Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 236

Ascertaining and repeating the published views of other social scientists and historians seems more than within the range of expertise of a linguist of Bhat's variegated credentials. He's served as for, lack of a better term, an officer in several cross-disciplinary organizations and committees. I say his book is reliable for the text cited here unless there is some big reason to doubt it, like another reliable source saying "No, Pandit Anand Koul didn't believe this" and "No, historians don't believe that."

Is there a difference of opinion among scholars about this?

Kautilya3, Josephus, as consensus forms in this thread, please consider "Is the Bhat source sufficient support for this text?" to have been answered. If consensus says "yes," then if you think it necessary you can move on to the questions of "Is the text sufficiently notable?" and "Is the text appropriate for the scope of the article?" please do both of you move on before this gets too personal. I was in a content dispute like this a couple years back, and I wish someone had said that to us a lot sooner: the subjective, editorial decision of whether the content belongs in the article is not as clear-cut as reliability but it is still important. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Reliability of R.K. Parmu

Related question... since the above sources are being used to support a statement about what R.K. Parmu (and other unnamed scholars) says (ie that the Kashmiris are decended from the "Lost trives of Israel"(... I thought I would ask the unasked question: Who is R.K Parmu, and is he reliable? Blueboar (talk) 15:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

He's someone who was publishing works in 1969. That's probably why I can't find a web-based bio. Here's a review of one of his pieces, though (scroll to bottom right). Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Request for: Comment on the overall reliability of FFE Magazine as a source on Philippine History

Specific Source Page cited: http://ffemagazine.com/lakandula-peaceful-king-takes-stand/

Wikipedia Article where used: Lakandula

Specific Content: "In fact, Manila wasn’t conquered, but it was occupied through a peace pact that joined Legazpi and the three kings Lakandula, Rajah Ache and Rajah Sulayman."

Concern in specific instance: This is a relatively minor concern: many Philippine historians characterize Maynila as having been "conquered" in a general sense, since Legazpi and his successor, Levazaris, eventually gained full control of the city. (If not in 1572 when the peace pact was signed, then arguably in 1574 and 1588 when uprisings by local rulers were put down, and the old ruling families of Manila decimated.) Whether Maynila was conquered by open conflict or by signed agreement, the outcome is the arguably same. But the editor who wrote this seems to be trying to emphasize that 1572 was not a martial defeat per se. I'm not actually going to contest this, because I've heard both points of view, but

• a) Based on my familiarity with other texts, I don't think this sentence captures other (possibly more mainstream) perspectives;
• b) I don't actually think the
  Rajahnate of Maynila as of 1572 (perhaps History_of_Manila
  is the best place) because a mention of that controversy would introduce a long, off-tangent discussion; and
• c) I'm concerned about the overall reliability of FFE Magazine as a source.

General concern regarding source: According to its ["info page"], FFE Magazine "is a general interest European magazine for and about everything of interest to all Filipinos working and living in Europe, their non- Filipino spouses, family and friends." Not to disparage the site in any way because its goals seem laudable enough; but it makes no claim to be a reliable or scholarly source on Philippine History. It also does not name its staff, does not cite the staff's credentials, and does not explain its editorial policy with regards to fact-checking and historical veracity.

Action requested: For now, I'm going to tag the edit as coming from an unreliable source. And I'm going to look for reliable secondary sources. But may I request comment on whether FFE Magazine should be considered a reliable source on Philippine History for Wikipedia? Obviously I don't think so, but I'd like to hear community inputs.

Thanks - Alternativity (talk) 07:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

If FFE has editorial oversight, and it looks like it does, then because "Is it reliable" is a yes/no question, I say yes. However, sources such as history books and scholarly journal articles are of course better than a general audience magazine that's mostly about modern topics. This magazine would be enough on its own except that superior sources seem to contradict it. If "Manila was not really conquered" is a legitimate historical view, then there will be at least a few history books and scholarly articles that say so. Use those instead. I imagine this article will end up reading "Some historians, such as Dr. Lastname of Such-and-such University, who argue that Manila was not conquered but rather absorbed by treaty" with a link to the article about Tondo for more information.

So the person who added this content using this source did not do anything wrong. They did enough. But because the content has now been challenged, more must now be done. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, not looking to assign blame. The editor is a newbie, so I don't think there was any intent to "do anything wrong." The reason I brought this up is that the site doesn't seem to have a clear description of its degree of editorial responsibility (as I understand from the WP:RS policy - such that it probably shouldn't be treated as a credible source, as per

WP:RS. I thought I'd bring it up for a more exhaustive review, and community consensus. - Alternativity (talk

) 06:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• "According to the Port of Los Angeles, it is the largest recycling company in southern California."[1]

This is cited to the Port of Los Angeles' official website.

That last jibe is both unnecessary as well as a violation of

WP:AGF. Consider yourself warned. Perhaps you should read over AGF. I am a bit surprised you came here, you so adamantly were citing policy to me, I thought you might know the exact chapter and verse on the policy. Bringing up a bad faith accusation is really not a way to curry any favor here. Thanks! Lacypaperclip (talk

) 02:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

"That last jibe is both unnecessary as well as a violation of AGF." Very sorry if I inadvertently offended. It was merely an observation of a diff'ed fact (see my post to you here: "Does it have editorial controls?" [7] and your edit summary 40 minutes later to me here: "Can you demonstrate editorial control" [8]. I brought it up only, as I explained, to make sure no one spent time replying here if this was a

WP:RS

question. But your affirmation that it was a GF coincidence by you is good enough for me.

"I thought you might know the exact chapter and verse on the policy" Thanks, I do! The exact chapter is

WP:RSOPINION. Thoughts? Chetsford (talk

) 02:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

My thoughts about the situation at hand would not be proper to post about at this particular venue. Lacypaperclip (talk) 02:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I don't really think we have a "situation." We just need some extra sets of eyes to figure out if we need a new source or not. But I appreciate if you don't want to participate in the discussion. Thank you for checking in! Chetsford (talk) 02:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Never said I did not want to participate in this discussion. Thanks for checking in! no comment on that statement. We do have a situation, but again that will be for another more proper venue as I said. I agree we need extra eyes here for sure. Thanks! Lacypaperclip (talk) 03:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I really apologize if I misinterpreted you Lacypaperclip. In any case, if you don't want to participate in the discussion at this venue, I will make a point of pinging you to alert you as to its ultimate outcome (either way) prior to making any further edits to the sentence in question so as to ensure we're both on the same page. Thanks, again, for checking in! Chetsford (talk) 03:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• I skipped most of your back-and-forth posts.

Is an entity's own website RS for statements attributed to that entity? Yes it is. Considering that entity is the Port of Los Angeles and the statement, that such-and-such is the largest recycling company in southern California, isn't far out of its wheelhouse, I'd say that it's okay for Wikipedia's voice as well. Wait, it's not a government agency but a private company? That changes things. Only if the reliability of the source has been questioned in some way 1) Someone thinks that might not really be the Port's own website or 2) other similarly or more reliable sources contradict the Port's assertion would further sourcing or examination be necessary.

So is that what's going on here? Does some other source say that some other recycling company is the largest in California? Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Perfect - thanks! Does some other source say that some other recycling company is the largest in California? - No, you nailed it! Chetsford (talk) 22:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• In general an organization is reliable for its own opinion. I would keep in mind however Port of LA is a commercial business and so have a vested interest in puffing up their facilities/companies based there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, great point. That's definitely the reason I thought it was best to write "according to the Port of LA" in the first part of the sentence instead of presenting it in WP's voice. Chetsford (talk) 22:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

On doing just a simple search I find several companies that make this same claim. One example is here: [9] Do your own search if you like. Lacypaperclip (talk) 23:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

If the Port is not a government agency but a commercial business, then it must be given more scrutiny. However, I'd still say that what it says about something like this is reliable if attributed and not contradicted. Lacypaperclip should be applauded for doing proper legwork, but the link above says that this other company "maintains the largest recycling infrastructure," not that it is the largest recycling firm. Still, there may indeed be other sources that dispute this. I have an idea but it's better suited to the article talk page. Be over in a bit. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I would say it was reliable but not quite to the level of some official government statistic. And that no one else says anything contradictory may simply be down to no one else being interested in the statistic. So I would say 'According to the Port of Los Angeles...'.

Dmcq (talk

) 00:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

RAN has since changed the article to "one of the largest" companies. Does that satisfy everyone? Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Looks good to me, Darkfrog24. Based on the convo seems like we're okay to remove Lacy's unreliable tag now? Chetsford (talk) 03:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Nope. This discussion is still ongoing. Thanks Darkfrog 24 for setting up the informal poll on the talk page. If anything there is a dispute among websites as to which company may be the largest. The citation that is there is unreliable. Remove the source. Basically then you have left a statement (when phrased the largest) that cannot exactly be proven or unproven. Say it is one of the largest no means virtually nothing now in terms of using that statement to assert significance or claim notability. Hence it needs to be deleted at the AFD. I suppose we shall see. There is no rush since wikipedia has no deadline. Lacypaperclip (talk) 04:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Lacy - it seems everyone has come to an agreement that orgs are RS for statements attributed to themselves. You previously declared you would not post your opinion "in this venue" [10] so I'm not sure the discussion is really continuing if no one has any contrary opinions to express; unless you've changed your mind and will now be participating? (Yours would be a welcome voice, of course.) In any case, since we seem to be wrapping things up here I'll defer to RAN or Darkfrog24 to actually execute the removal of the tag. Thanks to all! Chetsford (talk) 06:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I never said that. You are refactoring what I said. I am here. I am participating. Stop taking the unreliable tag off until this discussion is done and closed by an uninvolved editor. You are being disruptive again. Lacypaperclip (talk) 07:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

It does seem very clear that there is a dispute about this. Is there any way to put up an in-text tag that reads "disputed" instead of "unreliable"? That might feel less confrontational.

It seems like the both of you have been at this too long and that things have gotten personal. If you must refer to something the other person has said, quote them directly. Instead of saying "you're refactoring/lying/etc," say "that's not what I meant" and politely correct the other person.Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I've just found this website being used in several BLPs:

It looks like a completely bonkers source to me. Could be nice if someone looked into who was adding it, if one account then maybe a block. Smells like a spam situation to me, but I have not looked that deeply into it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I certainly don't think it should be used as a source. If the people who run a website don't care enough to get basic information about themselves right, we shouldn't expect that they care about getting anything else correct.

I wasn't able to figure out what the site is, and didn't investigate closely. Looks like it started as a copy of bijog.com.

I don't have time at the moment to look at who's been adding it, but here are two additions:

Added to Tucker Carlson by 67.197.243.87 (talk · contribs) [11]

Added to

talk

) 16:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

@

talk

) 01:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I added that about two years ago, I was looking simply for references and had no malicious intent. I'll remove the ref now if it hasn't been removed already.

talk

) 02:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I should have noted that I've been looking at a large number of similar sources in the past year. Overwhelmingly they are being added in good faith. I don't expect it's any different with odssf.com. --

talk

) 04:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Source: https://gbtimes.com/chinese-pianist-sunny-li-adds-her-own-touch

This "about us" is so jargon heavy I can't be sure, but it does seem to be a platform for PR. "Our multi national teams deliver successful, multiple languages campaigns for our clients across a range of platforms including; social media, digital, TV, radio and print." Located a source supporting Sunny Li, paid creation disclosed on talkpage but there are 125 more articles using it including a whisky distillery, a chat app and an advertising company. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:30, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

The specific article is a puff piece, but I don't see it as unreliable for how it's currently being used to verify In May 2016, she released a joint album with Edithouse entitled Sunny Li Piano, containing works from British composer

promotional

are NPOV concerns.

