Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 246

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

On 24 July 2018, our fellow co-editor,

Tabenkin was a military leader during a war, and the question is whether he can be used as a reliable source of facts about that war. The answer is "obviously not". Not only are memoirs treated with suspicion by historians, being often inaccurate and self-serving, but the author had an obvious conflict of interest. If the memoir is published by an organization dedicated to the memory of the author, that makes the situation even worse; it is as close to "self-published" as a book by a dead person can be. Given Tabenkin's senior position, a case could be made for citing some of his claims as official claims with attribution, but that would require a consideration of whether he was writing on behalf of the authorities or only for himself. What we need to cite is sources by historians, as they have evaluated all the sources including memoirs on the basis of their professional expertise. Tabenkin's standing as a war hero in Israel and the availability of the book are both entirely irrelevant to the question of reliability. Zero^talk 09:42, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

These aren't memoirs - Tabenkin in his post-war career was a part-time historian and in the 80s devoted a significant chunk of his time to research. The book should be perfectly fine for an attributed statement in relation to all of the cited articles.Icewhiz (talk) 11:30, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

On what basis? What's the publisher? You objected to using an actual historian with works published by actual academic presses because of a supposed bias here, but a part-time historian who is actually a primary source qualifies because he devoted a significant chunk of his time to research? Are you at all concerned with even the appearance of being impartial on this board? nableezy - 12:54, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I said attributed use - he's certainly a reasonable attributed source for what the IDF thought/considered.Icewhiz (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

And I again compare that position to what you said about an actual historian with actual scholarship on this topic. A so-called part time historian^{[citation needed]} qualifies in your mind but an actual historian does not? nableezy - 17:16, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd suggest he's reliable for some things, like his own opinion on things that he was involved in. I'd suggest he wouldn't be reliable for speculations about others' motivations, for example. So I'd say he's a primary source. Whether he could be a secondary source for event he wasn't involved in is an interesting question, but I get the impression that's not what's at stake here. --

I'm surprised at the incredulous allegations that a person who took part in that war is seen as an invalid witness of events, when even the US Civil War diaries, written by officers who took part in that conflict, are viewed as reliable sources. The real reason, it would seem, for their disapproval of using Joseph Tabenkin's war accounts is that it clearly points out the reasons for the Haganah offensive, which in military terms was a just offensive. However, some editors seem to have an agenda to paint Israel as the aggressor, based on their history of edits in articles relating to the

Arab-Israeli conflict. The issue at hand has, therefore, little to do with its reliability as a source (as it is), but rather an objection by them to point the blame, as it were, on blockage of the Tel-Aviv - Jerusalem highway, just as it is described by Tabenkin, and just as it has already been mentioned in articles on Wikipedia: See, for example, Battle for Jerusalem#Food rationing and Operation Nachshon#Background, to name only a few. When the author mentions orders that had passed down from the military echelon to destroy Arab villages along the Tel-Aviv - Jerusalem highway which had been used as a base of operations to intercept Jewish convoys, this is NOT coming from a Primary Source, but rather a Secondary Source. This is precisely what our edit entails. Davidbena (talk

) 13:27, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say he wasn't reliable. I said he was reliable as a primary source. Like I am a reliable primary source about how flipping hot my tube journey was this morning. ("Boiling"). Useful for getting an impression. Not scientific though. You'd want a reliable secondary source. --

old fashioned!

13:40, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

So, if it's a matter of citing also a Secondary source, saying exactly what Tabenkin said, we have it here:

ISBN 2-266-10698-8 --Davidbena (talk

) 14:00, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I would say he is reliable for his views, not for those views being facts.Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

In other words, you would support citing the same information in his name, such as: "According to Haganah commander, Joseph Tabenkin, etc., etc." This would also be acceptable to me.Davidbena (talk) 13:52, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I was replying to the OP, and this was indented correctly. But yes that is my basic point.Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Totally agree with Slatersteven. --

old fashioned!

14:22, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Everybody is reliable for their own views. But whether or not to include that view in an article on history is another question. For statements like those in the diffs above, eg this, a secondary source should be used, not a primary one. This covers a time-period and place with no dearth of reliable sources, so the "according to primary source" formulation is entirely unnecessary. nableezy - 14:33, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

True, and if they are published then they may well be worthy for inclusion, but that is less of an RS then an Undue question. So the question is is this a history or a memoir, the other question is is it SPS? It is an SPS, which must raise some concerns. But (if) as claimed he has some reputation is Israel as a historian it meets the SPS criteria (a recognized expert expressing an opinion). But it would only be his opinion, not an uncontested fact. So it all boils down to what is his reputation as a historian, or is this just an SPS memoir?Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

On that diff from Nableezy, I think the way the source was used was wrong, but it would be right if it said that "Israeli military believed..." sourced to someone who was in the Israeli military. I'd also contend that "a village" is poor. A village is inanimate. People from, or villagers from would be more accurate. --

old fashioned!

