folks feel like an RfC would be useful or interesting I certainly wouldn't oppose it and am willing to risk it. OK that was a lot of words. Jytdog (talk) 06:45, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Like you said, seems resolved for now, we'll see what happens with the next episode or whatever. As I read it , you´re not the only "intense" one on the WikiWhat related editing. This "thing" has gone a little global BTW: [9]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:23, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for replying - yes I shouldn't have made it like i am the only one troubled by this. Do you think an RfC would be useful and not a waste of time? Jytdog (talk) 18:09, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

we'll see what happens with the next episode or whatever Is this going to be a weekly issues or whatever time period the show is. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:36, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

It could happen, good point (that makes me a little pro-RFC). AFAICT, every episode so far has led to edits of the articles in question.[10] One response I read somewhere was something like "Treat it (WikiWhat) like we would any primary source/interview with subject in a BLP". That means, IMO, "not very useful in general, but if they provide a nice(r) picture, why not?" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:26, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

BTW Jytdog, do "they" still do during-the-show edits? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

This "Wiki What" appears to be a glorified conduit for the subject and should be treated as such. It should only be used as a source if there is no alternative. I'd suggest not making a fuss, lest this organized, commercial trolling be fed in a big way. Coretheapple (talk) 20:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• the trade rag article about the series says two things. ..."the weekly, five-episode show features an array of celebrity guests" but also says "by releasing these episodic series on Facebook Watch, Hearst is hoping to turn them into brands of their own." They have done five now --
  John Bradley West/Samwell Tarly, Lawrence Gilliard Jr., and Adam Conover. So maybe it is done. Maybe not. Jytdog (talk
  ) 03:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Maybe not, Jytdog: [11]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

thanks for catching that. just some ick. Jytdog (talk) 19:09, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Is the Washington Times RS for the following, the article in question is Patriot Prayer

Valerie Richardson writing in the

Given I have attributed it to both the article author as well as the newspaper I'm not seeing an issue with it, thoughts please Darkness Shines (talk) 22:32, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Can you please provide a link to the Washington Times article that you are citing? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:08, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Sure Darkness Shines (talk) 23:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

My initial thoughts are that it's

WP:RSN regulars think. A Quest For Knowledge (talk

) 23:55, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't split hairs. It is a reliable source; however, cite it in a neutral way. SwordOfRobinHood (talk) 12:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses, I'm curious as to how you would change it so it is more NPOV, thanks. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:06, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment If you google "Washington Times climate change", you can see that the WT regularly publishes fringe theories on that subject at least.
  prokaryotes (talk
  ) 13:28, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
• I'm going to ask a different question: What is it you are trying to use it as a source *for*? To indicate Patriot Prayer isn't racist? Or to indicate that Gibson has stated he rejects Racism? Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:09, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• I'm using it for the text above, that critics say nasties are drawn to the rallies, but Gibson responds with his words to these allegations, saying they ain't welcome and are asked to leave when identified Darkness Shines (talk) 14:13, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• Ah my bad, I didn't realize you meant that paragraph as a direct quote of what you intended to include. No I don't have any issue with it. You have covered that undesirables are going to the rallies and also the organizer's response. Seems neutral enough to me. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Just to be clear: the proposed paragraph is meant to be the opening paragraph in this section. While I agree there isn't necessarily anything wrong with the paragraph as representative of Gibson's response to criticism (and the paragraph adequately cites the response as Gibson's own words), a few editors (including myself) have objected to DS's proposal to open the section with it as there are many, reliable secondary sources that comment on what Patriot Prayer is. Publishing Gibson's response to the portrayal of the group without first giving an accurate portrayal of the group seems both nonsensical and undue. The discussion is ongoing at the talk page where I would invite DS to address the point, as I don't think RSN is the appropriate place for it, nor should consensus here that the sourcing isn't problematic lead DS to believe that his suggested placement within the overview is supported by it. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 14:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Well DS has moved it to the end, so that satisfies the placement argument. Unless there is an actual argument as to the reliability of the content, I don't see there is anything further to really discuss. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I think there are now three sections on the TP covering the overview section. DS pointed out that his latest revision actually moved the paragraph to the end, but I see another editor reverted that with some other contentious edits. It seems like there might be one more editor who questions the reliability, but with the correct placement I believe his concerns will be in the minority. We'll point him here to post a counterargument if he feels strongly enough. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 15:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment There is a major issue with giving so much weight to Joey Gibson's words as the actions of the group do not match those words. Since the hate crime violence from someone drawn to a Patriot Prayer rally, Gibson began to speak against neo-Nazis and white nationalists; but then the group constantly has Proud Boys in their numbers and gives a platform speeches by the likes of Tim Gionet, aka “Baked Alaska”, Jake Von Ott, Jeffery Hughes, Kyle Chapman. Kyle Chapman gave his "war on whites" speech on Sept. 26th[12] so it seems this disconnect between Joey's words and the actions of the group is longstanding and consistant.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Recent discussions are here and here. Doug Weller talk 15:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

While no doubt the WT meets the low standards of rs, it is a poor newspaper and should be avoided. I can't see anyone researching any current events using it. I think though that weight comes into play. If the WT is the only reliable source reporting something, then it is insignificant. If major media are reporting it too, them use them as better sources. TFD (talk) 01:24, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

^^ This. WT uses the fonts and style of a reliable source, but the content is frequently quite poor and it's best avoided in most cases (at least in my experience, having come across it many times, my impression is that, among the sources with an obvious ideological filter, it's a little step up from Breitbart and AddictingInfo, and a big step down from, say, National Review or Salon). Best avoided in most cases. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:38, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Is Daily Kos a reliable source please? I'd like to add some content about Wharton professor William T. Kelley, but I can't find a better source than this so far. So if it's not reliable, it could be "fake news"!Zigzig20s (talk) 06:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Not being a reliable source is NOT the same as being "fake news", not even close, since "fake news" means things that the creator recognizes as being -- or at least is completely indifferent to whether it is -- untrue. Daily Kos is, essentially, a partisan political blogging platform, so not reliable for statements of fact: what they say may be true or it least the writer believes to be true, but we can't rely upon that. Statements there can be primary sources: reliable for expressing the opinion of the writer his/herownself.

In this case, no, it's not usable since it's secondhand information reported from a single source -- the writer -- allegedly coming from someone who is no longer able to confirm or rebut it, disseminated from an unreliable source. I'm not sure it would be reliable even if had been printed on the front page of the New York Times. --Calton | Talk 08:20, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Main page content at Daily Kos is often partisan, but has at least some amount of editorial control. User diaries (such as the OP's link) on Daily Kos are entirely unreviewed and are not reliable sources. The links in the article may be to reliable sources, though.