Glancing through some of their current content, I agree that the publisher seems to focus on public relations pieces. --

talk

) 04:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Is the following content reliably sourced?

Vitalik Buterin picked the name Ethereum after browsing Wikipedia articles about elements and science fiction, when he found the name, noting, "I immediately realized that I liked it better than all of the other alternatives that I had seen; I suppose it was the fact that sounded nice and it had the word "ether", referring to the hypothetical invisible medium that permeates the universe and allows light to travel."^[1]

-- Jytdog (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Of course it is. How is the founder of Ethereum on the Ethereum forum saying how he picked the name unreliable? My comment here is only about the reliability of the source which is not

WP:ABOUTSELF, other sources on that article and similar articles may be unreliable and other issues such as due weight may still have to be considered. Emir of Wikipedia (talk

) 23:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Just wanted to post something, was directed here by Jytdog. The account from which the comment was made is from Vitalik himself, and has forum administrator status, which seems to meet the USERGENERATED exception for editorial staff.

prokaryotes (talk

) 23:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

The two posters so far are the two people who have tried to retain this. In my view this is a blatant USERGENERATED issue, a comment on a blog. This article and the other crypto ones are beset by this kind of very, very low quality sourcing. There will be further issues with UNDUE even if the source is found "reliable". If this is the only place were it is discussed, it is not worth discussing in WP. Jytdog (talk) 23:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

This noticeboard is for discussing the reliability of the source you have presented for the information it is being used to represent. Whether other sources on the article or other crypto ones are low quality is not an issue that should be shoved on the side of another question. If you look above on the sections present in this page and the archives you will see I have commented a notable amount of times on the reliability of sources, my answer here is not merely because I have "tried to retain this". Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

You have made your opinion clear at the article and above. Your opinion here, is what it is, regardless of what you have said elsewhere, as is mine. Jytdog (talk) 00:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• Undue -- the statement may be reliable as to what the CEO claims, but I would consider such content to be undue trivia. Founders routinely come up with "origin stories" but including them is indiscriminate. I would not include such material in an article about a company. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Ethereum is not a company. It is a currency platform, the currency is traded by millions of people, of whom many might be interested to know the origins of it's naming.

prokaryotes (talk

) 06:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

In any case, I would not use a self-citation (https://ethereum.stackexchange.com) for this information. It's unneeded & superfluous info cited to a

WP:PRIMARY source. K.e.coffman (talk

) 06:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I've added it after noticing that the

prokaryotes (talk

) 06:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The reference does not meet the definition of WP:PRIMARY, "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event", instead as Emir of Wikipedia notes, it meets the definition of

prokaryotes (talk

) 07:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• Unclear Anyone can claim to be anyone. Is this username positively associated with Vitalik Buterin? If so, I'd say it's probably reliable in the form of "according to Vitalik Buterin, he chose the name" per
  WP:OR by its singular reliance on a primary source for a functional piece of information. Chetsford (talk
  ) 04:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The Stack Exchange account of Ethereum, references above quote. The Stack Exchange account is linked in the footer of the official website ethereum.org. Above forum link is mentioned and linked on their website's FAQ, where they write , "...please do not hesitate in contacting us on our forums". The comment user account has the role of Adminstrator on "their" forum, with 6 badges, and 161 points, this means the account is positively associated with Vitalik Buterin.

prokaryotes (talk

) 06:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks,

prokaryotes. Seems reasonable on that aspect to me, then. Chetsford (talk

) 06:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• Undue trivia - agree with
  talk
  ) 07:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
• I agree with a number of the comments above. The source seems reliable enough, but with no secondary sources discussing it, it doesn't even come close to being [{WP:DUE]]. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 06:41, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
• Undue trivia per comments above. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

If a social media post is subsequently deleted, can a screenshot of the now-deleted post be used for

Per the instructions, please give details of the specific case for which you are seeking an answer.

talk

) 15:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm seeking an answer for the general case. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

If its been deleted, not unless its in a reliable source. Otherwise its

WP:OR. Example A)The Guardian prints a run-down of celebrity tweets which have been deleted, includes screenshots of the content - acceptable. B)Editor uploads screenshot to commons/Wikipedia to verify selfpublished claim of X - not acceptable. If it has been deleted, its fails WP:V unless a reliable source publishes it. Otherwise it could be faked. Only in death does duty end (talk

) 15:18, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

If an archived URL is available then it could be acceptable, but as stated above this noticeboard is for specific cases most of the time and even if it is in general examples can be useful. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Normally a deadlink is fine as long as its not problematic. Its not fine for social media primary sources - as unless its been captured elsewhere, once its deleted its gone. It cant pass WP:V. For anything involving a living person (which most self-published social media are for), WP:BLP also applies, which operates under a higher standard. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: Here is a specific example. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Added a {{

WP:RS. If that's all there is to support the information (no other more reliable source reports it), the contention should not be in Wikipedia. --Francis Schonken (talk

) 16:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

That is not okay as it just a screenshot, but read below too. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• Nikkimaria - Just some advice but when it comes to tweets I first archive the URL (https://web.archive.org/save/<TWEET URL>) (IE https://web.archive.org/save/https://twitter.com/Google/status/952623554054406144) and then add the archive url and date to the options in the cite box once it's saved- That way if they delete it then it's backed up with Wayback (ofcourse that means having an archived version of an already live tweet but the pros outweigh the cons), Cheers, –Davey2010^Talk 16:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Note - most high profile individuals and organizations do not operate their social media accounts directly - they have an intern or a PR firm doing it. If a social media posting gets deleted, it may be because the individual or organization never approved it in the first place (or it runs contrary to their position). So if you have the delete posting archived somewhere you can indeed say that whomever ran the account indeed posted it there - but you can't attribute it to the person/organization whom the account supposedly represents.Icewhiz (talk) 16:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Concur with Icewhiz. The Tweet or other post may have been removed because it was inaccurate.

This immediately reminded me of

WP:LINKROT but that only says that a dead link alone is not sufficient reason to delete content. Darkfrog24 (talk

) 17:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Very recently I started to edit the article on Frisland to add an article that appears in the Portolan Journal (http://www.washmapsociety.org/The-Portolan-Journal.htm) as a reference to one of the theories as to the origin of Frisland on old (circa 1500s) maps of the north atlantic.

The subject of the article is that Frisland is shown as an island on old maps of the north atlantic, when in fact no such island exists in the area where it is shown. Various theories are presented, which are not reliably sourced, attesting to various theories of origin (mis-mapping of Iceland;; mis-mapping of Faroe Islands, mis-mapping of Shetland Islands, mis-mapping of Greenland, etc.). The author of the article (http://marcopoloinseattle.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Portolan-Article-Newfoundland-Nov-2016-1.pdf) that was recently (2017) published in the peer-reviewed Portolan Journal posited the theory, which he well-details, that the island is a mis-mapping of Newfoundland Island. One of the original editors of the Frisland article (2010, Doug Weller) and another editor (Slatersteven) are seeking to keep that theory, and the article supporting it, from being included in the article on their claim that Portolan Journal is not "peer reviewed". The editors of the journal that do the reviewing (and the author of the article in question is not part of that editorial staff) have many years of experience editing the Portolan Journal. The discussion on this is at Talk:Frisland.

Doug and fellow editor Steveslater are essentially now asserting that the journal editors doing the review (17 years of journal editing of the Portolan) is insufficient experience/knowledge to support a "peer-review" authorship, and hence does not meet the RS requirement. I strongly disagree. It is to be noted that none of the competing theories, which are already in the Frisland article, appear to meet any form of support by RS peer-reviewed articles; rather the only one that does is the one I sought to include in the article (and which appears to be demonstrably correct as per original discussion on my talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Youngnoah)).

Assistance from other editors indicating that Doug is out on a limb would be appreciated. Youngnoah (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)Youngnoah

Just to play Devil’s advocate... I am sure that Doug would also appreciate any assistance from other editors. (especially if they indicate that he isn’t “out on a limb”.) 😜 Blueboar (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Doug has been a long-time valuable editor. That does not guarantee infallibility. It would be appreciated if other editors could review the discussions on this matter. Thankx. Youngnoah (talk) 01:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)Youngnoah

I only see one editor. Youngnoah says two but when asked at Talk:Frisland who were the other editors replied "Don't know and don't care." The editor of the journal was a career army officer for 30 years.[14]. The webmaster is Leigh Lockwood, haven't found anything about him yet. The fringe author Youngnoah wants to use is Gunnar Thompson. A description on his website is here but also see Jason Colavito's description here. Thompson's obit is here and seems accurate about his career but not his books.

His books[15] seem to be self-published. Nu Sun: Asian-American Voyages, 500 B.C. something called Pioneer Publishing in Fresno CA which is where Thompson worked and doesn't seem to have published anything else. Certainly not what we call reliably published and got a terrible review in an academic journal.[16]

Secret Voyages published by his "New World Discovery Institute".[17]

American Discovery, what's "Seattle: "Argonauts O.T.M" - again, Seattle where he worked.

Friar's Map L Lee productins - can't find this, not reliably published. It claims "Guernsey Museum Monograph, Multicultural Heritage Series No. 3" but here's their list of publications.[18]

Lions in the New World only lists a distributor.

American Discovery is listed twice, there seems to be a 2nd edition, again it's the mysterious OTM in Seattle, not reliably published. In fact these all look self-published

Where is sinebot when you need him. I wroyte the post above, most of it on Youngnoah’s talk page. I’m surprised he didn’t remember. Doug Weller talk 20:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry. I thought you were someone who likely had read some of the postings and simply regurgitated it. Youngnoah (talk) 19:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)Youngnoah

Please sign your posts so we know who you are. The two reviewers (at least) that I referenced are the current editor (Thomas Sander) and John Docktor, another past president and the Society’s webmaster, who Sander says is a regular reviewer of new materials. This was posted to show the use of the plural was proper; hence I don't care about the names of others, or if there are others; I was being challenged on the usage of the plural, and supported that usage by providing two names. Youngnoah (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)Youngnoah

It's been discussed by us previously that several of his books are self-published. This is not about those books, or his other theories. This is strictly about his idea that Newfoundland is Fixland/Frisland, though mis-mapped as to its location in the old maps of circa 1500. Gunnar Thompson had lots of other ideas that are considered 'fringe'. I suspect that some of those other ideas will someday be proven true. However, this article on Frisland already lists numerous 'fringe' ideas as to how Frisland/Fixland came to be mapped on old maps. Only one (or none) can be correct. To be consistent, I'm suggesting a section in the article, likely to be called 'Theories', which detail the various theories already included in the article, and also to include the Gunnar Thompson theory that it is actually Newfoundland. Certainly, the various old maps he categorizes and on which he shows the similarities to Newfoundland is intriguing, and appears far more likely than the other theories. Youngnoah (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2018 (UTC)Youngnoah

There’s only one fringe source there and I plan to remove it if we can’t find a mainstream source discussing him. I’ve listed a lot of good sources on the talk page and the article can be rewritten from them. Doug Weller talk 20:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)I

And isn’t this just lovely. I woke up this morning to be told that an IP posted antisemitic death threats twice on my talk page and also posted more politely in this thread saying I’m wrong. Doug Weller talk 07:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry someone posted death threats in your talk page. I trust you are not inferring it was me with your assertion that he/she "also posted more politely in this thread saying I'm wrong." Presently, only BlueBoar and I (Youngnoah) have posted in this thread. Or are you referring to this page, not 'this thread'? Please let me know you are not making such a false accusation against me (or BlueBoar). Youngnoah (talk) 19:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)Youngnoah

As I said, it was an IP, and their posts were deleted but still appear in the history of this page. I don't know who it was but reported it, as all such threats should be reported, to the WMF. I wasn't inferring anything, just stating a fact. Doug Weller talk 19:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

In 2008, Zogby International conducted a poll which rated Rush Limbaugh as "the most trusted news personality in the nation, garnering 12.5 percent of poll responses". See Rush_Limbaugh#The_Rush_Limbaugh_Show. I am considering deleting this statement from Rush Limbaugh's article. Before I take this step, I am requesting input from experts on reliable sources. Overjive (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

This is not a comment on Zogby International polling, but that statement is sourced to the website "IMAO.us". I have not heard off this but they are listed at Imao (not Lmao) as a political humor blog, which is supported by the about page at http://www.imao.us/index.php/about/. On this basis I think it should be removed without actually analyzing Zogby, but considering that is a humor blog I would not be surprised if it was not true anyway. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:56, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I found the same poll described on Wired,^[2] so I conclude it is not solely the product of a humor website. Thanks for the great info Emir! Overjive (talk) 02:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the problem is using raw polling data as a source rather than a secondary source that analyzes it. I have little doubt that 12.5% of Americans consider Rush Limbaugh to be the most trusted news personality or that no other person scored as high. I would not be surprised either if even more Americans believe him to be the least trustworthy. In fact, a PEW poll found him, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck to be the least trustworthy news personalities.[19] Using primary sources presents a misleading picture, even if the data provided is true. TFD (talk) 23:51, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Why not include both poll results? It helps illustrate how polarized people's views are of him.