14:47, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

That one part gave me pause as he might be usable for the portion on what the Haganah commanders decided, but even then that is well-covered in scholarly secondary sources making any use of a primary source superfluous (see eg Benny Morris (October 2008). 1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War. Yale University Press. p. 119.

ISBN 978-0-300-14524-3.). nableezy

- 15:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

This isn't quite a primary source. It is a possibly biased secondary source (which we can make clear via attribution). As for no lack of sources - for some of these lesser known villages - there actually are fairly few sources. Using Tabenkin on 1948 Arab–Israeli War would not be necessary - using him for lesser discussed villages can fill in holes.Icewhiz (talk) 16:04, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I've looked through Benny Morris on each of these villages, and compared his numerous comments to what the reverted edits stated. The content of the latter is generic, subsuming, as one would expect from a memoir by a soldier, complex details into the village/villagers whereas Morris is nuanced, with roving bands of irregular going around villages trying to get support, and different reactions from the villages affected.

Saris was planned in January before the real heat of open warfare developed, for strategic reasons, apparently regardless of the behaviour, whatever that was (and attitudes could change over time) of the villagers; The Nachson Operation was planned to treat Khulda and all other villages along the Khulda-Jerusalem route as enemy assembly points, whatever the individual village realities were (p.233)-it's not therefore as Tabenkin has it that the villagers had invariably taken part in operations against the Jews . At Qalunya, villagers chased off an armed band (p.97) early in the piece, not wanting to get involved, for example. In one case, a single motor-cyclist from one of those villages spied out Jewish positions, and passed the information to Arab irregulars, but that doesn't translate into the village/villagers. In other words, using a self-published memoir that fails to provide the complex factors at play, of the kind Morris's archival masterpiece supplies (in part) makes it effectively unusable as reliable history. These matters are covered quite thoroughly in, esp. Israeli historiography of the highest quality, and we should only cite Tabenkin if those secondary sources consider some specific detail in his work important.Nishidani (talk

) 16:51, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

He was a commander for one of the parties to the conflict that he is writing about. I think the general consensus here is that he is indeed a primary source for this material and should not be used for facts. nableezy - 17:14, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

The 1948 Arab Israeli war is one which is covered in numerous academic sources, in English. I cannot see any reason to add a (self-published?) memoir in Hebrew, not unless it has been quoted by any of those historians.

(Also, I totally disagree that

Lord Mountbatten

said as God given truth...evnen though there was absolutely no backing up of what he was alleged to have said. That is a mistake no historian worth their salt would do. With such shitty methods, I would not be surprised if they took 100% of what Tabenkin said as the God given truth, too.)

Also, Icewhiz is wrong saying that there is not a lot of material regarding many of these 1948 villages: there are new books published about them all the time. (However, it is an understandable mistake by Icewhiz, as he has not been editing their history much: I have.) Huldra (talk) 20:30, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

First, in response to Nishidani's comment, Joseph Tabenkin's book makes it clear on pp. 154–155 (ch. 4) , in generic terms, that a decision had been reached on 14 April 1948 in the military echelon "to utterly destroy all Arab villages along the Tel-Aviv - Jerusalem highway which had been used as a base of operations to intercept Jewish convoys." This information in each of the aforenamed articles is vital, as it gives us (1) a "motive" for the operation, and (2) "when exactly the orders filtered down in relation to other events." The illustration on p. 74 shows the order of advance throughout each of the villages named by me above, in the original post.Davidbena (talk) 22:06, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Second, in response to Huldra's comment, Tabenkin's book is NOT a memoir, but a factual account of events in the Haganah military campaign, known as Operation Nachshon. The book was NOT "self-published" as Huldra wrongly assumes, but was rather published post mortem, two years after his death, using his own writings. The information therein contained is anecdotal and will help readers understand the logic behind the operation, specifically for each of the villages named, and which were visited by troops of the Palmach during the 12 days of engagement in April of 1948. It does not surprise me that some editors who take a strong anti-Israel bias would want to expunge this vital information. As for Huldra's complaint about the book written by Dominique Lapierre, I suggest to all editors here to look at what Wikipedia has to say about his seminal work, O Jerusalem!, wherein he refers to the same events.Davidbena (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