π, ν

) 15:13, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

To settle a difference of opinion on blue, some opining is requested. SiefkinDR (talk · contribs) is insisting that we need to provide a citation for blue being the colour of the sky, and referencing it with a dictionary. I am insisting otherwise. I also have a problem with the phrase"[blue] the colour of the clear sky" as it isn't at sunset or sunrise or night for that matter. Using a dictionary to cite this I am not thrilled about. The colour pages are deathly quiet so more opinions would be good. We have similar issues at white and red.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Well given that the sky being blue, and the reasons for that in the second para, mentioning it twice is pointless so I reverted that addition. But this proves that people will argue over anything 😅 Darkness Shines (talk) 11:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Useful source - Shyamal (talk) 11:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• Smith, Glenn S. (2005). "Human color vision and the unsaturated blue color of the daytime sky" (PDF). Am. J. Phys. 73 (7): 590–597.
  doi:10.1119/1.1858479
  .

Thanks - that is interesting! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

A dictionary is a terrible source for that fact. I see no reason to cite this in the lede; the implicit citation through the hyperlink to

And yellow

This is a problem on some other colour pages - e.g. yellow, the same user has prominently "[yellow] is the color of ripe lemons and many egg yolks" cited to the OED...which I am concerned is too general and is possibly incorrect (some eggyolks are more orange..as are some ripe lemons I've seen too...and I have no idea about eggyolks of other animals other than chickens). Hence my preferred is "Many fruit are yellow when ripe, such as lemons and bananas, their color derived from carotenoid pigments. Egg yolks gain their color from xanthophylls, also a type of carotenoid pigment" which doesn't go so far as to assume all eggyolks are yellowbut does discuss them. Anyhoo...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

And red

The OED apparently says red is the colour of rubies, blood and strawberries, but I am not happy with the inaccuracy as venous blood can be more purple blue..crustacean blood is blue, many rubies are more pink than red and strawberries have little tan seeds all over them and white bits too. Again, my response is talk about pigments etc. in para 3 of lead...what do others think? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

As far as this thread is concerned, I can see a source supporting one version and your preference (supported by your original research) for another. I'm sure you can see where this rationale is leading. Try bringing alternative sources to the discussions on the talk pages of the associated articles and your proposals to modify the article contents will likely be expidited. Edaham (talk) 03:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I am a mite suspicious that the publisher of this article may be an unreliable publisher, considering that it was considered a potential predatory publisher. On the other hand this particular item is also on ResearchGate. Some additional uses exist (one of which states that the group may be self-publishing). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:26, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

See remarks here. Also note that appearance on ResearchGate carries no implication of reliability -- registered members can upload pretty much anything they want. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:18, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Aye - I did realize that ResearchGate is essentially self published shortly after hitting "send" - doesn't seem like a RS then. Perhaps other uses of Intechopen merit cleanup too, don't they?

talk

) 11:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I've been using this website quite a bit for the Bakyt Torobayev page. It's a news agregator -- so it collects and reposts newspaper reports online from various sources in Central Asian countries. What do folks think about the reliability of such website? It is hard to examine the reliability of the content behind what has been posted. Per this, I also just found out that it translates Kyrgyz articles into Russian for the sake of accessibility. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 09:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I think this can vary, when they post something from a reliable source, that's probably fine (although sourcing to the original source would be preferable), but the problem with aggregators is that they may occasionally, or more often, source their material from dodgier places. The aggregator in itself is probably not reliable for much, but they may carry content that, in its origin, is reliable for various subjects. Do you have a specific issue in mind? --Dailycare (talk) 16:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@Dailycare: Thanks for your response -- no, not really, other than the reliability of the sources it translates. As the material is translated, that content must be looked at more deeply than some bog-standard agregator. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 09:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Here I have found the list of sources that it translates from. Most are not accessible online, as most are translations from Kyrgyz paper newspapers. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 09:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the article for Leatherface (2017 film), we have two sources stating that the film will receive a home video release internationally in December 2017. However, these are international news sites and I have no idea if they are reliable. One is called DVD-Forum.at (which claims to be a magazine and not a literal forum), while the other is Blairwitch.de. Help? DarkKnight2149 21:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I m not sure about those two sources, but this one by FILM.TV seems like it could be worth a look. The about page translated via Google Translate suggests they have an editorial team. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I ran into this at Bamboo network, where The Global Bell Curve by Richard Lynn and published by Washington Summit Publishers, which is run byh Richard B. Spencerand specializes in white nationalist and far-right books is used 10 times to back statements on "economic clout" and history. I raised this with the editor who added it, Backendgaming (talk · contribs) who replied "I've read and have a PDF version of the book and it certainly contains an enormous amount of reliable sociological data that is consistent and congruent with the economic success of the Overseas Chinese in Southeast Asia with regards to the Bamboo network article. I have not seen any element of white nationalism as the book presents rational arguments based on logical data presented in an easily readable form that's hard to refute, though I see that the data extrapolated from the samples were rather sloppy without considering social and political implementations. The author Richard Lynnand the publisher Washington Summit Publishers seems controversial but it seems to act as a litmus test to the open-mindedness of advocates of political correctness as well as liberals who want to provocatively shut down any attempt to discredit any sort of compelling evidence that backs up a cogent argument by using terms such as white nationalism against observation-based logic that runs completely counter to the egalitarian narratives of liberal orthodoxy of the politically correct."

He's also used the source at

What is

Bamboo Network? It is a redlink for me. Regarding the actual source I think it can be used without caution in regards to claims that are not relevant to white nationalism. If claims are about white nationalism then you would need to analyse whether it was primary or second sourcing. Emir of Wikipedia (talk