Ravensfire (talk

) 23:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

It would be far better to include a secondary source that explains the results, rather than present hand-picked primary sources. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I came across this edit, which added a "Controversy" section to the Alibris article based entirely on the rating of Alibris by the site Trustpilot. Here's the text that was added:

In 2017, Alibris UK received a trust rating of 1.8 out of 10 on Trustpilot, with many reviewers claiming that Alibris had taken money for orders that were never received, and hadn't responded to customer service tickets. 82% of reviewers awarded it the lowest rating.

I have no knowledge whether this rating is representative of the experience of Alibris customers, and I had not previously encountered

I'd like some feedback before editing the Alibris article. Rupert Clayton (talk) 05:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

If this is a site like Rotten Tomatoes or Yelp, where anyone with an account can sign in and leave a review, then

WP:USERGENERATED applies: If the text you're quoting is attributed to a credentialed member of the site's staff, then yes, otherwise no. I'd make an exception (and Wikipedia routinely does) for any site that is notable in and of itself. For example, articles about movies and TV shows routinely say, "this has a ##% rating on Rotten Tomatoes." Is Trustpilot independently notable within the field? I've never heard of it before, but it it famous within circles relevant to the article? Darkfrog24 (talk

) 07:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

EDIT: I also looked at the edit in your link. It looks like Trustpilot should not be used to support this text in this article. Another issue is that Trustpilot alone cannot establish the

notability of the information. A company getting a bad rating on a rating site is not news. The reliability issue is moot unless you or this other editor finds a newspaper article or other published source to establish the notability of the content. Darkfrog24 (talk

) 07:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, that perspective is helpful. I'll be

WP:BOLD and remove this content from the Alibris article.Rupert Clayton (talk

) 16:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Maybe this belongs on the talk page or even another page. Please tell me if I should move it. I was quite keen to use The Bhagavad-Gita for the Modern Reader: History, interpretations and philosophy.[20] It looks like a very useful book and it's certainly expensive at $110 (or $!26 on Amazon). Its author is "M. V. Nadkarni is presently Honorary Visiting Professor at the Institute for Social and Economic Change (ISEC), Bengaluru, and a Member of the Governing Body at the Centre for Multi-disciplinary Development Research (CMDR), Dharwad, Karnataka, India. An economist by professional training, with specialisation in agricultural and ecological/environmental economics, he is actively interested in development economics, political economy, history, sociology, philosophy, ethics, religion and Gandhian Studies. He was the Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR) National Fellow for two years (2002–04) and Vice Chancellor of Gulbarga University, Karnataka, India from 1999 to 2002." But then I noticed some of the notes:

7 For details of his life and work, see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanaivalal Maneklal Munshi.

8 This account about Acharya Vinoba Bhave here is based mainly on en.wikipcdia.org/wiki/Vinoba Bhave. It is given in some detail, not only because he was an important follower of Gandhi and known for his work for the rural poor, but also because his ‘Talks on the Gita’ is among the most popular commentaries available in most of the Indian languages.

9 This account is based on Prabhupada (1983: 867-68) and Nadkarni (2013: 274-75). Also see prabhupada.krishna.com.

10 See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swami Ranganathananda: downloaded on 22 April 2015.

11 For further details, see the opening page about the author in Easwaran (1997, any of the three volumes), and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eknath Easwaran (downloaded on 24 April 2015).

12 For more details, see Patchen (2003), Nadkarni (2013) (279-81) and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/chinmavananda saraswati (downloaded on 24 April 2015).

So is it salvageable as a source? I might easily have missed this. Doug Weller talk 12:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I think that this makes the whole source unacceptable. It shows that the author is not familiar with scholarly practice, and that that the reviewers and editors either did not thoroughly examine the text or were ignorant of accepted scholarly practices. At the very least, the source should be attributed ("According to scholar X...").

talk

) 12:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that there is a clear difference in the robustness of peer-review and scrutiny that goes in the top academic presses and other presses (such as Routledge, Palgrave, Lexington). I think it's hard to work this into Wikipedia policy, but there are clear instances where things written in lesser academic presses is just nonsense.

talk

) 12:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• This kind of reminds me of that old Groucho Marx quote: "Please accept my resignation. I don't care to belong to any club that will have me as a member." EEng 13:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I have forgotten exactly what the phenomenon is called, but sometimes a Wikipedia article cites an inaccurate or out-of-date source, then a journalist cites the incorrect or out of date information off Wikipedia, then the Wikipedians use the "new" material as a source again. Sometimes field experts come onto the talk page and say, "but that's out of date! Here's the professional study that proves it!" and the Wikipedians will say "but our news article (which unknown to them was copying Wikipedia) is newer than your professional study." I want to say WP:CIRCULAR but that's not it. Because this has become a problem not only on Wikipedia but also elsewhere in the media that forms our source material, we should be extra careful and not use this source. Don't risk poisoning the well. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Citogenesis, as coined by xkcd. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Sarek. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but I think there's something deeper going on in this particular example, which is that WP deems unreliable any source foolish enough to consider WP reliable. We should write that up somewhere with a shortcut WP:GROUCHO. EEng 20:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• I once read an article published in a sterling journal of literary criticism, by a (white (this becomes notable in just a moment)) professor of English Lit with a sterling reputation who argued quite vehemently that authorial use of the word "black" in any negative sense, or the use of the color black in any way that could be construed as having a link to the antagonist was foolproof evidence of the author's secret racism against African-Americans (he made a point of distinguishing this from racism against black people elsewhere in the world for some reason).

So am I surprised that an academic publisher chose to run with a book that's based in large part on WP? No, not a bit. And yes; I do think that makes it generally unreliable as a source. It may well be quite accurate, but we could never cite it without that citation becoming circular.

Tell me all about it.

20:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Is AllGov a reliable source? I think not. I created Earl R. Miller without using it (even though it came up on google), but the article has since been expanded with it. Does this mean the info referenced from Allgov should be trimmed back to my version? The editor also added a reference from a book published by Lulu.com, and an article from The New York Times which does not mention Miller. I think they were in good faith but a third opinion would be useful. Please ping me when you reply, or simply trim/improve the article to save time if it seems a no-brainer. Thank you!Zigzig20s (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

At Spanish Empire there's been an effort by User:JavierNF96 - who is probably also editing logged out, to insist that a statement " it was the first to be called The empire on which the sun never sets" be in the lead. Various sources have been tried - Wikipedia articles, blogs, websites with articles by anonymous authors, etc. There's a similar statement in the article The empire on which the sun never sets also unsourced. I fact tagged it and shortly a new source[21] was added with the edit summary " (Patricio O'Moore (1840) "Recuerdos de mi tiempo en Epaña". Page 3-4: "Of his monarch it had been said with truth, since there are annals or historical memories, that in his empire the sun didnt set")". I can't figure out how this shows it's the first empire to be so-called, am I missing something? This was added by the IP, not the account, but as I said, they seem to be the same editor, one that's been blocked before for sockpuppetry. I don't want to hit 3RR unless I'm sure I'm right. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 15:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

This is not the forum to deal with user conduct, such as sock puppetry.

If the sources, no matter what they are, do not actually say the information in the article, then it doesn't matter if they're reliable or not; they're not relevant to that particular piece of content.

Not everything on Wikipedia has to have a source listed, only everything that "has been challenged or is likely to be challenged." So perhaps the person who added this text did not do anything wrong by doing so, but now that it's been challenged, more is required.

This might be a more WP:ORN issue, but if the book in your link is reliable, then the article could read "The Spanish Empire was referred to as an empire on which the sun never sets as early as 1840," but it cannot exclude that any other empire was referred to this way earlier. I'd see that as an acceptable use of a primary source. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

He's editing logged out and I don't think he's trying to hide it, but I guess I didn't need to mention the socking earlier. I'm aware of course that not everything needs a source. What I was hoping and obviously didn't make it specific enough, although I did say "am I missing something", that someone could check the source. Of course they'd have to know Spanish I guess. Doug Weller talk 20:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

An interesting discussion has been going on here ["Kenneth_Macksey_asserts_it_would_have_been_possible_only_if_the_Royal_Navy_had_refrained_from_large-scale_intervention"] the gist of which now is.

Can a work of alternative history be considered an RS for historical facts (based upon what the author assumes must happen for his scenario to come to fruition), after the narrative has already diverged form the historical reality?

Context: Upon five-second examination, the article is about Operation Sea Lion, a Nazi invasion of Britain that didn't ever actually happen. If by "work of alternate history" you mean a scenario spelled out in an academic publication by a credentialled professional, then perhaps, as in "Professor Dora Smith of Suchandsuch University says the invasion would have been possible only if the Royal Navy had refrained from intervention and the Hastings Home Guard had been out of the county on drills," etc.