David, you need to stop this nonsense about strong anti-Israel bias. You've done this here and on an article talk page, while you have consistently pushed fringe political POVs in a number of articles. Kindly refactor the personal attack above and we can discuss this like grown ups. Just complaining how the mean anti-Zionists wont let you use a source that each of the uninvolved editors agrees shouldnt be used for facts is both petty and dishonest. As Zero told you elsewhere, such attacks are beneath you. nableezy - 22:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

It is for the impartial judges here to decide whether or not there may be a suspected "strong anti-Israel bias" by some editors, and that by simply looking at the edit history of all contributing editors. If you mean that I have "pushed fringe political POVs" in a number of articles, I would care to know which articles you are referring to (although unrelated to our current discussion). Perhaps you mean on the Talk Page of Talk:List of military occupations#Discussion. Anyone reading there will see that my primary motive is to bring a more neutral point-of-view, and which accurately portrays both sides of the argument.Davidbena (talk) 22:54, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• Primary source, based on the information presented. I would use it with caution if at all. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:51, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• Primary source, based on the information presented it should be treated as a memoir and used with caution - if used at all. Montgomery and Churchill also wrote 'histories'. Pincrete (talk) 14:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

In

WP:Primary sources we read: "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation, etc." (END QUOTE). In our case, we have both Primary and Secondary sources. The Primary source is used here with caution, and the editor does not elaborate more than what is brought down in a reliable Secondary source. In compliance with the above comments on this thread, any emendation in future edits will incorporate the premise that, "According to Joseph Tabenkin," such-and-such happened, without elaborating further (except, of course, where the Secondary source elaborates). In this way, we avoid reaching our own private conclusions.Davidbena (talk

) 00:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Most of the Forbes.com domain is just a glorified blog, and should be treated as any other self-published source. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:49, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• Has to be assessed on an individual basis because of how Forbes is running their online magazine. Almost everything under the forbes/sites domain is written by 'contributors' who have minimal/no editorial oversight or input from Forbes. Once you are an approved contributor, its effectively a self-published blog. It can be used depending on the contributor, there are a number of journalists and experts with long experience in the field writing about their specialist subject. These are easily useable depending on context in line with self-published sources, but never for biographies of living people. There are also staff writers employed directly by Forbes, their content should be assessed in line with how we use other journalistic content. For the purposes of critical reception though, critical reception is by its nature an opinion-based issue. There are many many contributors of limited experience or qualifications publishing on forbes/sites. This can be seen often for the contributors who write about media, films, TV, games etc. They might have a journalism degree, but they have had no real past employment for a reputable publisher, no evidence why their opinion matters. If (as an example) Roger Ebert had spent the last 5 years of his life self-publishing film criticism on a blog, his opinion would have weight despite it being self-published. His long years of experience, broadcast history etc. If Bob Loudvoice with 1 year writing for obscure website publishes film criticism on forbes/sites (not an unusual occurance sadly) their opinion has little weight and would be
  WP:UNDUE. If you come across a forbes/sites used as a reference, and are unsure if its valid, post it here with the article and the content it is being used for. Only in death does duty end (talk
  ) 03:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Ditto what Only in death said. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:35, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll only add that Forbes also offers what is essentially a pay-to-publish-on-Forbes model through its Forbes Council (see this article on how the scheme works in practice). This further reduces the credibility of whatever is found on the website. Abecedare (talk) 22:53, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• This article from the Poynter Institute was mentioned in a past RSN discussion, and I'll bring it up again. In an interview, the chief product officer of Forbes.com said that stories written by contributors aren't vetted at all, but if a story gets popular, then an editor will "check it more carefully". He admitted that contributor stories aren't fact checked, and said, “The audience spots issues a lot. The audience is as much your editor now as an editor is your editor.” Forbes.com contributors are generally unreliable, especially for determining the notability of a subject. I have no opinion on Forbes.com staff articles, but note that the vast majority of Forbes.com citations used in articles nominated for deletion are written by contributors, not staff. — Newslinger talk 21:36, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
• Can't be used for facts, but does meet
  WP:RSOPINION, if and only if the writer is a recognized expert/important voice in the realm of music criticism. --Masem (t
  ) 21:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Deleet recently added (in this edit) content sourced to an article in the self-described conservative magazine Republic Standard (republicstandard.com) to the article London Conference on Intelligence. I am not sure if the Republic Standard is a reliable source; in fact, I strongly suspect it isn't, based on the very strong white nationalist vibe I detected when I went to its homepage. But I want other editors to weigh in on its reliability or lack thereof. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 12:43, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Context matters. In this case, the source is reliable... as it is being cited as a primary source - to verify the fact that a specific person (a graduate student) wrote an article appearing in that paper, and that he wrote what we say he wrote. It is similar to citing “Mein Kamph” for a statement about something that Hitler wrote in “Mein Kamph”. The issue isn’t whether the publication is reliable in general, but whether the publication reliably verifies the content of the publication itself.