) 10:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Fixed the red link. He's a psychologist with no qualifications in history or economics. Why would we use someone with no qualifications? Doug Weller talk 10:49, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Richard Lynn is a controversial (this does not mean necessarily 'wrong') psychologist (not a historian) who has scientifically researched and published views on IQ as related to race, nationality, sex etc. He has advocated for social responses like anti-immigration and eugenics to prevent IQ degeneration in a society. The premise behind the comedy film Idiocracy (stupid people breed more and will outnumber us)? That's this guy's brainchild. He is the legitimate science face used by white supremacists (note I am not saying he is a white supremacist) to justify their racism. Which is why Spencer will publish his work. Because his work is very controversial, it has been thoroughly dissected, criticized, peer reviewed etc. Later research has both found contradictory, statistical flaws but also confirmed some aspects (if not the causes). Due to the above, he should by no means be used as the primary or sole source on something. And I would suggest anyone who does so take a long hard look at the R&I arbcom cases. With regards to history, he is not a historian and is not an expert in that area - however he of course has published regarding historical intelligence, societal factors, economic etc - which are relevant to his work. Essentially he shouldn't be used on any topic outside the race & intelligence area, and within that his work has to be very carefully vetted. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:56, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Lynn is quite notable (and probably blackballed by most publishers, which may affect the publisher choice here). My 2 cents are that this should be used only attributed to Lynn, and that Lynn who is a psychologist, should not be usually used for history which he may quote accurately - yet selectively (to support his underlying thesis on intelligence), and without in-depth knowledge of the subject. He's not writing on history - he's writing on alleged intelligence variations and using historical anecdotes to support these variations.Icewhiz (talk) 10:58, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I think we should use this as we would any partisan or heavily disputed source. That is, attribute it as the author's claims where the author's views would be notable rather than stating them as fact, and prefer better and less disputed sources for questions of fact. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:05, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Wow. Nothing published by Washington Summit should be considered a RS for facts. Maybe as a source for the authors (attributed) opinion but most of what they publish is FRINGE anyway, which means that including such views is going to be UNDUE (as I would argue it is in this case) unless it's for an article about white nationalism or other racist ideologies & views. This should go without saying tbh - the idea that this press has anything remotely resembling the editorial oversight and control we expect RS to have is laughable. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Who the publisher is does impact reliability. I agree that the work should be considered generally unreliable. I also agree that we would make an exception when directly discussing Lynn's opinions (and that, in such an exception, in text attribution is required). UNDUE is definitely a factor in presenting opinions, so the exception would be very limited. Blueboar (talk) 14:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• If the publisher showed all the signs of editorial control, etc. we'd expect from any RSes, and wasn't the type of open and/or predatory publisher as there is in some science areas, does it matter what the viewpoint/stance of the publisher is to the work itself? (I don't know if this is true for this specific case, just generalizing). There are plenty of publishers out there that have their POV on certain topics clearly visible, but we don't rule those out the books they publish due to that view. I would agree that the more "extreme" the view, the more likely the RS of the publisher falls apart as they are less likely to exhibit editorial control. Obviously, the largest weight on the question should start with the author first, and in this case, it's clear their position is what makes the work unreliable for fact, and not so much the publisher. --MASEM (t) 14:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

"does it matter what the viewpoint/stance of the publisher is to the work itself?" - Yes.

WP:FRINGE. Volunteer Marek 

14:31, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

There are plenty of publishers out there that have their POV on certain topics clearly visible, but we don't rule those out the books they publish due to that view. Those publishers don't openly espouse (and exist to spread) racial hatred. Sorry but that's a major false equivalence and a lousy argument. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:23, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

WP is amoral (eg we can't be prejudgemental because someone has a belief that is usually seen as immoral). As long as the publisher meets all other expected requirements for being an RS and has demonstrated their follow-through on that - in other words, looking at what they do, verses what they say - then we should consider the publisher acceptable (you can still beg the question about the author). I do think that it is reasonable that the more extreme viewpoint a publisher has, the less likely they are going to have the quality of editorial control we expect, but we can't presume that. --MASEM (t) 15:38, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

There are publishers that promote religion. A publisher espousing racism shouldn't be dismissed out of hand - the question should be the quality of editorial oversight at the publisher, the publisher's reputation, etc. (all of which might be affected by the publisher adopting a marginal position in current society - though in past and future eras this may be different). In this case is irrelevant as on the author level we have a psychologists providing historical anecdotes to support his non-History related claims).Icewhiz (talk) 15:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Question Has the content of the book, in whole or in part, been discredited by qualified experts? If yes, then I think it should not be considered RS. However if the basis for rejecting it is exclusively that we don't care for the publisher (understandably so) then I think we need to proceed with great caution here. This could end up touching on WP:NOTCENSORED. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I would expect most comments to be on his ideas about the bell curve, ie the area where he has qualifications. These would mainly be other psychologists also without qualifications in history. Why would we consider a psychologist a reliable source for history or economics? Doug Weller talk 19:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
    • That's a fair question. My response is do we permit the citing of other works by authors who lack an academic background in the subject they are writing about? -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
      • I can think of three reasons that alone might give us pause in accepting this but collectively probably tip the scale. First is the publisher which is a known purveyor of fringe material. Secondly is the issue raised above regarding the lack of credentials. Lastly in the absence of some kind of serious review by one or more qualified experts that says this is not a bunch of bovine waste matter, combined with the other two issues, my instinct says we should not accept this as a reliable source. If reviews from credible sources are produced, I would be willing to reconsider my oppose. But for now I think we are being asked to extend a bit too much faith and credit. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:58, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
• Seriously? A book published by a Neonazi publishing house is considered as a reliable source by anybody here? Does it have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", our primary criterion?
  WP:NPOV is not a suicide pact! --Stephan Schulz (talk
  ) 20:10, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude -- the publisher is decidedly
  WP:WEIGHT issues with citing a psychologist for the topics of economic history. K.e.coffman (talk
  ) 00:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
• Reality check: we don't use white-supremacist tracts as reliable sources when writing a serious, reputable encyclopedia, unless they are explicitly being used to show what white supremacists believe. People suggesting otherwise really need to re-examine their understanding of this project. Secondary reality check: we don't cite psychologists as authorities on history, for the same reason that we don't cite dentists as authorities on aerospace engineering. If neither of those issues is enough, then at a minimum this material is
  fringey and does not deserve serious mention here unless specifically presented as a fringe viewpoint. MastCell ^Talk
  01:11, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Completely agree, in fact the whole question seems rhetorical to me as the answer should be a rather obvious no.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

MastCell is largely correct. This source should not be used in a serious encyclopedia, or any other serious project (unless per MastCell's exception). The publisher's reputability is an important marker of the source's quality. No ifs or buts should be given here. That said, I have read works of history by psychologists and sociologists that are good. Lynn being a psychologist is not what should mark him out. Lynn being a proponent of fringe, racist ideologies is what should rule him out in a heartbeat. Regards.--

🕊

03:10, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• No A book by Richard Lynn is not a reliable source for text such as "Overseas Chinese economic clout in Southeast Asia can be dated as far back as the beginning of the seventeenth century and by 1700, they became the unrivaled preeminent commercial minority everywhere in Southeast Asia." That assertion would need support from a source known to be reliable for "Chinese economic clout" and the seventeenth century. An example where Lynn is used as a source is Race and intelligence#Global variation of IQ scores but even that comes with claims of "unsystematic methodology". Johnuniq (talk) 04:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the publisher, which seems to be active for about 11 years and does not seem to have much of a reputation. I am much more familiar with Richard Lynn, primarily known for his support of eugenics and as a modern representative of scientific racism. Lynn has an axe to grind, and several of his studies so far are considered to have been based on flawed or fabricated data. Lynn thinks that he can determine the "national IQ" of every country on the planet by using samples of what the population scored in an IQ test. But his samples are statistically small, they are not representative of the general population, and the persons sampled may be too young to perform well in the test. His estimate on the national IQ of Egypt, for example, was based on a sample of 129 students, all aged between 6 and 12-years-old. See: https://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v92/n4/full/6800418a.html

He has also published estimates on both the IQ and the GDP of various countries in the year 1820, a century prior to the creation of of the IQ test. It is rather unclear on what he based his estimates on. Among the problems with his estimates, is that Lynn does not take into account the social background of the people tested and its effects on their education. As pointed by K. Richardson, students originating from the middle class often have better educational opportunities than their peers. But Lynn ignores that. After pointing other flaws in Lynn's data and conclusions, Richardson concludes that Lynn's thesis "is not so much science, then, as a social crusade." Dimadick (talk) 10:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Text and sources: According to the

Text is used in 2017 Brussels attack article, here

The immediate disagreement is on the 2017 Brussels attack article.