If by "work of alternative history" you mean a work of fiction of any kind, then absolutely not. Historical novels and other fictional works are sometimes inspired by history but they are designed to take absolute historical fact and the author's imagination and blend them together so that you don't know where one ends and the other begins. The Other Boleyn Girl and The Tudors were well-researched for things like dates and speeches but neither is suitable for use as a source. (Just skip straight to the sources that the author and showrunners used.) Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Upon thought, I'll add that if it's independently notable, it may be appropriate to mention that the work of fiction exists, as in the "In film and television" section of Operation Valkyrie. In some cases, the section eventually splits off into a separate article as in Cultural depictions of Anne Boleyn. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Well the issue here is that the book in question is a bit of both, and this is what I am asking about. If a notable historian writes a book that is (in effect) fiction (I.E,. a fictional history, that contains not just historical extrapolation, but also assumptions about what people might have done in this alternative reality) yet does not lay out the specific reason for it. Is it RS for the assumptions (such an the Royal navy would not have intervened)?Slatersteven (talk) 13:13, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Alternative history is a standard tool amongst historians. 'Under what conditions would this have come out differently' - often used to underscore either how unlikely a change was to happen, or how close it was. In this case the former. The author is a credible historian so his opinion on the situation is valid. It's not like citing Bernard Cornwall on the Peninsula war. Only in death does duty end (talk) 01:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Diva Dirt is a website dedicated to the female professional wrestling. We are in the midst of a discussion over

Appears to be reliable considering they have a team of authors and editors [22]. No fact checking going on but I see no reason why this source can't be used as long as it isn't supporting controversial claims. Meatsgains (talk) 03:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I am posting here regarding the article Babur (cruise missile). When the missile was tested by Pakistan from an underwater platform, a number of Indian media outlets (some of which are RS) quoted a tweet from a satellite imagery enthusiast who claimed that he had obtained satellite imagery of the launch (source of imagery remains unknown) and in his opinion it showed that the launch was a fake. Now do these sources remain reliable to be quoted in an article about Babur missile when i)All international RS are against them ii)Other Indian RS are against them iii)They are quoting a single person tweeting his own opinion and iv) They did not follow up on the fakery claims when international media reported the test Another issue is that most of these news outlets are leaning towards nationalist/right so should they be considered a RS about Pakistani weapon systems? As India and Pakistan are currently engaged in skirmishes, is it according to policy to consider them RS about pakistani weapon systems when all international opinions and the opinions of a number of Indian sources is against them as well? Adamgerber80 Please be kind enough to give your opinion in this discussion. Elektricity (talk) 04:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd have to say that they're generally not RS on this general topic, as Pakistani sources would not be about Indian weapons. Too many nationalism and POV problems. It might be possible to find a neutral source, but that would require a lot of proof to demonstrate the source's neutrality on contentious topics.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Pretty much Strum. But, can you please link the disc. and sources? Winged Blades^Godric 05:21, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@Winged Blades^Godric Talk:Babur (cruise missile) is the place we were discussing. Here are some RS that all agree on the launch are BBC, the Diplomat, the CNN and VOA(These include the Indian source "Diplomat"). I have yet to find even a single international source that says that there was fakery. Elektricity (talk) 05:37, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Some Indian news outlets like the Hindu, Hindustan Times, Times of India etc. are very respectable, and known for the quality of their news. If it is one of those than it definitely is an RS. But, if the source is a web tabloid with no journalistic credential, wherever on earth it is from, is definitely not an RS. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 12:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't discount reporting in rival countries (which may either downplay or overplay the threat). Wider international sources are often not interested enough in the subject at hand to report or dig in depth. There can be problems with home country reporting (which might parrot the party line of great success), with reports in rival countries, and in international reports. Estimates in RS are not gospel - and most coverage of weapons prior to use it really just an estimate (case in point - the F-35 is hailed as either the "best ever" or as "the biggest flop in weapon system procurement".....) - expert opinion on effectiveness of weapon systems really only goes past estimates after there is a real war.Icewhiz (talk) 12:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the question is not properly phrased. We shouldn't discount (or over emphasize) sources based on their nationality. Rather, we should look at the quality of the source independently and the quality of what the source says. In this particular case, I don't think the sources pass muster (the ones removed in this edit). The first, an NDTV news report is dubious because we should look for reliable print sources when making a contentious assertion rather than relying on video clips. The second, the India Today online one, quote one expert and doesn't assert the 'fake' claim independently (sort of "we're not saying it was a fake but just telling you what the colonel says". Also, we don't have any independent evidence that the colonel is actually an expert in imagery. Neither source is usable. --regentspark (comment) 19:55, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Everyone, I apologize for the late and lengthy response but I did not have access to internet. Now this problem is multi-faceted and reliable sources is just one of them. Hence, in my discussion on the

WP:RS or not rather than view them with the prism of their national origin. Adamgerber80 (talk

) 00:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz, Aditya Kabir, RegentsPark, and Sturmvogel 66: In case you guys missed this. Adamgerber80 (talk) 00:46, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry. I havenot delved deep into the dispute. But, on the surface I think you were right to address the issue of reliability source by source. There really cannot be any blanket judgement based on a source's nationality. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Given the history of dictatorship in Pakistan and it still ranks really low at
  Press Freedom Index, it is all fair to use the reliable Indian news outlets to report on the events of Pakistan. It is similar to saying that we can use reliable sources of Israel to report on Palestine, as well as reliable sources from South Korea when reporting on North Korea. Excelse (talk
  ) 05:14, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

That's a pretty dubious argument to say the least. The media in Pakistan is known to enjoy a high degree of freedom, unlike the analogies you related here. There's examples of English publications like Dawn, The Express Tribune etc. which are well-respected. It boils down to the individual source, and has to be evaluated on that context. The Indian media is usually unreliable though when it comes to reporting on Pakistan, and tends to sensationalize. I have found this issue with several newspapers and articles. So anything has to be taken with a grain of salt and verified for neutrality. Mar4d (talk) 12:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• Mar4d but you are using your personal opinion. You could name only 2 sources that you think can be trusted. The listing of
  Press Freedom Index shows Pakistan ranks much lower and is contrary to "high degree of freedom". You can read Ayesha Siddiqa’s Military Inc.: Inside Pakistan’s Military Economy, which shows that Pakistan's media is controlled by their military. Excelse (talk
  ) 05:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@

WP:RS as I did before coming here. Nationalistic Bias in sources is considered grounds for exclusion and although almost sources are giving POV information, it is up to the editors to decide which source is good enough. Elektricity (talk

) 06:53, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@Elektricity: I don't necessarily agree with Excelse's comments. But I think the question has been framed incorrectly by you. We are discussing very specific sources and whether they should be included in the Babur (missile) article. There cannot be a blanket ban on one countries sources for another, as I have explained above since Wikipedia does not have any such guidelines. You have failed to address the three issues I have raised so far. You seem to take the references which mention an Indian expert and Pakistani expert at face value because it suits your narrative but oppose another one as "conspiracy theories" because it does not. I have presented independent sources which put the person as an expert in the field. You cannot dismiss their published claims on the basis on their nationality. Adamgerber80 (talk) 06:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I will second what Mar4d said. During all of my work with Pakistani articles, I found at least these two sources as

WP:RS without a doubt. Störm (talk)

15:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Mar4d and Störm: I have raised multiple issues here which does not include raising doubts on Pakistani sources. I have presented multiple sources which proves to be of repute and that Indian and Pakistan media be treated equally without the prism of nationality. Because it is a slippery slope thereafter where one can claim that each countries media is being bombastic about their claims and thus cannot be trusted either. The discussion here is about very specific sources and three issues which I have raised. I would greatly appreciate it if we discussed them on their merits. Adamgerber80 (talk) 15:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

It seems the discussion was mostly about the validity of Indian news outlets regarding Pakistani military, which I have addressed, as for the content itself, I find your argument as correct that the author in question is indeed an expert and should be trusted per

WP:RS. Excelse (talk

) 05:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz, Aditya Kabir, RegentsPark, Sturmvogel 66, and Winged Blades of Godric: Hi everyone, it seems the user who brought this here refuses to engage in a discussion and has not responded to the points I have raised. Can we wind this discussion up? Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 01:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

It looks very much like a consensus - "There can be no blanket sanction on Indian sources for Pakistani articles. If any source is found to be unreliable then it should be dealt with individually". It also looks like nothing more is going to happen here. I guess we can close. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

@User:Aditya Kabir I think we should wait for a more experienced editor (admin) like User:Störm or regentspark to close this. The gist of the matter was that sometimes indian sources are not RS for pakistani weapons and almost all experienced editors agree that they are not reliable. The only dissent is provided by Excelse who does not seem to have any experience, seems to be a sleeper account made just for commenting and your own. In contrast experienced users like Storm, Reagentspark and User:Mar4d have stated that they are not RS. The so called consensus you speak of, is that when talking about Pakistani weapons, Indian sources are 'No Bueno". Elektricity (talk) 04:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

(inserted) @Elektricity: "The only dissent is provided by... your own" - what dissent? I have not seen me saying anything about your sources. All I said was that - if a source is found not to be reliable then don't use it, but don't claim that all Indian sources are biased. Is that very difficult to understand? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 20:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:STONEWALLING. Adamgerber80 (talk

) 04:59, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Adamgerber80 5 highly experienced editors have stated that Indian sources are not RS on Pakistani weapons. I think it is them, that you have to convince, not me. I brought the matter here so that experienced editors could give thier opinion. Now 5 of them agree on the fact that Indian sources are not always RS for pakistan. Reagents Park points to my specific edits and confirms that the sources are not reliable (You missed his point in the comment, he said the question is not phrased right, but then he went on to say that the sources you added were unreliable, please do not cherry pick a statement when it is there for all to see). The consensus of experienced editors is to call these sources unreliable. However, I have still requested that an admin closes this so that we can move onto other matters with civility. Elektricity (talk) 05:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:RS? RegentsPark made a comment only based on your views of the situation. He states "we don't have any independent evidence that the colonel is actually an expert in imagery". I have subsequently provided references of the same. So it is not me who is Cherry picking comments. Adamgerber80 (talk

) 05:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@Adamgerber80 we have both given out arguments in this regard. They are on the TP for all to see. This is board is for us to listen and for others to give thier opinion about the matter. I think we should respect the opinion of seasoned editors. I assure you that if the situation were to be reversed, I will accept the opinion of these experienced editors without much debate. So I will advise you to do the same. Give your argument in one comment, and wait for others to have thier say, reply if you see any specific issue or if you are pinged. I have myself refrained from arguing for, or against the sources with any other editor. As third party editors, we should respect thier views. Elektricity (talk) 06:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Are Indian news outlets "always" RS about Pakistani weapons? No.

Are Indian news outlets "never" RS about Pakistani weapons? No.

Is a "particular" Indian news outlet RS about about Pakistani weapons? May be, or may be not. Check it out.

Whatever it is, RS or not, do not judge "every" Indian news outlet by that "particular" source.

Is this clear enough? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 20:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:RS from a Pakistani nuclear scientist in the article to justify other claims. I don't see a consistency in policy here. It is important to note that the editor has little or no contribution history to that article or any other weapon article but I don't wish to hold this against them. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk

) 11:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

"Digiconomist was created at the start of 2014 by Alex the Vries (born 1989) as a "hobby project". Source: Digiconomist about us page [43]

HOWEVER, the blog is often cited by reliable sources such as:

• Washington Post: [44]
• The Guardian:[45]

2. Article: Bitcoin#Energy_consumption

3. Content: Digiconomist is often quoted for headline grabbing comments like 'bitcoin uses more energy than XYZ nation.' Note there are existing claims in the Bitcoin article from The Economist that already goes into bitcoins huge energy consumption. What more does this blog offer to improve the sourcing?

Content: "At the end of 2017, the global bitcoin mining activity was estimated to consume between 1 and 4 gigawatts of electricity (between 9 and 35 TWh a year), with 1.2 GW as the theoretical lower bound assuming that everyone is using the most energy-efficient mining hardware available."

Diffs: [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51]

@Ladislav Mecir: and I believe that if digiconomist says himself that he is operating a hobby website, why should the guarding reposting his content then make it reliable, if it wasn't reliable to begin with?