That said, there is a second issue here... should our article mention what the graduate student wrote (or not). That is a DUE WEIGHT issue, not a reliability issue. Blueboar (talk) 13:15, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd agree with Blueboar on both points. Republic Standard does not look like it would be reliable for very much - it seems to be essentially a sensationalist alt-right blog - but if its only being used to assert the fact that a Belgian student wrote something for it, then it's reliable. The opinions of a random student about a conference they attended do not seem to me to be notable however. Girth Summit (talk)

If we have a self-published source that has been deemed reliable, are we required to put a self-published tag on it ^{[self-published source]} which states "this reference citation appears to be a self-published source". We already know it is so we are not questioning its status. The fear is that it will trigger the removal of the source by other editors.Patapsco913 (talk) 14:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Depends. In cases where we

attribute the source that would seem to be overkill, but for a self-published book we might well. Guy (Help!

) 17:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I've removed from seven articles references to thainationalparks.com, a site which for the most part plagiarises Wikipedia. Does it also warrant blacklisting? --Paul_012 (talk) 07:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello, may I ask if the iTunes Store can be counted as a reliable source to verify song titles for discography purposes? I've heard from an editor that the data is apparently user generated, but looking at that site I see no way for a typical end-user to just log into the website to adjust the information, unlike Discogs. Looking at the reliable source guidelines over here which state that vendor sources can be used for an indefinite period for verifiability purposes until a better secondary source is found, I see no problem with using iTunes, or Beatport similarly. aNode (discuss) 02:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

[1]

Estela Sáenz de Méndez (1 January 1982). María de las Islas: novela histórica. Editorial Latinoamericana.

Silvia Plager; Elsa Fraga Vidal (1 March 2012). Malvinas, la ilusión y la pérdida: Luis Vernet y María Sáez, una historia de amor. Penguin Random House Grupo Editorial Argentina.

The above two works are works of historical fiction and refer to an individual María Sáez de Vernet, who was the spouse of Luis Vernet. David Eppstein is arguing that mention in fictional novels establishes notability.

Personally this doesn't gel with my interpretation of

WCM has been badgering participants in

forum shopping to me. —David Eppstein (talk

) 00:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Are they a historical figure? Are they clearly identified as a historical figure, not a fictional invention in those texts? If so, then Dumas might have something to say.

Also, despite

WP:NOTINHERITED, are they presented as notable as themselves, or as part of a notable married partnership? Andy Dingley (talk

) 00:27, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Estela Sáenz de Méndez (1 January 1982). María de las Islas: novela histórica. Editorial Latinoamericana.

But apparently when I try and engage with editors to explain this, this is badgering. In answer to the question, the person involved is only known really as the spouse of Luis Vernet. Her diary has been used in some narratives as part of Argentine claims over the Falkland Islands but this is unrelated to the individual. Malvinan as a word didn't exist in 1829, its a modern invention since 1947. WCM_email 00:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Removing inappropriate material is not badgering. Starting an AfD because the article had some material that needed removing may be a bad idea, but it is also not badgering. But going to a bunch of different AfDs from Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Article alerts and plastering big warnings across the AfD that they had an automated project alert on them, when this is standard practice for most WikiProjects and AfDs, merely because some project participants started participating in a project-related AfD, starts to rise to the level of badgering. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:51, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Its interesting that shortly after my AFD was listed, 10 people from that project turned up voting keep. Since I did that on other AFD, there has not been a re-occurrence. Thats not badgering. It would be appreciate if you would stop the bad faith accusations, I'm getting rather irritated. WCM_email 14:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• My 2 cents - Generally coverage in historical fiction does not establish notability of the historical figure - though it might establish notability for the fictional figure (just as other fictional figures are notable) and in some cases may be an indication that the figure is likely to be notable - however, one must note that sometimes historical fiction / alternate history takes very minor historical figures that nearly nothing is known about - and develops them purposefully (so as not to alter, in the novel, well known historical facts while providing room for the author's plot) into full fledged characters (in which case the fictional character might be notable, but this literary fabrication does not make the historical figure notable).Icewhiz (talk) 07:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "Generally coverage in historical fiction does not establish notability of the historical figure" My view is the opposite on this subject. If a historical figure has not attracted the attention of historical fiction writers, he/she is probably not significant enough to have an article. Many historical figures owe much of their fame to being regularly featured in historical fiction for the last two or three centuries. Dimadick (talk) 09:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I would say is, as Dimadick says if someone had not noted them they would not appear. But by the same token it might just be they had an interesting name, or the writer just picked a name that he did not know was real. Thus I have to lean towards no they do not in and off themselves confer notability, but that may well indicate that there are other sources that could.Slatersteven (talk) 09:12, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Look at