Islamic State has claimed responsibility for this attack via one of its standard channels Amaq News Agency, (that ISIS has claimed the attack is not disputed).

The dispute is mainly whether the three sources above support the proposition that Amaq/ISIS "is usually accurate when it claims attacks". I contend that even if attributed to NYT and the Independent and the expert named in the third source, the sources support several conclusions, including that ISIS' "track record .... suggests a more rigorous protocol" (than the "widespread view" that it "opportunistically claims attacks"), that the (unspecified) "gist" of their claims is "typically correct", that "no investigations have so far disproved Isis’ claims" and that ISIS "always scrupulously analyzes assaults and attacks before taking credit". However, IMO it is a gross over-simplification to render this as ISIS is "usually accurate".

The same sources have been used in several other terrorist-related discussions and I am keen to establish WHAT these sources support, since this affects numerous other terrorist-related articles and the credibility of ISIS claims across a broad, and very contentious, subject area.

There is a seperate issue of whether it is appropriate to discuss ISIS credibility in THIS article, (as opposed to somewhere in the Amaq/ISIS pages) previous discussion on talk is here. Thankyou Pincrete (talk) 17:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC) Please ping if any response is needed from me.

• Seems a bit like a troublesome conflation. The issue is not whether or not they get the details right: journalists and criminology professors can compare these details only to details that have been communicated about the incident, the same details which Amaq/ISIS can "analyse scrupulously" before vindicating the crime (and even then they appear credulous towards some fake news circulated together with the true details). So the reasoning is largely circular. The issue is whether or not their central claim, i.e. whether or not the organisation is responsible for the crime, can be believed. Getting all the details wrong, but saying something which only they could know, would be more convincing regarding their credibility on the central issue. Anyhow, as long as there is "a handful of" cases where they got the details wrong, they can not be admitted as a
  WP:RS
  (if that was the question): they don't publish rectifications following a reader's complaint afaik.

As for the sentence with three references currently in the 2017 Brussels attack article: seems too conflated from pieces of different origin and weight to be viable as is (i.e. seems rather a case of

WP:SYNTH), as it confuses "reliability on the details" with "reliability on the central claim of having committed the crime". For starters, I'd throw out the sources that don't say anything directly about the 2017 Brussels attack: so if the ULG professor doesn't say directly that according to his analysis ISIS might be correct in vindicating that crime, the Le Soir source can't be used in this article. I suppose the two other sources can be dismissed out of hand as not relating directly to this attack in Brussels. That would also impede a sentence being constructed out of different quite unrelated scraps of information, and thus prevent the SYNTH/OR situation. --Francis Schonken (talk

) 18:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

To clarify, The dispute is mainly whether the three sources support the proposition that Amaq/ISIS "is usually accurate when it claims attacks". I acknowledge that there is a secondary issue of 'implied synth' by juxtaposing the specific claim made by ISIS this time about this attack, and the general proposition of ISIS's ordinary level of accuracy. Pincrete (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

The answer to the question whether the three sources support the proposition that Amaq/ISIS "is usually accurate when it claims attacks" should be "no":

• When Amaq/ISIS claims an attack it is usually fairly accurate on the "details" in their claim (apart from some obvious bloopers).
• Nothing can be said about whether or not their actual claim (i.e., Amaq/ISIS having committed the attack) is anything near to accurate, unless corroborated elsewhere (sometimes it is, e.g. assailant–ISIS communications about the impending attack recovered from the assailants laptop etc., and for other attacks it can't because Amaq/ISIS only gives details available to anyone at the time when they sent out their claim report and no other corroborating evidence is available).

Taken together, no, the sentence with the three references given above can not be used in that article, nor in any other: it is a mish-mash that mixes two things: Amaq/ISIS usually being by and large accurate/correct on "details" in their claim reports and on the other hand that this would mean that Amaq/ISIS would have been "correct" when they say they claim the attack. The "details in the attack claim" and the "claim of having committed the attack" are two different things: the word "claim" is used in two different senses, i.e. "making claims that contain a lot of correct details and thus making a lot of correct claims" vs. "claiming an attack". Some of the reporting plays on that ambiguity (always compare the headline with the content of the report...), and Wikipedia should rather defuse such ambiguities instead of furthering them by clobbering a sentence together that is

WP:SYNTH. --Francis Schonken (talk

) 21:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Although the challenged sentence is no longer what the original editor added to the article, plus the additional academic source is also subsequent to his contribution, I think it is only fair to ping him @User:E.M.Gregory. Cheers to all, XavierItzm (talk) 08:34, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

The dispute is not about the original text, which is an even grosser distortion of sources IMO, since none of the sources mention "affiliation". I have no objection to E.M,G being pinged, but the main purpose of this noticeboard is to get 'fresh eyes', not to extend the talk page. Pincrete (talk) 09:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Indeed, my wording "According to the
  New York Times and The Independent, Amaq is usually accurate when it claims affiliation with an individual who has carried out an attack." is materially different from the text now used in the article, and was more accurate. Pincrete's wording is something of a straw man. The straw man nature of Pincrete's query is invisible to Francis Schonken because Pincrete has omitted the money quotes from the New York Times article, which I first used in 2016 Malmö Muslim community centre arson, an article I was prompted to write by the remarkable New York Times article that Pincrete cites highly selectively above. What the June 2017 Times article revealed was that German prosecutors had just made an arrest that upset the conventional analysis of Amaq attributions of ISIS responsibility, discovering that Amaq News Agency was not merely frequently reporting attacks with remarkable speed and a puzzling familiarity with details not released by police or by the press, rather, it revealed that the Amaq agent just arrested was in contact with the perps before they made the attacks, and, in at least some cases, instigating attacks. The Telegraph was reporting on the same material from the German prosecutors. Here are two breakout quotes along with a bit of the text from 2016 Malmö Muslim community centre arson
  for context:
  

(note: added refs to the

VRT news website to support the chronology outline below – sorry for it all being in Dutch (VRT, unless indicated otherwise) and French (language, except for the Le Soir, RTBF) but these are the two main languages in Belgium – Brussels being the capital of Belgium message, ref #3 above, which I inserted here at its chronological place. --Francis Schonken (talk

) 07:59, 30 September 2017 (UTC), updated 11:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC))