@

Thanks, Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

This is the LinkedIn of the author. Starting something as hobby project is different to saying that everything ever produced in a project is a lie or hasn't been fact checked. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• One question which is missing from these equations is how much energy a visa transaction requires in terms of carbon footprint ( or the entire energy to make it happen). Digiconomists cites the worst example for one of the largest mining farms, powered by coal burning (there are however examples with large mining farms using renewable energy). Digiconomist, "At 40 megawatts of electricity per hour that comes down to a footprint of 24-40 tons of CO2 per hour." With a medium calculation of 30 tons per hour we get 262,800 tons per year. A Mastercard study estimated in 2009 that just a creditcard has a carbon footprint of 21,000 tons of CO2. This doesn't factor in the carbon footprint/energy requirements for powering standby card readers, accounting software, staff, bills/recipe letters, office heating and so on. Miners are also encouraged to use less energy, to maximise returns. We probably need an article for this topic.
  prokaryotes (talk
  ) 12:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Digiconomist actually has a visa calculation, but only for transactions, and the data center. Digiconomist cites a 2012 article as his source, which assumes electricity consumption for nine days equally to 25,000 households - for one data center with 130 staff people - who probably drive to the office gas powered. Visa in 2018, cites they have four datacenters, and 3 billion creditcards (That's 63,000,000,000,000 tons of CO2 from credit cards carbon footprint alone, accoridng to Mastercard).

prokaryotes (talk

) 12:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Digiconomist Bitcoin vs Visa graph is only factoring in transactions, with limited reliability estimates, old numbers, and his figure of 50,000 households (which according to his source is for 18 days for 1 data center), is either misleading, or at best a failure in balanced accounting.

prokaryotes (talk

) 13:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Issue is not digiconomist's methodology, but rather the fact that he himself admits he is operating a hobby site. A hobby site is a

WP:UGC, not an RS. Jtbobwaysf (talk

) 13:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

He said he started it as a hobby project, not that he wants everything ever written on it just be considered as a hobby site. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

He is a "Data Consultant & Blockchain Specialist" for PwC where he is "Blockchain Tribe Squad Leader". --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Notice also that his Visa household figure is based on backup diesel generators. A 2014 article points out (Bank of America Merrill Lynch report) "Yet, for all the energy efficiency that technology brings us, data centres remain the technology world’s dark little energy guzzling secret."

prokaryotes (talk

) 13:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

This is an interesting source, I was reading it, maybe can incorporate it.

This doesn't matter who he is, not notable. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Reliability of cited sources The above cited Guardian article claims, "..one of Visa’s two US data centres reportedly runs on about 2% of the power required by bitcoin", but digiconomist nor the Guardian re-cited 360 article compare Bitcoin with Visa's household consumption at all! WAPO article actually more critical here, "One alarmist article in Newsweek said that bitcoin computer operations could consume “all of the world’s energy by 2020.” The website Digiconomist claims that bitcoin operations use as much energy as Denmark." Thus, I object to The Guardian source, but the WAPO link seems like a critical reliable look at the issue. WAPO also states, "..would amount to less than 1 percent of U.S. electricity alone and no more than 0.14 percent of global electricity generation"

Seems you have some sources for the Visa info. Does this visa info speak to Bitcoin's energy consumption? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• There's no reason to get hung on the word "hobby", it has no bearing on the validity of the source. Many people provide professional-quality work as a hobby. De Vries seems pretty transparent about his methodology and also has reasonable formal qualifications as mentioned above, for what it's worth. Even more importantly, we (Wikipedia) are not using him as a source. Guardian and WaPo are. It's their decision, not ours. Finally, the WaPo article also cites numerous other experts who arrive at similar results, so I don't quite see the point of this dispute. Smite-Meister (talk) 13:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

"Dont get hung up on hobby." Sorry, RS is important here.

WaPO also cites this blog [52] as well as Newsweek [53], which also cites digiconomist. The sources you are referring to are count them, in total 2 blogs.

Last, refrain from edit warring this disputed content, such as this you did just now [54]. Thanks, Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The article is now just citing 2015 figures, newer estimates, as cited here by Marc Bevand (linked by WaPo), point out that the least energy-effcient miners are barely profitable. Thus, the 2015 figure is outdated, and The Economist did not provide a calculation at all. Even if WaPo cites the digiconomist site, WaPo remains as a reliable source. TLDR The Bitcoin article gives a false impression on today's energy consumption.

prokaryotes (talk

) 14:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

prokaryotes (talk

) 14:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, was looking for the most recent comment and must have replied out of sync. I don' think we should get into

WP:UGC applies. Jtbobwaysf (talk

) 14:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

QZ (January 5, 2018): Having shut down the exchanges where cryptocurrencies like bitcoin are traded, the Chinese government is now going after the facilities where such currencies are “mined.” To do so, it’s hitting such operations where it hurts: electricity supply.

prokaryotes (talk

) 20:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Chinese bitcoin miners eye sites in energy-rich Canada (Reuters) China’s Bitmain Technologies is eyeing bitcoin mining sites in Quebec, a company spokesman told Reuters, as expectations of a potential Chinese crackdown on cryptocurrency mining make the energy-rich Canadian province an attractive alternative.

Thanks for the suggestion, just added it to the article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Irrelevant

Of course, this entire thread is entirely irrelevant, since the sources being used are

Every source you have advocated for thus far to support your proposed content attributes

WP:UGC. Jtbobwaysf (talk

) 09:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Calton. To me it seems that Jtbobwaysf fundamentally misunderstands the Wikipedia sourcing policy and its purpose, which is to avoid pointless arguments like this one. Smite-Meister (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

You might want to wait for this RfC to end before adding the disputed content back to the article like you did here [55] today. Quite an example of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing ... Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

That's not how the system works. This entire "dispute" is pointless, as explained above. Smite-Meister (talk) 14:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• If nominally reliable sources are repeating content that might-or-might-not-be reliable in and of itself, then it is presumed that either the RSes are making efforts to verify the accuracy of the content, thus giving the original source a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"; or that the RSes are simply citing a trusted source, showing that the original source already has such a reputation.
  Tell me all about it.
  13:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

At Gale of January 1976, one editor has repeatedly restored text and cites to the Executive Intelligence Review, a LaRouche movement publication. The particular article cited (here) claims "NATO-coordinated weather modification" and promotes conspiracy theories about the Rockefeller family, although these portions are not used in the source.

I do not believe this publication is reliable in any case, and that any information that is actually legitimate could be found in a much better source. Please weigh in at Talk:Gale_of_January_1976. Neutrality^talk 02:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Why do you not think the information used could not be found in a reliable source?

• The British Meteorological Office published a bulletin on Friday 2, announcing this as a wind of Force 9 (indicating a strong gale), but the warning did not appear in the British press.
• The Met Office put out notices of flood tide warnings which sounded very strange to the public. The office gave warnings for "areas 12, 13, and 14 etc..." but no one was told where these areas were until later, when the BBC intervened to explain the warnings.
• Weather reports in the European press were fairly limited up until virtually the moment the storm hit. The French daily Le Monde was the one paper on the continent to pick up the warning, which was then published as a regular weather report. Simultaneously workers at the French National Meteorological Bureau, Météo-France, went out on strike. The Parisian daily Le Figaro published on 2 January a notice reading, "a partial strike at the National Meteorological Bureau does not allow us to produce a weather map today."
• The Ocean Weather Bureau in Hamburg, West Germany knew of the impending storm as early as the morning of 2 January. The German daily Die Welt received an official weather report from the bureau predicting warm and mild weather. The Hamburg bureau sent no storm warning until 1:45 pm, on 2 January, when storms for southern Germany were reported on TV.

-They all seem like points which could very well be reliably sourced, from other third party sources.Lacunae (talk) 21:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Why do you not think the information used could not be found in a reliable source?

He said no such thing. He said -- simply -- that this LaRouche publication isn't a reliable source AT ALL. And I'll straight up say that NO LaRouche publications are reliable sources; in fact, I'd say that they're the OPPOSITE of reliable sources. --Calton | Talk 22:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• What Calton said. Guy (Help!) 22:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• +1 EEng 23:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

This discussion can be closed, I will not revert, unless a reliable alternative source can be found for the content. Though I still maintain that

If the content can be verified i.e. via an actually reliable source, just use that other source. EEng 14:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The Triangle Exit:The True Story of a Secret Undercover Operative for the FBI and CIA by Fino and Rizzo

Here is a link to Ronald Fino’s Wiki Page. I believe he is a reliable source. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Fino — Preceding unsigned comment added by BuffCity (talk • contribs) 21:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

And my response to the provision of that link to the author bio. (I asked you before, BuffCity: is there any chance of you remembering to sign your posts?) - Sitush (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

As far as the author goes, rather than the press, this archived version of a link in the bio article seems very much to sit on the fence regarding credibility and ends with To many people in Buffalo, Fino is a mysterious figure. Even people who like him say they really don't know whether to believe all, part or any of the things he claims. His former attorney, Cambria, was asked if he will read Fino's book, should it someday be published. "I don't know if I'll read it or not," Cambria responded. "I can't vouch for his credibility." - Sitush (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I can't find any evidence that Fino's book is self-published.BuffCity (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with concerns that the publisher is a vanity press. I don't see anything suggesting the book or Fino should be considered reliable. --

talk

) 22:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Ronz. Does anyone else have an opinion? - Sitush (talk) 13:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Sitush: I checked out their services page and it seems pretty cut and dry that they're a vanity press to me. (1) "We will represent you as an author and make sure that the world’s top publishers are exposed to your book and its marketing material." (2) They also have an entire section of "Publishing Services". It would seem bizarre to me if they would ghostwrite and market a book and yet stop short of doing the print run. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 14:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Should links to

A quick and partial search show that wikiHow is linked to on

• Torito
• Jack Herrick
• Bob cut
• Murphy Pakiam
• Joseph Kariyil
• Solved game
• Chopsticks (hand game)
• Hair conditioner
• Corpse paint
• Death metal
• Usenet
• Comparison of online backup services
• Usenet newsgroup
• Living statue
• Bebo
• People watching
• Smoke ring

Before I start mass-deleting links, other than the

• Certainly not admissible as a source, not that it ever stops anyone from using IMDB as one. Guy (Help!) 19:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
• Not at all. It's an openly-edited wiki (just like Wikipedia), and hence should not be referenced by another Wiki, or much of anything. Thanks,
  talk
  ) 19:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
• The only situation would be the usual exception of making a claim about itself, but obviously that be from the site controlled part. External links could also be something worth discussing, but that would be on an article by article basis. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
• Perhaps it has some use as an external link, but not as a reference. This is Paul (talk) 20:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Do Large (Magnitude ≥8) Global Earthquakes Occur on Preferred Days of the Calendar Year or Lunar Cycle? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

It's cheeky but if Seismological Research Letters is a real scientific journal of good reputation, then you're good to go, snark and all. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

They publish recent research by the movers and shakers in the field. It's indeed a longstanding journal of good repute (Harvard subscribes, so, ya know, that proves it) and BTW the paper answers its title question in the negative:

The simple tests presented in this report confirm what seismologists have long taken for granted, that there is no evidence that large earthquake rates are modulated significantly by the position of the Earth relative to either the Moon or the Sun. If there is any modulation of large earthquake occurrence, it is either well below the level that can be detected with the present catalog or gives rise to effects that are far more complex than a global clustering through either the calendar year or the lunar month. A low level of modulation would be of no practical use for earthquake prediction. The tests illustrate once again how apparent clustering and anticlustering arise commonly in random catalogs, potentially fueling enduring earthquake myths.

EEng 22:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh, wait, I completely missed the point of Guy Macon's post. I actually didn't recognize that the abstract was the abstract. Somehow I thought it was trying to say No. 5 or something. EEng 22:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello everyone! I have been thinking of working on more articles related to fictional characters from literature, and I was wondering if

I would apply the same common-sense cautions recommended by this essay on citing textbooks, but I think these would be good sources for superficial analyses. CliffsNotes, in particular, is run by a respected academic publisher, so I think it would be generally acceptable Nblund ^talk 22:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• Make sense; I just wanted to clarify this. I agree that these sources would be best suited for superficial analyses. I would use them in conjunction with other sources. Thank you for the response!
  Aoba47 (talk
  ) 04:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Raimonds Vējonis. Two news sources which seem ok both cite his FB page which lists his religious views as "Pagan". I'm not sure that's sufficient, and I don't see it at his FB page.[56] Doug Weller talk 12:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

If the news articles cite his FB page... and it isn’t actually on his FB page... then, no, the news articles are not reliable (for that specific bit of information). Blueboar (talk) 12:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

France24 also says he is a pagan, linky so not seeing a problem Darkness Shines (talk) 12:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

A case for creative use of

WP:ATT. Guy (Help!