Lucius Vorenus (Rome character) as examples (in this case we do have an article - Vorenus and Pullo). In some cases - fiction writers purposefully choose the main hero, or heros for plot arcs, based off of a figure that might only have a brief mention (e.g. one-liner - even briefer than this example) in historical documents - the fiction writing doing this so that their plot does not conflict with established history (so all plot elements that are not historically established are on fictional characters or semi-fictional characters about which nothing is known beyond their brief mention). In some cases - there can even be serial use of the fictional character.Icewhiz (talk

) 09:26, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• A work of fiction in which previously obscure historical character plays a role can establish notability. Provided that the work of historical fiction is notable, and that publication of the work of fiction and the character's role in it generates secondary coverage. Note for example Angelica Hamilton, who has an article supported by coverage of her life generated by a recent work of historical fiction Hamilton (musical).E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• I would say that appearing as a character in a work of fiction can supplement a historical person's notability... but it does not establish or create that notability. That said, the fictional character that is based upon that person may become notable on its own (as a fictional character). Blueboar (talk) 12:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• I generally agree with the sentiments that the 'historical fiction' does not create notability, but it might draw attention to non-fiction sources that existed before the fictional creation (in which case there was a probability of 'Notablity' before the fiction) and/or the fiction may cause non-fiction sources to then publish on the historical person (in which case the 'Notability' arises or enhances after the fiction). Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:51, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• I would definitely default that the existence of historical fiction about a person/topic doesn't mean that person/topic is notable; instead, we should hope that a good piece of historical fiction will lead to more coverage of the historical person/topic. For example, Adrian Cronauer would likely never have been notable if Good Morning, Vietnam wasn't a critically praised film that led into people looking into his life. --Masem (t) 16:04, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Specifically, should an article written by

At

Do you mean for the purpose of AfD voting, or for the purpose of sourcing content? For the purpose of sourcing content it should be fine; it's focused on the tech industry and has editorial control. For the purpose of AfD? It likely doesn't meet the standards of

π, ν

) 22:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

It meets the standards of

WP:NCORP: that is AfD, and the community consensus on TechCrunch as a source for notability purposes has been pretty consistent for a few years now. TonyBallioni (talk

) 22:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I should have been more clear here. The article names a TechCrunch editor in the byline, instead of using a generic "TechCrunch staff" tag. However, while the article does give an overview of the company, it looks like little to no investigative research was done.​ — Newslinger talk 17:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for the clarification.​ --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:08, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, generally speaking

WP:GNG since it's an entire article (i.e. significant coverage) by a reliable source independent of its topic. A Quest For Knowledge (talk

) 20:01, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

TechCrunch, like most trade press, is not intellectually independent of the topic, and thus fails

WP:NCORP is: there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability as businesses frequently make use of these publications to increase their visibility.TonyBallioni (talk

) 04:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I noticed this discussion from 2012 when looking for verification of another source and wanted to open a new discussion. PopCrush is a subsidiary of Townsquare Media, which operates about 320 radio stations in the United States. The previous argument against certifying PopCrush as a reliable source was that editors could not find any evidence of editorial oversight. While I can't cite such, per say, I know as someone that spent 15+ years working in the radio industry that Townsquare heavily vets their employees in all divisions these days and has a significant online / interactive management team that would have oversight of PopCrush. Strikerforce^Talk 18:09, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

The CarbonBrief website states on their about page, "In 2018, Carbon Brief was “highly commended” for its investigative journalism by the Royal Statistical Society. In 2017, Carbon Brief won the “Best Specialist Site for Journalism” category at the prestigious Online Media Awards." The question for RS comes up involving this edit, with reasoning, "replace non-RS blog from advocacy group with tag CN", by editor

So what do third party sources say about this?Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

The Royal Statistical Society did give them a 'high commendation' this year, although it was for specific piece of journalism rather than a blanket approval of the site. Having said that, their editorial board looks highly competent, composed of experience journalists and academics at well-respected institutions. They are clearly not just a blog, I think they'd be reliable for this. Girth Summit (talk) 15:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

An article in The Drum, noted, "Carbon Brief’s model is high quality science journalism".

prokaryotes (talk

) 15:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

A 2013 NYT article refers to, "a British climate and energy news blog".

prokaryotes (talk

) 15:46, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

prokaryotes (talk

) 16:10, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

PNNL cites CB as, "a U.K.-based climate and energy journalism website".

prokaryotes (talk

) 16:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Seems pukka then.Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Note that

WP:BLOGS

which says in relevant part

Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.[8]Please do note that any exceptional claim would require

exceptional sources

. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources.