• First there was the attack, with some immediate speculation in the press on whether or not it was ISIS-related (25 August 21:01–23:23; RTBF 25–26 August; RTBF 25 August 21:53; RTBF 26 August 2017 07:39; 26 August 08:14; 26 August 09:52–12:20; RTBF 26–27 August; RTBF 26 August 10:15; 26 August 11:22; 26 August 16:35; 26 August 17:33)
• Then ISIS claimed the attack, with the press (and some politicians if I remember correctly) generally reacting "why would we believe those guys?" (26 August 22:15; RTBF 27 August 11:57)
• Then there was the ULG professor (and some similar experts in the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium where I live) countering that scepticism by saying that the ISIS claim should not be rejected out of hand, while circumstantial evidence was up to that point still aligning with it being possibly true, and for being part of their warfare MO (Le Soir 27 August 17:32; RTBF 28 August 13:25)
• In general the assailant having been psychologically unstable (considering the prior incident at his working place and other circumstantial evidence pointing in the same direction) seems more probable as a direct cause of the attack than the assailant having been steered by ISIS, if I summarize a host of subsequent press reports (with other academic experts explaining the psychological state of mind of the assailant) correctly (28 August 18:11; RTBF 28 August 22:26). Maybe this line of reporting, less exploitable for its drama to attract an international readership than the "ISIS" keyword, didn't hit international news reporting all that much.

In sum, no, "According to the

• My take on this... the entire issue is irrelevant information in the context presented (an article about a specific attack). Discussion of the accuracy of Amaq belongs in an article about Amaq... not in an article on any specific attack. Blueboar (talk) 13:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The Le Soir article of 27 August 2017 (3rd reference in OP) probably speaks about the attack so may be germane to the article, if someone can read it entirely (I wouldn't quote its headline though which may or may not be a suitable summary of the key points of the journal article, as far as it relates to the August 2017 Brussels attack topic). --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I cannot access the full Le Soir article either($$), but would also be grateful if someone could confirm what is has to say about the Brussels event, if anything. Pincrete (talk) 16:57, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

In the scheme above I added the RTBF report about the same: note that the RTBF report rather focusses on "we should take this serious for its psychological warfare aspect" than on "we should take this serious while it might be true"; I wouldn't be surprised that the Le Soir article takes a similar approach. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Reply to E.M.Gregory, I did not select any of these quotes, they were the ones presented by XavierItzm as part of the discussion on talk, which he claimed supported the text in the quote box above. If some other part of the sources given supports the claims, rather than accuse me of being 'selective', please point out where such support can be found. Please don't 'explain' the momentous significance of the arrest in Germany, since the 'significance' is patently your own invention.

The most that could possibly be claimed from the sources discussing the 'German' arrest is that since the arrest, some commentators have speculated that ISIS/Amaq is probably/possibly more careful, and sometimes more reliable about some matters than widely thought and may have checking mechanisms, or fact checkers in place in Europe. It takes an inordinate number of logical 'leaps into the dark' to get from that to Amaq/ISIS is "generally accurate about" .... anything, especially about ISIS involvement in a different attack, in a different country, not even mentioned in the first two sources.

Equally, if, in your opinion, the sources endorse 'your' reading (namely, "According to the

The text at the top of this section is "According to the

Amaq is usually accurate when it claims attacks". That text is properly sourced and should be allowed. Any additional claims about the accuracy of Amaq when claiming affiliation outside of particular attacks needs equally good sourcing. Also, our article on Amaq News Agency says "Amaq functions much like the state-owned news agency of ISIL, though the group does not acknowledge it as such", so we should not treat Amaq as speaking for ISIS/ISIL. --Guy Macon (talk

) 10:43, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Guy Macon, sorry I would just like to clarify what you mean. The clear implication of an Amaq claim being "usually accurate when it claims attacks", is that those attacks WERE carried out by ISIS, (or "a soldier of the caliphate", or one of Amaq's standard phrasings), since "an ISIS soldier did this" is the actual content of the Amaq claim. I don't understand how you square that with us not treating Amaq as ISIS's mouthpiece. Also, is this content appropriate on any individual 'attack' article, or should it be confined to a page discussing Amaq and/or its credibility in full? Pincrete (talk) 17:26, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Agreed with Guy Macon: these are all

WP:RS: «the terrorist group Islamic State (Daech) claimed responsibility for an attack by Haashi Ayaanle, a Belgian of Somali origin, on Friday night in Brussels [...] Credible, this claim certainly is, assured Michael Dentinne, insofar as it emanates from the official agency of communication of the Islamic State».^[1] XavierItzm (talk

) 05:36, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

This discussion is simply about the use of these sources to support the claim that ISIS is "usually accurate when it claims attacks" and whether the use of that text is apt on an article about Brussels, when at least two of the three don't even mention Brussels and were written months before it occurred. Don't muddy the water, either you are able to point to where in the sources the "usually accurate about attacks" claim is supported or you are not. Introducing red-herrings helps no one. Pincrete (talk) 09:43, 1 October 2017 (UTC) … … ps (responding to newly added source), how on earth does a single expert saying a claim about a single event is "credible" (ie believable, could possibly be true), support the assertion that experts (plural) believe that Amaq/ISIS is "usually accurate when it claims attacks"? Pincrete (talk) 17:19, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

In other words Dentinne says it can be believed that ISIS really claimed the attack when Amaq says ISIS claimed it; Dentinne says nothing about whether or not it can be believed that ISIS committed the attack.

Returning to Pincrete's question(s): no, the hotchpotch

WP:SYNTH sentence, or its earlier variant, can neither be used in the Brussels attack article, nor in any other article (it remains SYNTH in all these circumstances). --Francis Schonken (talk

) 11:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Note that the honesty of their reporting will reflect their current military position. That is, when they were in a powerful position, there was no need to lie, and doing so may have caused them to lose credibility. But now, with them on the run on most fronts, there's little to lose by lying. StuRat (talk) 22:55, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Re: Amaq as ISIS's mouthpiece, let's say I create a webpage that documents attacks by North Korea. Things like the