) 13:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

That FB page is verified (meaning that the person who created the account has proven themselves to be Vējonis to FB's satisfaction, which I think is good enough for us), so the only real question is whether or not "Pagan" under his religion there is a mistake. Without anyone saying it is, it's about as concrete a source as we can get (for a politician, labeling oneself "pagan" can hardly be seen as self-serving, even in Northeastern Europe).

Tell me all about it.

13:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

OK... I am confused... The issue boils down to whether Vejonis self-identifies as a pagan on his FB page (or not). MPants says he does, while Doug says he does not. I don't read Latvian, and so can not opine on that either way. What I can say is this: IF he does, then sources noting that he says so on his FB page can be considered reliable for saying such... however, if he does not then sources noting he does say so on his FB page can not be considered reliable for saying such. Blueboar (talk) 14:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

However he could have removed his religion from his FB? Whether this was privacy or mistake is unknown. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@

List of Pagans where I removed a number where their articles didn't mention pagan. There's a hidden note saying that there should be an article and the article should have a source stating that the BLP has called themself a pagan, but it's my opinion that those sources need to be in the list article, not just the main article. No one should have to check them to find if there is a source, and that would prevent people adding names where there is no source. Doug Weller talk

14:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

No, I haven't found it. But if the sources are ones we would consider nominally reliable, then it's not on us to second-guess whether their claim about his FB page identifying him as a pagan is true or false. That would be

WP:DUE

(I think so of all politicians, religion and politics being what they are), I don't think there's any room to exclude it.

I agree with you about the list, by the way. Identifying as Pagan puts one's religions beliefs outside the normal understanding of the vast majority of their constituency (Paganism being a collection of tiny minority religions), so it's a "claim likely to be challenged" and thus should be supported inline. I don't feel the same way about most lists, but controversial ones like this should all be sourced in the list itself.

Tell me all about it.

14:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

It is not

WP:OR to determine the reliability of a source. The page literally says in the first paragraph This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk

) 15:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

No, the issue is whether reliable sources say he identifies as pagan on his FB page - in which case we attribute it either to them or "according to his Facebook page as of X, he is pagan, source, X, Y". Guy (Help!) 22:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• What the source [57] says is "In addition to his native Latvian, Vejonis speaks fluent Russian and English. He is married with two children and lists his religious views as 'pagan' on his Facebook page." Those are several statements of fact and one "We're not sure what to make if this – just passing it along." This should not be stated as flat fact in Wikipedia's voice. EEng 16:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

It is from 2015 the subject could have just removed it from their FB. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

In which case, the sources commenting on what is on facebook are outdated (and thus no longer reliable). Blueboar (talk)`

I've been prompted to start this discussion following this thread (permanent link) at ANI which concerns the above-mentioned links. I recently removed references from the Express and Brexit Central from a BLP as unreliable (see Ben Bradley (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)), but ended up becoming involved in a content dispute with the user who'd added them. The topic of BuzzFeed was also mentioned during the ANI discussion, which is why I've included it here.

To my mind the first two would not be regarded as suitable sources for a BLP. The Express is a tabloid that seems to share similarities with the Daily Mail in terms of its reporting style and stance, while Brexit Central appears to be there solely to push an agenda (rather like Wings of Scotland which we avoid using). I'm not sure about BuzzFeed. My gut feeling would be to avoid it as unreliable, but I could be wrong. What I'd like to get from this discussion, if possible, is a consensus on the use of these sites, rather like we've

The Express is not at all reliable when considering anything even tangentially related to Brexit. Brexit Central is also useless, as you say. Buzzfeed can do some very good reporting, as you also note, so content sourced to that would be cautiously OK. The fact that Bradley is a four-letter fellow is not a reason for not treating him fairly and neutrally, good work on this. The fact is that if this stuff is genuinely significant it will be covere din a much wider range of sources, so the applicable policy is almost certainly

WP:UNDUE. Guy (Help!

) 14:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Daily Express is not reliable for many topics as it has similar afflictions to the Daily Mail. Brexit Central doesn't appear to come close to being a reliable source. Buzzfeed just seems too poor quality to be considered a reliable source, and certainly not good enough for BLPs. --Michig (talk) 14:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Buzzfeed is highly context dependant. Their actual staff-reporting is perfectly useable as its high quality journalism (in the last few years). They also have a lot of low quality clickbaity articles. In this case per JzG the buzzfeed stuff looks fine. While the express is not great for almost anything, that it covers it is an indication its in the wider press. We just wouldnt use them as a source for anything factual unless it was covered by a more reliable source. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

But this is largely irrelevant, the Brexit central piece is an opinion piece BY Bradley, so it passes reliability for being a primary source on his views on Brexit. Now if you dont think its DUE to have a British political views on possibly the biggest event affecting the UK in his biography thats fine, but its neither a reliability issue nor a BLP issue when its a self-published opinion piece. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

It's

WP:SPS so only usable if it's oncontroversial. "X say Y stupid thing, source, X saying Y stupid thing on Z crappy website" doesn't fly. If it is significant enough to include it will have reliable independent secondary sources. Guy (Help!

) 15:36, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Well its not controversial for a brexiteer to state why he is pro-brexit (its not controversial anyone is pro-brexit). I agree on the DUE comment, but vast swathes of political biographies include their political positions. I have lost count of the US ones which include their public voting records... Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

By definition, if it's challenged by another editor, it requires better sourcing. Guy (Help!) 19:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Ha,no. Otherwise nothing would ever get put in. There is no better sourcing for a subject claims about themselves. If subject X says 'I believe Y' we dont need a secondary source to say 'X believes Y'. We would need one to say 'X believes Y but hes wrong' which is how most pseudo-science/fringe articles deal with loony claims, or 'X says he believes Y but its clear from event A, B, C he actually believes Z' - which is where we sit with Trump (and other people who are economical with the truth on a daily basis). Which brings me back to my previous comment, unless there is some doubt that the subject himself is not pro-brexit, his own opinion piece on why he is pro-brexit is a perfectly reliable source to say hes pro-brexit. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Au contraire: most things are not challenged, so the issue does not arise. For those that are, the onus has always been on the person seeking to include something, to achieve consensus for it. Anything else would be a POV-pusher's charter. Guy (Help!) 22:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Brexit central has a full editorial staff, linky MPs and others write for it, linky I would say fine to use with attribution Darkness Shines (talk) 15:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Only in death: In that situation surely it would still be better to find a third party source that references his support of Brexit, rather than using his opinion piece. Or perhaps we could use it in conjunction with a third party reference. The source here was basically being used to say he's a Brexiteer, and there are other sources that can do that. In the past people such as David Cameron have written opinion pieces for The Sun, but I believe if quoting them we tend to find another source, considered more reliable, that has picked it up.

I was told some years ago that a benchmark of whether or not Wikipedia would consider whether a site is regarded as a usable source is its presence in other media. So, with that in mind I've done a quick Google News search of the terms Brexit Central and BrexitCentral. There are plenty of mentions (both in reliable and unreliable media), but nothing really in depth. A pity really, as I've no doubt an article on it would be quite interesting. This is Paul (talk) 15:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

A third party source could give a reliable account of the impact of his views, or how his views compare to wider society, it cannot give a more reliable account of what the subject thinks than the subject himself. A primary source (the subject themself) is perfectly reliable as to what the subject claims/thinks. Unless Brexit Central has a habit of making up opinion pieces and attributing them to someone else, or the subject has recanted his opinion. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• Buzzfeed is normally reliable but I would not use them as the only or primary source for anything contentious that is being treated as fact, particularly with BLP. If other sources corroborate, then its okay but Buzzfeed's just enough in the questionable areas that we should avoid the contentious areas they are used in sourcing. --Masem (t) 17:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
• I wouldn't use Buzzzfeed unless absolutely necessary, considering its general quality and reliability is not terribly consistent/top-notch. (remember when it published an unreferenced dossier?). Thanks,
  talk
  ) 19:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• Initial Comment Having now stayed away as stated at AN/I, my complaint to the general board (by my choice, as This is Paul failed to choose the venue when offered) centres on the overt control that one individual - This is Paul - has assumed over me when I have not breached any policy, and no tangible evidence (links to any previous decisions or discussions) had been offered when three times reverting, removing content, headings and references (as before, I am ignoring 2RR/3RR). There is no adequate mandate for these reversions. The (deleted) content was informative, neutral, balanced, objective, non-controversial (as were my previous expansions) and (partially) WP-extant since late October, with the reversions going from 1x 1,098 bytes, then after I had correctly initated a Talk page sequence Talk:Ben Bradley (politician)#Deletion of sub-heading Ben Bradley (politician)#Brexit and contents including references to 2x 2,306. This is an example of BRD that you complained about, JzG. This is Paul peremptorily deleted, deeming unsuitability of initially two sources, based only on presumption and personal prejudice, then later deleting other sources. I have been sniped-at by JzG for 1% of my edit summaries as "combative" - I am disappointed in you - you need to look at this.

  The outline of this section is misleading, as Daily Express, Brexit Central and BuzzFeed need to be considered in context of the particular article, not as a general, abstract concept, as some of the commentors above had opined. I therefore feel this thread is being skewed from the start.

• Relating to BLP - there were/are no immediate BLP concerns, as the Brexit piece was Ben Bradley's and being extant/viewable is not controversial.
• Brexit Central was only added (see my edit summary) as further info to explain the IP's Express citation as a Primary source, therefore reliable.
• Brexit Central shows Bradley's reasons for changing from 'remain' to supporting 'leave' - this is encyclopedic and neutral for his perspective
• Brexit Central is an established org - not a non-entity blog or
  WP:SPS
• "Brexit Central appears to be there solely to push an agenda" (above TiP) - maybe before referendum, not now 'after the fact' - it is an online resource - they cannot realistically lobby without (the hope of) a further referendum or re-negotiation of remain
• Comments such as "Brexit Central is also useless" (above JzG) are simply bland subjective opinion
• Comments such as "Daily Express and Brexit Central are just not encyclopedic" are similarly meaningless waffle
• My introduction of BuzzFeed into the prose - note, not as a source per se - was only as an explanation of how the scandal was broken to the wider press, and showed the screenshots that the rest of the allegedly-reliable sources are reliant upon for their newsfeed. Removal of this IMO breaches NPOV and is censorship, as the sources themselves give attribution to BuzzFeed.
• The secondaries are all quoting similar attribution-text, hence we dont want or need
  WP:CITEKILL
• To exclude one source Daily Express, and to emphasize its alleged-unreliablity here - when there are several others carrying ostensibly the same text - is ludicrous, puposely smokescreening with generality to take it out of context.
• New Media has to be considered as a type of publication and dealt with, not ignored or excluded, as This is Paul has done when summarily assuming the mantle of 'voicing' WP's policy without prior consensus-justification.
• Bradley has now issued a statement (link via local licensed radio station - deny {{Cite AV media}}, anyone?) accepting full responsibility but trying to mitigate the circumstances/damage. Judge Judy recommends never writing stuff, knee-jerk style as it can't be undone, ever.
• The Ben Bradley debacle (also reaching the US - Bradley's local newspaper (Johnston Press) attributing BuzzFeed, as are others) has now been eclipsed by the latest revelations relating to the leader of another (minor) political party and the irresponsible comments of the leader's GF. I see TiP has been there, too.-Semperito (talk) 15:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Nice job of undermining your position and reinforcing the impression that you're a zealot on a mission. well done. Guy (Help!) 23:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@

Perhaps it would be better not to use a primary source to back an unreliable one, and to wait for the information to become more widely available. Generally, sources such as the Daily Express, Daily Mail, The Sun, Daily Mirror, Daily Record, and so on, should be avoided when dealing with

Now to deal with your accusations. Nobody is trying to control anyone. Comments like that are really unconstructive, and won't win an argument. In fact, since this is not the first time you've made these allegations, they are beginning to border on being a

An editor believes that data published by governments are always reliable. The subject of the specific debate is the impact of European Union's financial transfers on economy of Poland, but the problem is much more general.