Yes, we could continue gathering evidence and debating if the expert threshold is met in this case. BUT.... (A) as the text of the rule urges, its better to not ask eds to take time for that when there are other straightforward reliable secondary sources that say the same thing. (B) Even if a small group of eds agree today that it is RS, I've often seen new people appear at articles and start deleting self published sources and they will not know about this discussion. For longterm maintenence using WP:BLOGS when there are "normal" sources is dumb. (C) The OP and I are both regulars on the climate pages, a topic area where article text of this sort (2018 N hemisphere heat wave 5x more likely due to

WP:ARBCC

in preventing drama are best supported.

Apparently, the cited rule is met "produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications", since Zeke Hausfather has published several studies in reliable third-party publications. https://scholar.google.de/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=zeke+hausfather&btnG=&oq=Zeke+Haus In regards to your concerns of the edit about the heat wave, their article is based on this cited study by the

prokaryotes (talk

) 16:49, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Published studies of CB editor Robert McSweeney also establishes RS per your cited rule.

prokaryotes (talk

) 16:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• Bottomline: CarbonBrief is a website such as
  prokaryotes (talk
  ) 16:56, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
• Reliable for factual analysis, no real opinion on any opinion or colour pieces but this is not especially controversial - if anyone really objects they can
  WP:ATT it. Guy (Help!
  ) 17:00, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Winning an award should matter, but gets ignored for other cases (see the Daily Mail RfC for example). Being cited by the Washington Post could matter, but this wasn't the paper it was the paper's "Capital Weather Gang" blog. Being mentioned at PNNL doesn't matter because it was about CarbonBrief interviewing their staff member -- would they in such circumstances be likely to say it's nothing? As for the suggestion that qz.com and ecowatch.com are "mainstream media", opinions might differ. Evidence that the organization (or blog if one accepts the NYT term) has a "reputation for fact-checking" appears to be lacking. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:04, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay more mainstream sources then, Forbes, BBC, The Guardian, HuffPost.

prokaryotes (talk

) 17:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Snopes, AlterNet, The Guardian

prokaryotes (talk

) 17:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Media Matters

prokaryotes (talk

) 17:22, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

In those sources Daisy Dunne who works for Carbon Brief refers to Carbon Brief, "contributors" to Forbes and HuffPost (both of which have had hundreds|thousands of paid|unpaid contributors) refer to Carbon Brief, and supposedly this is "more mainstream sources" to go along with the earlier claim that ecowatch.com and qz.com are mainstream sources. As before, opinions may differ. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:27, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• It looks pretty reliable to me.
  talk
  ) 17:06, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Alright, the use of this study is still problematic, but that's a subject for article talk. But just for a hint... the text to be supported says the northern Europe heat wave is up to 5x more likely due to global warming. The study says only 2x in Nederlands and for scandinavia it was increased but they could not quantify by how much. So with the full context in mind, the talking point "up to five times more likely" across all of N Europe is problematic.

We have to sort this out now, also because the Wikipedia search gives over 3000 results when searching for CarbonBrief.

prokaryotes (talk

) 17:25, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay, but there isn't really a dispute, this section serves to establish CB as a RS. The confusion about twice or five times, is because the study refers to factors and ratios.

prokaryotes (talk

) 18:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear, its a case by case basis and as the policy says, if the info you want to support is really important there will be quality mainstream secondary sources without having to resort to expert-advocate blogs. Staying away from them also lessens the appearance of editorial POV too.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk

) 18:44, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

CB publishes clear, data-driven science explainers, interviews, analysis and factchecks, not exactly classic advocating. CB provides quality content and expertise, therefore mainstream media often cites them. On the contrary you have often articles published by news editors who are not experts on a topic, which can result in confusing coverage. Hence, why we currently witness such a rise of factcheck sites.

prokaryotes (talk

) 18:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

In their own words, they advocate for understanding of the science of climate change and policy response. This isn't a judgmental statement, just something to bear in mind when evaluating the best sources when this comes up again.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk

) 20:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay, and thanks for pointing this out.

prokaryotes (talk

) 22:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

The website "Resilience" looks like an environmentalist blog to me. What do others think? It's referenced a lot at article

It belongs to Post Carbon Institute, and its aim is to promote transition from fossil fuels. The articles I read do not seem to be of any academic value. It is hardly a reliable source.