"Par un communiqué d’Amaq, le groupe terroriste État islamique (Daech) a revendiqué l’attaque commise vendredi soir à Bruxelles par Haashi Ayaanle, un Belge d’origine somalienne. L’assaillant était l’un des soldats de l’État islamique peut-on lire dans ce communiqué. Cette revendication est-elle crédible ? C’est ce que nous avons demandé à Michael Dantinne, criminologue et coordinateur du centre d’études sur le terrorisme et la radicalisation à l’ULg. – (Le désir d’être crédité des attentats commis) – Crédible, cette revendication l’est certainement assure Michael Dentinne, dans la mesure où elle émane de l’agence officielle de communication de l’État islamique, ce qui est une de ses particularités. "Mais il faut bien réfléchir à ce qu’est une revendication. C’est un acte de réclamation. Si on définit simplement le terrorisme comme le fait, pour un groupe terroriste, d’essayer d’infliger des dommages insupportables à ce qui est identifié comme un adversaire pour qu’il cède ou qu’il crée lui-même sa propre perte, il faut le signer et c’est ça la revendication. Ça l’est à un point tel dans l’histoire, par exemple, qu’un certain nombre de groupes indépendantistes allaient jusqu’à donner les identités des assaillants, les numéros de série des armes ou les projectiles utilisés dans un attentat pour que l’acte leur soit bien crédité."^[1] (excuse my French); The quote is partially translated above; The reply to Guy asking a reliable source is contained in the above quote: "... Amaq ... l’agence officielle de communication de l’État islamique ..." ("... Amaq ... the official communication agency of ISIS ..."). So, Guy, in your North Korean & CIA comparisons above: if you can get a professor of a reputable university get published in a reliable source that you're the official communication agency of either of them, the contention might end up in Wikipedia's mainspace. --Francis Schonken (talk) 02:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me guys, but this has gone slightly off-topic. The original question is do the sources support the claim that Amaq is "usually accurate when it claims attacks" (have been made by ISIS). I realise that I invited Guy's response, but I did so only because I could not see how "generally accurate" could be squared with NOT having 'inside info' from ISIS. I think that most sources endorse that some 'priveged relationship' exists between the two, though no one is able to pin down exactly what that relationship is.

So, to follow your analogy Guy, has NYT + the Indy + experts said that your website about N.Korea is "usually accurate about attacks", or simply that your website is "more accurate about some N Korean attack subjects than most commentators have usually thought"? Pincrete (talk) 15:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Re. "... no one is able to pin down exactly what that relationship is" – ???? "the official communication agency of ISIS" (as quoted in French and translated to English above) seems pretty exactly pinned down to me. Again, your OP sentence is *no good* (SYNTH, mishmash, and whatnot), so can we please stop talking about it? The question has been replied to multiple times: no, not good enough for Wikipedia. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

The Atlantic seems to think Amaq is usually reliable in this regard, and tires to maintain its reputation (to b avoid being ignored in the future) [36]. According to them false claims are rare.Icewhiz (talk) 20:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

So do we use them as a source for the LAs Vegas shooting?Slatersteven (talk) 07:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

As an example that they were wrong? Doug Weller talk 08:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

To early to tell. With Omar Mateen there was the exact same state (Amaq claim, US authorities expressing skepticism) at this point (event+1day). Amaq is claiming "inspiration" (i.e. that the perp was loosely affiliated with them and acted in accordance to their doctrine) - not actual direction - which means that sorting this claim out will probably take a while. If it turns out that he actually converted (or did not) to Isalm this would corroborate (disprove) Amaq's stmt.Icewhiz (talk) 08:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

May I see a link to Amaq making a claim about ISIS involvement in the Las Vegas shooting? --Guy Macon (talk) 08:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

They made 2 stmts. You can coverage of this claim here: [37] [38] [39]. As yet - it is met with quite a bit of skepticism, but hasn't been disproved to the best of my knowledge.Icewhiz (talk) 08:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

A better analysis: http://www.snopes.com/2017/10/02/isis-claim-of-responsibility-for-las-vegas-shooting-confounds-experts/ --Guy Macon (talk) 08:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

The general point made above is that 'general' comments about the reliability of Amaq, belong on the Amaq pages. Comments about the likelihood of being accurate in any individual case might be OK on the individual articles. Apart from any other consideration, if we don't stick to this, we are going to 'clog up' all related articles with sometimes/often/usually/always' quotes. Pincrete (talk) 09:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I am in full agreement with Aquillion that the sentence should be amended «to be worded to at least acknowledge the common belief that ISIS frequently makes false claims». Are we closer to a consensus? XavierItzm (talk) 23:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

No, because it is obvious that this material does not belong on individual attack pages, and that no one gives any reason above for endorsing, or points to text that endorses "usually accurate about claims". It is wilfully perverse to ignore that the general opinion expressed above is that this is SYNTH, which would not even belong on this article if it were not. Aquillion: (Even putting aside the

WP:SYNTH issue, which I think is obvious.) ... What there implies that Aquillion, or the majority above endorse this text, particularly used on individual attack articles? Pincrete (talk

) 10:57, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I simply agreed with Aquillion that «it would have to be worded to at least acknowledge the common belief that ISIS frequently makes false claims». With regard to the rest, this not a majority vote and some have expressed their views one way, some other way, and some have been refuted. Me, I'm just trying to see if a consensus can be developed and move the discussion forward. XavierItzm (talk) 18:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

The most commonly expressed point of view above is firstly, that the proper place to discuss Amaq's reliability is on the Amaq article, and that this is a much more nuanced subject than either normally accurate/inaccurate. Secondly that the claim is not supported by the refs, you cannot turn "often more accurate than widely thought" into "generally accurate about attacks". Pincrete (talk) 18:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

As mentioned above, this is not a vote, as

WP:NOT#DEM. I don't think your vote counting is productive. Instead, we should try and see if common ground can be found. XavierItzm (talk

) 09:42, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I think it's obvious that Amaq's reliability is an issue that belongs on any page about an attack they've claimed. If the article mentions that Amaq claimed this attack as an act by a follower of ISIS, then clearly it is of interest to readers whether Amaq was right or simply making that up. A rebiable source that discusses the general accuracy of Amaq's claims is definitely relevant, especially a case that is disputed or unknown. That way readers can look at the evidence from a more educated perspective. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 13:48, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

An editor at Sohyang is suggesting the use of a Korean youtube source and I can't tell if it is RS. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:06, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

The discussion is on my talk page. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:07, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

There are a number of sources that have been added to this article that seem dubious:

• [40] - this is used to support

  "P90X: The Proof" infomercial won a Telly award in 2009

  This is about an advert for the subject, rather than the subject, but it's not clear if the source is a
  RS
  or if the award is notable.
• [41] - this is used to support

  "P90X: The Answer" infomercial won a Moxie award in 2010."P90X: The Answer" infomercial won a Moxie award in 2010.

  - again about an advert, but it's not clear if the source is a
  RS
  or if the award is notable.
• [42] - this is used to support

  In 2011, the sequel to P90X was released, P90X2. Also a 90-day workout regimen, P90X2 focuses on an applied sports science called Muscle Integration.[6] Instead of working one muscle group at a time, P90X2 uses resistance on unstable platforms to engage more muscles with each movement

  - however this seems to be from the company that makes and sells P90X, which seems to breach
  WP:SELFSOURCE
  , as it makes claims about the alleged benefits of their product.
• [43] - used to support claim

  In December 2013, P90X3 was released and featured 30 minute workouts as opposed to hour-long ones. P90X3 includes 16 routines, and includes yoga, mixed martial arts, Pilates, and plyometrics with upper and lower body workouts.

  - reliability unknown.
• [44] - used to support

  Their advertising claims that "muscle confusion" is believed to prevent the body from adapting to exercises over time, resulting in continual improvement without plateau.