Data published by governments are primary and this Wikipedia prefers secondary ones

WP:PRIMARY.Xx236 (talk

) 08:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes its

WP:NPOV problems--Shrike (talk

) 08:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

There are problems with some governments. However census data (population) or economic data (GDP, monetary transfers, etc.) tend to be hard to estimate if you aren't the government - hence usually most secondary sources will repeat the government figure for most countries (often merely repeating, in more dubious cases noting why it is dubious). So no - not always reliable, but often (e.g. for the EU) - reliable. Using primary data to assess the impact of transfers on an economy sounds more like OR - you'd want someone external making such an assessment - it is not as simple as quoting a figure.Icewhiz (talk) 09:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

As a general rule, I'd prefer to cite government stats for stuff like that evwn when we are certain they are unreliable, but with proper inline attribution ("According to Kremblavkistanian government estimates..."). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

If there is uncertainty about the reliability, use in text attribution. Blueboar (talk) 12:17, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Concur with the above. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Remember also that data are often less reliable when published by secondary sources owing to the "second-hand information" problem (e.g rounding or missing ranges of uncertainty). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello everyone! For the

Do you have any confirmation the interviews actually happened? Like a tweet or link by Jeanty to an interview, or something like a video clip? Has the site been used in any encyclopedias or books that discuss Buffy the Vampire Slayer, or even better an official work or scholarly research. If non of the above then it is probably not reliable, but don't remove the information if it not about a living person just add the {{citation needed}} tag. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for the quick response! The interviews have been posted on various other fansites, but they have not been referenced in books or scholarly research. SlayAlive has a long history of interviewing those involved with the comic books since its start. Here is Jeanty's twitter account (Twitter)) and he has retweeted posts from the SlayAlive twitter account, and he has retweeted a post about the interview here. I would prefer to go either keep it or remove it, as I respectfully do not find much value in the {{citation needed}} tag in this context. Hopefully that answers some of your questions, but let me know if I could provide you with anything further. Thank you again!
  Aoba47 (talk
  ) 22:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Aoba47. Thanks for the mention of the retweerts, in that case then I would say that the interviews are reliable sources for information not regarding living people. However you said primarily for interviews suggesting that there was other sources too, you can clarify what they are but I would probably say that they are not reliable. Furthermore you must also keep in mind issues other than the reliability. One issue is due weight, if that interview is the only source for information then it might be undue. You must also keep in mind the exceptionality of the claim, the source would only be reliable for claims that would not be surprising. In addition you might want to attribute the claims to Jeanty but if it just about his artwork then you might be fine without it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for the response. I will definitely think it through further.
  Aoba47 (talk
  ) 00:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Wing Bowl#Allegations of sexism and misogyny. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello y'all,

Just had a general question about state-sponsored media. Should we be using them as sources? I know this is one of the main reasons why RT is not being used in Wikipedia, but can that rule be universally applicable? For example, Turkey has tons of state-sponsored news outlets. Should it not be removed? Thanks,

Depends on context. For example of we say "and according to the Duchy news service hereditary prime minister Count Mountjoy said that they have no intention of setting up a military base on the moon" that is fine. If we said "the Duchy has not set up a a base on the moon" that would not be fine.Slatersteven (talk) 18:53, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

Étienne Dolet (talk

) 19:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

To specific a doubt for a general query, and source can be cherry picked. At the end of the day most government run news agencies can be considered fairly reliable for what they claim, not for it being true. I would also say that most state controlled media are going to be pretty accurate about quotes from the leadership (after all getting wrong may well lead to an Ack Ack related accident).Slatersteven (talk) 19:07, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Turkish press, due to lack of freedom of the press and coercion [58] [59], is probably relaible only for the positions of the Turkish gvmt. It does not matter if they are state sponsored or not, gvmts do not need ownership if they enforce their will via other means as here.Icewhiz (talk) 19:08, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes I agree I think (as long as we make it clear this is their view) they are OK.Slatersteven (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree Icewhiz, but I have to ask: why don't we extend the principle he espouses to other government-sponsored media such as the BBC in the UK or ARD in Germany? It is not as if these state-sponsored organizations have not had their own share of scandals. XavierItzm (talk) 07:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I would disagree with that. State funded media may be reliable and fairly independent - e.g. NPR or BBC are excellent sources (and media ownership is always an issue, also when non-state). The problem with Turkish (or Russian, or Iranian, or Chinese, or Syrian, etc.) is not direct formal government control - but rather government influence over private and public outlets via intimidation, coercion, arrests, etc. In fact, there are cases in such countries in which there is actually more freedom to report inside the formal state outlets (due to tenure in the position, and somewhat laxer control inside the formal outlets) than in the private outlets (in which the owners will often try to toe the party line to avoid any trouble with the authorities).Icewhiz (talk) 08:07, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

The problem with bias in state-sponsored media such as BBC, ARD, etc., is that because we westerners are marinated in the echo chamber of... BBC, ARD, NPR, etc., we no longer notice its bias! It is much easier to claim RT, etc., are way out there when you are the one outside looking in. I think we should be just as careful with the implicit bias embedded on Western State-sponsored media as we are with that of North Korea State-sponsored media. XavierItzm (talk) 09:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

The BBC's coverage of UK politics is asserted to be too left-wing by the Tories and too right-wing by Labour. It's not state-controlled, it's state-funded, so markedly different from outlets like RT. The problem with RT is that its editorial line is controlled by the state, and the system of political checks and balances is weak. The governments of Germany and the UK regularly change hands, so long-lived institutions, even when funded by government, are much less politicised. Guy (Help!) 09:46, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

JzG/Guy argues that "governments of Germany and the UK regularly change hands" and therefore their state-sponsored media is "less politicized". Yet the BBC is regulated by Ofcom and its directors are appointed by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport through the Prime Minister. Yeah. No politics going on there! It's a council of saints! XavierItzm (talk) 18:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Is this source reliable to add information about corruption to this article? I don't know anything about the source and I'm wary because the claims are about unethical and criminal behavior. Another news publication has found this story to be at least somewhat credible but I don't know anything about that publication, either. I also note that the claims are not coming completely out of the blue as it's clear that there have been challenges at this institution for several years e.g., it lost (but then regained) its regional accreditation a few years ago, the board of trustees fired the president in December for cause. ElKevbo (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

As per

Challenging Rappler's reliability based on these premises:

1. Rappler is a blogging platform (proofs already in the article)
2. The authors of the blogs are not journalists i.e. unprofessional first-party opinions
3. Since the site has no newspaper counterpart, articles can be edited and the edits can't be easily detected.
4. Readers are not assured that the authors writing behind Rappler news are really the journalists and not their hundreds of interns at Rappler X
5. Rappler is no longer, legally, a mass media, and as the Malacañang palace put it, they are now technically bloggers and can continue as a blogsite (which factually they have been doing since 2012). And opinion blogs are "unreliable sources" as per Wikipedia guidelines.

NoNDeSCRiPT 15:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Though I disagree to indiscriminately avoid using Rappler articles as reliable source. There are definitely portions of Rappler that should be generally considered unreliable or unsuitable for Wikipedia particularly IMHO an Opinion section and BrandRap which features sponsored content or native advertising. Some reports in Sports section in particular has been useful for me. A quick browse would yield non-opinion sports-related reports.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 16:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like a similar situation to Forbes and the Huffington Post where contributor articles are not obviously marked, but I don't know that much about Rappler. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Rappler is generally well-regarded. I have seen Reuters cite them.

zzz (talk

) 18:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

But when was that? Was it before this ruling from SEC? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

In the last couple of years. This ruling is politically motivated purely on a technicality.

zzz (talk

) 18:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I've used this source in Philippine pop-cultural articles before (i.e. films), and have always considered it reliable using common sense. However, perhaps it's only reliable in this area, as well as sports, travel, etc. I say use it with caution if it's going to be used as source in fields like politics and current events. I remember this source being challenged in the

mad

04:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Previous discussions

WP:BLPSPS), but in other contexts I have no theoretical problem with such sources being cited (and probably attributed as what they are inline) in other contexts, as a general rule, but in this case I'm broadly inclined to agree with points 2, 3 and 4 in the quotation above until I see evidence to the contrary. Hijiri 88 (聖やや

) 06:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@

Blogspot. Psiĥedelisto (talk

) 07:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I did not call it "a blog"; I called the blogs it hosts "blogs". I honestly don't remember what it was I was specifically complaining about being cited to Rappler back in 2016, but I do know the Duterte article was and is a mess, and the user who was citing Rappler in the Duterte article was behaving disruptively and showing a poor understanding of our sourcing policies in general. I don't really know why I was pinged and am still being pinged if the current dispute is substantially different from what happened in the fall of 16 as you seem to presenting it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Wait ... it doesn't make much sense to ping me but not User:Aquillion; they were much harsher than me in that last discussion. And yeah, if their terms of use say "don't submit NSFW stories" that makes me very skeptical. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@

The "editors" at publishing houses frequently just copy edit for grammar, spelling and other stylistic aspects; having people on staff whose title includes the word "editor" says nothing by itself, especially when one of the three is on leave and one other is an image editor, which presumably refers to their ability to use Photoshop and tools of that ilk rather than anything to do with fact-checking. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think the legal classification of a media outlet should be a huge factor in determining whether one is considered a reliable source. I've found the news articles of Rappler to be generally reliable and have used them as sources in several Wikipedia articles. Plus, Rappler has an publicly-available editorial board and publishes corrections and errata. You just need to be more discerning whether an article in Rappler is an opinion piece or not. —seav (talk) 07:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Seav: Can you provide a link to their "publicly-available editorial board" and some evidence that they "publish corrections and errata"? I read my comment from 2016-10-25 again and it seems I checked and couldn't find anything like that, and even now I don't see much to write home about. And yeah, point 4 of their usage policy basically places the onus on the user submitting the content to make sure it is legal and not plagiarized. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Sure. Here's their editorial board: [60] and here's a selection of their errata: [61]. —seav (talk) 08:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything there that would pass

WP:USERGENERATED. Only a single "managing editor" is listed on their team (otherwise it's all developers, media managers, etc; listing the CEO as "executive editor" or listing a "photo editor" obviously don't qualify); and there is no indication that they actually exert any editorial control. (For comparison, Facebook, a site I would see as similar to Rappler, also has a Managing Editor position.) Posting errata after the fact in response to legal notices and the like (which is what the errata section looks like - at a glance, a lot of the stuff there is removing things due to copyright) is not a substitute for editorial controls. In fact, I would argue that that errata page actually makes the site worse, since its framing seems to indicate that there are no editorial controls at all before content gets published. My feeling is still that Rappler is never usable as a source except perhaps about Rappler itself, and that cites to it should generally be removed on sight. Citing Rappler should be seen as on-par with citing a Facebook post. --Aquillion (talk