Ktrimi991 (talk

) 22:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Goat Canyon Trestle#Inaccuracies. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:30, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

• Source: http://culture.affinitymagazine.us/an-interview-with-melanie-faye-rb-artist-on-the-rise/
• Article: Melanie Faye

It doesn't seem like Affinity Magazine has been mentioned on RS noticeboard before. Does this count as a reliable/significant source? Would like feedback before I vote on the AfD. originalmess^{how u doin that busta rhyme?} 01:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Ktrimi991 (talk

) 22:04, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Oof! Thanks! originalmess^{how u doin that busta rhyme?} 02:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I am requiring independent editor's opinions please on whether this subjective 'essay' ^[1] from the The Monthly which is on the international List of political magazines is a reliable source to be used in The Australian which is one of the largest mainstream newspapers in Australia. Specifically my question is in relation to this edit [2] placed within the 'Editorial and opinion pages' section of the article. It seems to also give undue weight to this essay writer's subjective opinion and swamp the other sources within that section. If the source is used I am also questioning the undue weight of the long quote that has been included. I would like to resolve the dispute at Talk:The Australian under the title "Questionable source" as quickly as possible through consensus and have not reverted the bold edit that was made.Merphee (talk) 11:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

As is so common, Merphee is forum shopping because he is not getting his way on the Talk page of an article. And I would like to see evidence that The Australian "is one of the largest mainstream newspapers in Australia". I'm not sure why he has to resolve the dispute as quickly as possible either. I regard getting our encyclopaedia right as more important that speed. I think it's also worth noting that Merphee has not advised anyone at the Talk page in question about this thread, and that he was the subject of a recent thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, which unfortunately got derailed and was never resolved. HiLo48 (talk) 12:13, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I didn't realise you had posted here already Merphee, you may want to check my suggestion on the talk page of The Australian. Curdle (talk) 13:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Again HiLo48 please stop the personal attacks, you've been blocked for a month in the past for personal attacks and belittling. So give it a rest will you. Curdle the discussion we were having at Talk:The Australian sat there for a week before I decided to post here to get some independent opinions so it was hardly out of the blue. As soon as I did you immediately commented on talk. Anyway I've replied to you on Talk:The Australian, thanks for your input. However I posted here to get other independent eyes on the edit HiLo48 made. I'm sure we can come to a consensus and I'll look at a couple of other sources and possible wording you suggested tomorrow. In the meantime I'd appreciate others actually having a look at the source I'm talking about and the edit itself including the undue weight issue I've raised in that section of the article. The edit outweighs all of the other sources is my point.Merphee (talk) 14:13, 7 August 2018 (UTC) 

Something you might also want to consider is the author of the piece,

Walkley award for Journalism in 2015. She has written several books, including co writing a previous (liberal/conservative) Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser's, memoirs. As for the undue weight, I addressed that on the talk page of the Australian (suggesting we drop the long quote you have a problem with), so won't go into it here. Curdle (talk

) 01:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Curdle I agree your suggestion to drop the long quote, that's what I meant by undue weight and the extreme quote drowning out other reliable sources that had been in that section of the article for a long time. I also suggest we wait for other uninvolved editors to give their opinion before we change anything and we can develop consensus. No rush. Some reasonable comments like this one [3] and this comment [4] both from uninvolved editors also support the point I was trying to make and was why I chose to post here.Merphee (talk) 02:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Merphee, can you please provide evidence in the form of references to reliable sources that support your claim that The Monthly is a "far left wing magazine" so extreme that it cannot be used as a reliable source on Wikipedia? Do you have evidence that it is a Marxist-Leninist publication advocating armed revolution, or an anarchist publication fomenting violence? Does it publish outlandish conspiracy theories devoid of evidence? Have professional journalists routinely described it as a purveyor of lies? More specifically, is the assessment by Margaret Simons obviously wrong, or is it in line with how other reliable sources assess the political orientation of The Australian? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:42, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@

'c.s.n.s.'