  - Healthcare Global - reliability unknown, but seems to cite P90X advertising.
• [45] - used to support

  There are several programs associated with the Power 90 name. Currently for sale are P90, P90X, P90X+, P90X One on One, P90X2, and P90X3. Several others were produced, but are out of print, such as the original Power 90 series that spawned P90X.

  - makers website, breaches
  WP:SELFSOURCE
  as above.
• [46] - makers website.

Autarch (talk) 22:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Bollywood Life is owned by

It would be hard to make a general ruling on any single site. It woud be better to instead to ask whether or not if the site is reliable for a particular claim made in a specific article.--67.68.21.146 (talk) 01:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

This question is in regard to Indian Box Office figures, such as stuff of this sort. The other media houses mentioned are generally considered reliable for such figures. 86.97.131.126 (talk) 12:20, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Is Encyclopedia.com a reliable source? I'd like to cite this, but there are advertisements, so it doesn't look reliable. If this is a mirror website, could someone please help me find a source website that I could cite? Please ping me when you reply. Thanks!Zigzig20s (talk) 10:12, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Its a tertiary source. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean? There are ads, I don't think we can cite it.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:31, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

There are ads, I don't think we can cite it. Speaking as someone with a slow internet connection who until recently was forced by circumstance to spend a significant amount of wiki-time editing articles related to the entertainment industry that exclusively cite ad-heavy entertainment websites: I wish. Sorry, but commercial websites are no more or less "reliable" for our purposes than websites where there aren't ads. Forgive me if I'm misreading you. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:48, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Encyclopedia.com may be reliable, since its articles often cite their specific sources on any given topic. As an original source, however, it is lacking. According to the Website itself it draws much of its content from posting online previously published material from "credible" printed sources, such as Oxford University Press and Columbia Encyclopedia.

The Donald Pizer article is specifically based on Pizer's entry in Contemporary Authors New Revision Series. It is a published resource containing biographical and bibliographical information "on the world's most-popular authors."

According to the

User:Dimadick: Thanks. I believe I was given an account on Gale by the Wikipedia Library. Would you be able to help me track down the exact URL to cite from please? Pizer needs an article!Zigzig20s (talk) 21:56, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I was using the attribution given in Encyclopedia.com. I was not aware Gale had a website. Dimadick (talk) 10:01, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Dimadick: Actually, Pizer is not listed in this book, is it?Zigzig20s (talk) 16:09, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't know whether he is listed in the 2014 edition you linked. Encyclopedia.com's website lists a 2009 copyright date for Gale, indicating use of an older version. Dimadick (talk) 16:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, it would be useful to expand Donald Pizer.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Should I just cite Encyclopedia.com as User:Hijiri88 suggested earlier?Zigzig20s (talk) 17:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I decided to add a section about Free Thinking Forums at the Ali Khamenei's article, but I'm not sure the references are reliable in English wekipedia or not. Does these sources support the text about Free Thinking Forums? first source&secound source Thanks. Saff V. (talk) 12:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Note

WP:PROPORTION questions (that Khamenei said this, or started a policy initiative - the sources are reliable enough. In terms of reception in 3rd part sources - we are lacking).Icewhiz (talk

) 12:42, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

We would need to know what you wish to add.Slatersteven (talk) 12:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: User:Saff V./sandbox 1 is the present form of the proposed addition.Icewhiz (talk) 13:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Borderline but I think that yes they are reliable for information about this. Anything else is outside the scope of this forum.Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Jax 0677 (talk · contribs) has been insistent on adding this link as a source in Ded (band). I removed the source because it's an ongoing link that updates throughout the day, and thus will not show the sourced content for more than a week (the link is dated for October 18-24, and states that it was updated on the 25th). As it is a chronically updating link, it cannot be used to verify an individual chart position. Jax 0677 has reinserted it with the totally nonsensical rationale of "all links are temporary". This is far from the only issue I've had with this user of late, and I would appreciate input. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

The author of this article quotes an analyst, named Shimon Shapira on explaining a detailed chain of command in ordering the Beirut bombings that involves Iranian officials. This is while President Reagan's Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger even years after the incident admits Iran or Syria's involvement is not certain(look for "that you're not certain were involved"). My question is whether mmedia.me can be a reilable source for this edit.--Kazemita1 (talk) 07:48, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

It reliable site for the opinion of Shimon Shapira and he can be used attributed per

WP:RSOPINION--Shrike (talk

) 11:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Good guideline; thanks: "

Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact".--Kazemita1 (talk

) 11:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Well as it was not written by him how can it be? It is RS for the views of this Badran person.Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

No I think the source is reliable enough to bring the words of Shapira--Shrike (talk) 12:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

At best this would be RS for "TONY BADRAN has claimed that According to leading Hezbollah expert Shimon Shapira". But then who are these people?Slatersteven (talk) 13:13, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

This is not just something just that guy claims. There is evidence for that, NSA has intercepted that chain of command. That assertion is a consensus opinion that is certified in the ruling by DC court judge Lamberthe [47]. US Supreme court has also certified that ruling [48]. --Drako (talk) 14:48, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

The question is about the source, it does not matter if what they say can be sourced to better sources (if it can use those).Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the intercepted call does not talk about the chain of command the way Shapira/Bardan describe it:

The presiding U.S. District Court Judge, Royce C. Lamberth, said that "the message directed the Iranian ambassador to contact Hussein Musawi, the leader of the Islamic Amal, and to instruct him to take a spectacular action against the United States Marines." ... Kenneth R. Timmerman, a well-known anti-Iran activist who has made a career out of aligning himself with Iranian exiles, made that interpretation, that the intercepted message was an order for the attacks. However, high-ranking US officials appear not to share Timmerman's view. That same year, President Reagan's Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger said that, "We still do not have the actual knowledge of who did the bombing of the Marine barracks at the Beirut Airport, and we certainly didn't then."

I am developing an article about Vietnamese movie and consider to add content for the Marketing section. Some content may be referenced from Official Facebook pages because no publication in Vietnam mention them (in Vietnam, there is no page like US's PR Newswire to publish a press release). Is Facebook OK to be used? These page owners, which are company and restaurant, are partnering with the movie and promote it.—Phamthuathienvan (talk) 14:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

There is some advice at

WP:NOYT. Does the movie have no web presence other than facebook? Kendall-K1 (talk

) 02:53, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Facebook is the only source I can find these information :(( —Phamthuathienvan (talk) 07:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, self-published sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, so long as:

1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

See

WP:SOCIALMEDIA. A Quest For Knowledge (talk

) 16:49, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

The only one that has been banned explicitly (as far as I am aware) is the Daily Mail. The other are banned just under a general lack of being RS, and have nothing to do with being from the UK or newspapers. Blocks are at the discretion of the admin. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Or agreed as "generally considered unreliable", at least. We have

WP:PUS which is not really designed to be a long list, we also have list of fake news websites, I'm not sure if we have another more explicit list for news... —PaleoNeonate

– 18:30, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Generally any source in the UK that engages in tabloid journalism should be considered suspect but not immediately unusable for BLP purposes (See