) 19:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Aquillion: Just an aside, read the job description of the Facebook managing editor position. That editor is clearly not editing Facebook posts, the job is to edit blog posts Facebook itself writes about its products such as Oculus or communication with the Facebook userbase. It's not at all similar to the Rappler job, which is to edit content on the site produced by Rappler's journalists. Facebook is a huge company, they really cannot be compared to Rappler. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 04:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't feel that this is an even slightly complicated case. Rappler is entirely

@

WP:USERGENERATED, again? Stop appealing to the terms of service which clearly apply to the blog platform or the comments, which isn't the point of discussion. My position remains: Rappler is a reliable source for goings on in the Philippines. If other sources, such as the Philippine Star or the Manila Times report on it, they are to be preferred; but Rappler's paid investigative journalists have broken story after story about the Philippines in recent years and your attempts to get them banned from articles do a great disservice to editors trying to write about the country. Psiĥedelisto (talk

) 04:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@

not to act as a mirror for a "social news" (?) website's "broken" stories. Hijiri 88 (聖やや

) 06:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: Writing about Philippine topics is difficult enough due to the lack of reliable sources, losing Rappler only makes the situation worse. That's what I meant to convey. In 2011, Rappler was the first to report that former chief justice Renato Corona received a PhD from the University of Santo Tomas without writing a doctoral dissertation, which turned out to be correct. Rappler's story Philippine Daily Inquirer, where a spokesman for Corona is attempting to make similar arguments as users in this thread (see also on-wiki Renato_Corona#Doctoral_degree_controversy) This is one I remember personally as Rappler being the original source, so I knew how to bring it up again; I'm not sure if there's a site which records major (or minor) stories and who broke them first. I will say that I was able to find many occasions on which other Manila newspapers have cited Rappler as their source for a quote from a government official. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 13:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Rappler is generally a reliable source and is composed of many veteran journalists. I don't see how Rappler is

WP:USERGENERATED as it hires dedicated beat reporters to cover stories. -Object404 (talk

) 11:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

“Rappler is entirely

WP:USERGENERATED”. This is factually incorrect. Sure, comments by readers on news articles, the site's "Mood Meter", and contributed articles are definitely user-generated, but its news articles are definitely written by a paid staff of journalists. So, no, Rappler is not "entirely" user-generated. —seav (talk

) 07:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Given that User:Hijiri88 and User:Aquillion have not continued discussion above, perhaps they will consent to this now.

Vote

• Support. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 15:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support but with a caveat: the unreliable source tag should only apply to RapplerX. Opinion columns from newspapers and/or news sites do have some information that is useful, and we shouldn't discount that just because it came from Rappler. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 07:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support per Sky Harbor. —seav (talk) 02:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support
  zzz (talk
  ) 02:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support as per Sky Harbor -Object404 (talk) 16:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

There are literally hundreds of cryptocurrency news websites. Often it is unclear if a source can be considered as reliable. Is there a list with crypto related RS sources?

There is a ton of hype and speculation about crytocurrencies; these cryptocurrencies are very driven by online communities of advocates who come here to hype them. We have to hold sourcing standards reasonablely high in these articles.

Btw in general, broad posts like this don't generate much useful consensus. What is needed here are actual sources and content they are used to support.

what sources should be useful in a notability discussion is also somewhat different from what is reliable for content in an article. The OP (which although too general is commendablely neutral - kudos for that) arises from this AfD.Jytdog (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• per the instructions at the top of this page, here are some past discussions about sources for cryptocurrency info:

search result

Dec 2013

Sept 2015 about Dash

November 2017 about Monero

-- Jytdog (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• Note - the "publications" below are blogs on steroids; they are
  WP:NCORP where we are working on revising sourcing guidelines for notability, and trade rags have been specifically discussed quite a bit. Jytdog (talk
  ) 06:36, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Nope. CoinDesk Editorial policy CoinDesk does not accept payment in return for news articles, features or product reviews. .... CoinDesk earns money through events, research and advertising..

prokaryotes (talk

) 09:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

From

prokaryotes (talk

) 09:54, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Glad this is being discussed. Yes, these are trade magazines, whose bottom line depends upon the speculation and hype from the industry. For anyone that's worked on cryptocurrency articles, I think it's clear from the extent of hype and spam that there are extensive

talk

) 17:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

For a start, is CoinDesk.com (

prokaryotes (talk

) 19:15, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Probably - They are owned by a company that owns a Bitcoin brokerage, but they claim independence from their owner.[64]They claim to emply the largest group of independent journalists covering the blockchain ecosystem.[65]. That would seem to address editorial oversight. They are cited by CNN, Forbes, The Wall Street Journal, Investor's Business Daily, and several other newspapers and news web sites, which is evidence of reliability per

WP:USEBYOTHERS.- MrX

🖋 19:29, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Coindesk is very uneven and does everything from churnalism to outright koolaid-drunk-here-have-some hype to some reasonable reporting and good independent analysis. We cannot comment on publications generally this way. Jytdog (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Then they fit in nicely with the rest of online media. Is there reason to believe that their coverage is error prone, or that their reporting is not based in fact?- MrX 🖋 19:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

There are "articles" in it that no competent editor would touch with a ten foot pole. It a blog on steroids - a trade magazine really; this is not a news organization like the NYT. I have cited some things from it but there are things I read in it, and did not cite, and I have removed citations from it from cryptocurrency articles many times. Jytdog (talk) 06:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Along with daily news they also provide market graphs, which get often cited by other reliable sources. They also disclose any COI the authors or CD might have in regards to the topic at hand.
  prokaryotes (talk
  ) 20:15, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

We cannot comment on publications generally this way. Jytdog (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

It was co-founded by

prokaryotes (talk

) 19:54, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Possibly - They are under editorial control and but they are cited infrequently by other reputable sources (

WP:USEBYOTHERS). - MrX

🖋 20:36, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

On Google Scholar a search for "Bitcoin Magazine" results in "Bitcoin+Magazine"&btnG= with about 418 results at the time of writing including ones by universities like [66] and [67]. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

CCN

Is ccn.com considered RS?

We cannot comment on publications generally this way. Jytdog (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Sure we can. It's better if we know the specific content in question, but we can at least disqualify sources that are so bad that they can't be trusted for anything (Breitbart, Daily Mail, InfoWars, WND).- MrX 🖋 19:47, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Generally, no - I would steer away from this one. They have no articulated editorial policy and

WP:USEBYOTHERS is minimal.- MrX

🖋 19:57, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Also heavily used in this crypto key article

prokaryotes (talk

) 20:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Generally, yes - They claim independence and appear to be under editorial control. They are cited by NPR, Forbes, Huffington Post and several other a few other news web sites, which is evidence of reliability per

WP:USEBYOTHERS.- MrX

🖋 20:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

With regards to Forbes and Huffington Postw we need to make sure that the articles are by staff and not contributors, because WP:USEBYOTHERS would not apply in that case. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Is a slightly puffed BLP using multiple press releases and youtube videos as "sources". Some of the sources do not actually even back the claims made. I would ask that others examine and weigh the sources used therein. Collect (talk) 20:17, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Bizarrely there aren't a lot of sources for detailed info on this film but I've come across the below blog and associated document that go into amazing levels of detail on the behind the scenes goings on. Can anyone weigh in on your opinion as I really love the info there but I don't want to put it into the article if it's just gonna get knocked back at a GA or FA nomination. Thanks.

• http://theoriginalfan.blogspot.co.uk/
  • https://www.dropbox.com/s/8vq99ed4gwmdb7a/The%20Making%20of%20The%20Thing.pdf?dl=0

--Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Note, I redacted the

WP:COPYLINK violation in the post above. Jytdog (talk

) 16:27, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

That's how they made the document available, it's not a PDF of some existing work added to dropbox, that IS the document.

• 15 Times Major Media Outlets Used a Statistic about Plastic Straws Based on Research by a 9-Year-Old
• California Considers $1,000 Fine for Waiters Offering Unsolicited Plastic Straws

Of course we have an article on this: Milo Cress.   :)   --Guy Macon (talk) 17:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Note that "major media" routinely uses press releases without any further checking at all, which is a good reason why the concept of "reliable sources" is not valid at this point for Wikipedia. Where a source is a press release, the press release should be cited and identified as such on Wikipedia. Just like opinions. Collect (talk) 18:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

It's now on snopes:[68]

I wouldn't go so far as to say that the concept of "reliable sources" is not valid at this point for Wikipedia, but I would like to see something in our policies that tells the editor that when a reliable source reports a fact, it is fair to ask whether the reliable source has any way of knowing whether that fact is true or false. If they have no way of knowing the actual number don't say where the number came from,[69] that is reason to question the source. If they say that the source came from the national park service without saying that the NPS got it from a 9-year old girl boy, that's almost as bad. Even if they say that the source came from the national park service and that the NPS got it from a 9-year old girl boy, they should say where the 9-year old girl boy got it from. Turns out that she called some straw manufacturers in 2011. Now how on earth does a straw manufacturer know how many straws end up in the sea as opposed to landfills? In fact, it is dubious to assume that a particular straw manufacturer knows the total number of straws produced per day -- businesses tend to keep that sort of information secret. And did the 9-year old girl boy actually talk to anyone in management, or just to the (possibly outsourced) customer service reps who man the phone banks? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:47, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

If you want to harp on accuracy, Guy Macon, then you should apologize for calling Milo Cress a girl. He is a boy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I would like to see something in our policies that tells the editor that when a reliable source reports a fact, it is fair to ask whether the reliable source has any way of knowing whether that fact is true or false. I wouldn't. That sounds like an invitation to make RSes compete with non-RSes over claims of fact, and to encourage editors to try to "override" RSes with original research. Generally speaking, if an RS cites another source, we can and should presume that the RS in question has done something to vet this source. In this case, it's distinctly possible that they checked with the national park service, found that it came from the recycling company and said "Okay" without following it up further. That's perfectly understandable. The fact that, in this case, someone found out that Eco-cycle got it from a 9-year old is unfortunate, but it doesn't really cast doubt on the reliability of nominally reliable sources. If we expect our sources to be perfect, we wouldn't have any reliable sources. It's also worth pointing out: None of this invalidates the original claim. Being 9 years old doesn't automatically mean that Cress' claims are unfounded. When I was 17, I "re-discovered" a Tipler cylinder by naval gazing my way through a general relativity textbook, enlisted my science teacher's help with the more complicated mathematics and wrote a paper about it for a science fair. That doesn't invalidate Tipler's original works on it, in any way. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I partially agree. If it is at least theoretically possible for the source to have vetted the material, then I have no problem with accepting the source. It is that subset of cases where it is absolutely impossible for the source to know that I have a problem with. Many such cases involve thinks like changing an accurate "there is no evidence that X happened" or "most experts doubt that X happened" to a how-do-they-know-that "X never happened". --Guy Macon (talk) 18:08, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm actually okay with that. It's exactly the same thing we do, here. See

Tell me all about it.

18:14, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Is this Google Docs source reliable? At the article White's, one person, who has changed IP address at least twice, insists on the inclusion of this incident - see history of the page and User talk:Redrose64#whites. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

No. Unsigned entirely, and links to youtube as well. Unsigned sources are bestjudged by the notability of their author. Collect (talk) 14:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

(

WP:USERGENERATED. Created by who knows who, editing who-knows-how-many times, etc etc. As for the events it purports to describe, it is UNDUE to discuss them unless they have been discussed in independent, reliable sources. Jytdog (talk

) 14:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Anyone could have written that document and claimed it as their own, additionally, it relies on a YouTube link and is possibly self published. If it was a reputable source, the user in question wouldn't have needed to upload it to Google Docs. ChieftanTartarus (talk) 14:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@Redrose64: I have requested that the page be Semi-Protected to deal with the issue, as it is coming from IP addresses ChieftanTartarus (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)