WP:BLPSOURCE). Except the Daily Mail was found to be unreliable in general - let alone with regards to BLPs - so the default position is you would need a very good argument to use info from a Daily Mail source in a BLP or a BDP, or in fact, in any article. Its unreliable. And in practice, anything that we could use from the Daily Mail would be covered by a better source anyway. If the only source is the Daily Mail, we don't use it. Likewise with anything else in a BLP that is only sourced to tabloid journalism. Only in death does duty end (talk

) 12:39, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I suspect that the Daily Mail is "still widely used" only because there has never been a comprehensive campaign to systematically remove all instances (or at least modern ones) of its use, let alone to replace it with one or more better sources. The task of removal seems to have fallen to certain "tabloid warriors" who just remove the ref and often the material on sight, largely on an ad hoc, opportunity basis. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:DAILYMAIL closers didn't say you'll be blocked for citing The Daily Mail, and later acknowledged that it is sometimes permissible to quote opinions of its writers. There's no list specifically of banned UK newspapers other than the Daily Mail, and if people want to ban more then I expect they'll have to go through an RfC again. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

But editors are being blocked for adding such sources, even when it's in addition to other sources. Perhaps worse, even more editors are being threatened with blocks for using these, and other, UK newspapers. If we are to block on this basis, that policy needs to be made clear beforehand. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:03, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Assuming this is in relation to the politician article: They were blocked for edit-warring (using a problem source) on a BLP after being notified it was under discretionary sanctions and told not to keep reverting a disputed source back in. They were not blocked just for using a problem source. When told 'don't do that without consensus' and you continue to do that, you end up blocked. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

They re-inserted an opposed source. They didn't even breach 3RR. They were blocked for 48 hours, which is perhaps appropriate for breaching BLP, but in excess of our typical practice for very minor edit-warring. The blocking admin is

WP:DAILYMAIL doesn't give such a provision, nor was this even the Mail. Andy Dingley (talk

) 18:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

After digging I see that an administrator John provided something close to a "List of banned UK newspapers" in 2016: "Gosh. List begins: Daily Mail, Sun, Star, Daily Mirror, Daily Express, Daily Record, Metro. ... These are certainly the worst ones which current policy forbids. ... Anyone supporting or promoting their use as sources on BLPs on Wikipedia has no place on the project." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for digging that up. So for nearly two years John has been espousing the line that, "These are certainly the worst ones which current policy forbids." Yet there is no such policy. He keeps advocating one, he has created

WP:DAILYMAIL

go as far as he claims here. ". Akin to the National Enquirer in the US" makes me wonder if he's ever actually seen the National Enquirer, which is more at the Star / Sport level, not even the Sun.

Fortunately that thread has some rational opposition to his position: "Tabloid sized newspapers and tabloid journalism are two quite separate concepts and you conflate the two." - Nonsenseferret and "Tabloid journalism - which is what should never be used - is not the same as all material published in a physically tabloid newspaper." - Ghmyrtle. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:52, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

It is however, almost universally the reason and material tabloid's are used to source in BLP's. Hence the prohibition against tabloid journalism, and the Daily Mail specifically. Look its not a difficult concept. If its shitty tabloid gossip published in a tabloid, its going to be removed sooner or later. If its not tabloid gossip, it will be replaced with a better source at some point. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:36, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I wholly agree. The situation at Tim Loughton wasn't quite so clear. The Daily Mirror was being forced back into that article as a source, but alongside six other quality sources. Only the Daily Mirror, however, was also making an additional headline claim about expenses, which to me seemed unjustified. Then later, during the AN/I discussion, Andy produced another article from one of those same quality sources (The Guardian) which used the same headline as Daily Mirror! I still think that particular entire article addition was unjustified, but it seems that Andy may not. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:02, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• The weight of that point in the Tim Loughton article seems to hinge on "MP takes long baths" is not a story, but "MP charges long baths to his expenses" is a story, in the long-running saga of UK MP's expenses. I had already read that story in the Guardian, and saw the figure, so assumed that it was in the ref being used. I also read it on the BBC and my recollection had been that they used the figure too. If you read my comments, you'll see that I was claiming there to be two RS in place for it when there were actually more, because I knew that the Telegraph et al (which I only looked at from this article) didn't seem to be giving the crucial figure.

But none of this matters. The question here is not about what belongs in that article, it's about the use of Mirror and Express sources, and the appropriate punishment for using them. Is a 48 hour first block the appropriate scale for using any Mirror reference, in an article where the same content is already RS-sourced and sourceable? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:52, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• I think the two quotes I put here really sum it up: there is a difference between tabloid journalism and tabloid newspapers. One does not always imply the other. Editors have to do some editing and make value judgements per case, not simply block-per-domain as has happened. That is what "editors" do.

Some tabloids, the Mirror, Daily Record and Express in particular, are highly variable. They range from trivia to serious investigative journalism on occasion. We have to recognise that, and allow editors some editorial freedom. Yes, if the particular source in question is rubbish then it should go, but that is not what has happened with the Tim Loughton case.

There are also large numbers of WP articles on topics that are pure tabloid fluff, sourced from the Mail because nothing else bothers. Yet they seem as unchallenged as the Indian villages and films - another walled garden where these sourcing dogmatists just don't look.

Mostly though, John is operating by a set of "policies" that exist only in his own mind (and a few followers). If he wants

WP:DAILYMAIL and he has to do that first, before he starts blocking people on its basis. Andy Dingley (talk

) 11:36, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

(EC) Well if you want to dispute his block go to AN/ANI, your questions about the reliability of tabloids have been answered to the extent that policy treats them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• Blocks can't be disputed - as anyone knows, all admins are infallible and will be defended by other admins, rather than admit an error. It was raised at ANI, nothing happened.

We should have a policy on such sources, and it is better if it is a clear policy. This is surely the place where such policies are established. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:02, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I don't like the idea of "banned newspapers" or anything similar. It risks looking snobby and pissing off the newspapers involved. It is enough to stick to core policies and to use broadsheet sourcing where possible. If it is only found in a UK red top tabloid, it probably isn't noteworthy enough for Wikipedia anyway.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:43, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Me neither. I personally don't think we should be blanket banning papers. We should instead be taking each source used on its merits (ie. authors and context) rather than just banning everything. After all, we do have some GAs that are heavily reliant on Mail sources and they have been accepted. Plus potentially it could also put on a perception of Wikipedia having a political bias by banning "right-leaning" papers such as the Mail or Express. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• So what's a "tabloid" and what's a "red top"? It has been stated previously that the Express is comparable to the National Enquirer. Now I despise Richard Desmond as much as anyone, but that's a farcical comparison. The Express is no red-top! Nor is the Mirror as bad as the Sun. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:55, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Nor is

Kim Jong-un? Martinevans123 (talk

) 13:10, 24 October 2017 (UTC)