13:28, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

There is a current discussion on Talk:The Australian about this and an attempt to reach consensus. It is the long quote selected from the 'essay' that is my issue and I've explained it, and as neutrally as I can. It is about undue weight given to Margaret Simon's viewpoint in relation to the other perspectives in that section of the article. The quote selected from the essay makes The Australian look like some radical far right wing extremist publication, which it is obviously not.Merphee (talk) 11:09, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

If this is a question of

WP:Weight, rather than the reliability of the source, then surely this isn't the right forum for this conversation. If there is a discussion going on at the talk page, that's the right place for a content dispute about due weight. The author is an academic in the relevant field at a respected university, and there's nothing obviously dodgy about the magazine - I can't see any reason to question reliability. Girth Summit (talk

) 11:45, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for commenting. Consensus was reached and the original edit was changed. The Monthly was one of three sources used for the revised edit.Merphee (talk) 05:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I'm sorry, but I feel that I have to pester you a bit about Digital Spy's reliability as a source in general. I have gone through the archives but did not feel I got a clear and definitive consensus about the reliability of this source. Looking at their website and what they put out, they look like a trashy pile of garbage that should not be used as a source for anything never mind an encyclopedia. However, that is just my personal feeling as someone who rarely watches TV. Digital Spy has been inflicted on several Wiki articles, and I would like some assistance from the community as to the reliability of this phenomenon called Digital Spy. Is DS reliable for anything other than itself? If yes, what? Thanks. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 17:51, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Part of the Hearst UK Entertainment Network? Doesn't obviously say unreliable to me. --tronvillain (talk) 18:20, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Source: [5] - On things impacting IQ, secularity and religiosity

Article: Religiosity and intelligence

Content: Diff : [6]

Background on the source: I wanted to get other opinions on this. The source at hand is blog entry by an expert in IQ and religion research named Nigel Barber (some examples of his expertise in this area: [7], [8], [9], [10]). The publisher is Psychology Today, a mainstream printed and online periodical like Scientific American that transfers scientific research to lay people by experts, scholars, professionals and etc. In its history, Psychology Today was owned and operated by the American Psychological Association [11] at one point too. Furthermore, it is controlled by experts [12] and it even has contributions by the American Psychological Association’s Division 15 [13].

• It think that this source is a reliable source because Nigel Barber certainly has experience in the field of intelligence research and even religion. I also think that the source is reliable because it was published by an organization that is not self-published, has a pretty good historical reputation, provides some degree of fact checking and oversight on what it publishes, is handled by experts in the fields. I think that this source by Nigel Barber falls under
  WP:NEWSBLOG
  .

I did attribution to the author since it is his view, per the guidelines in

WP:NEWSBLOG

.

So would it be ok for use in wikipedia? Rewording? Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 03:49, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• Psychology today is a site along the lines of sciencedaily - a solid example of science churnalism. Just look at the name of the blog that publishe the article "The Human Beast", and the article title "The Real Reason Atheists Have Higher IQs". It is just 1 step away from "doctors hate him!" or "one quick trick", or "number 7 will shock you". Petergstrom (talk) 04:08, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• It looks like a reliable source to me. It's an article on a website operating under the masthead of a popular-science magazine written by a PHD on his area of specialty. Simonm223 (talk) 18:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• Since the article is used as a source for an opinion rather than a source for facts, then the relevant consideration is weight. Instead of just saying this is what Dr. Barber said, you need to explain the degree to which this opinion is held. You need secondary sources for that. Generally it is best to avoid this type of source since are written for a general audience. However, the list of articles he provides is a good starting point. TFD (talk) 23:48, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• This source is a reliable source for the context being requested and the article at hand. For sure the source is not a self published blog or by a non expert so it is good there. The source looks to be by an expert on the matter and the publisher does do some degree of oversight on its content to keep its respectability as a mainstream science publication in print and online. The context is important here. The attribution to Nigel Barber makes it appropriate for use on wikipedia since it is the opinion of the expert, per
  WP:RS does mention "editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author..." Not all cases qualify and attribution is key since it places weight on who said it. This case looks straight forward, however.desmay (talk
  ) 00:51, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

• No - Psychology Today is a reliable source for some things, but not for scientific claims like connections between [anything] and intelligence.
  our standards for claims related to health and medicine says to avoid popular press. It should also be obvious just reading it that this isn't a particularly rigorous piece of writing. That's not to say he's necessarily wrong, but that he's playing the same "parlor game" to make a "probably because" claim. But that's all secondary. It's ultimately just not a very good source for this sort of psychological claim. — Rhododendrites ^talk
  \\ 18:30, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

See the reason I like it for a RS here is because the author is specifically pointing out the difficulty of creating a causal link due to the presence of so many correlative factors. A scientist working in publication on popular science explaining the difficulty of establishing causality seems not only reliable but also to the benefit of the article in general from a

WP:NPOV perspective.Simonm223 (talk

) 18:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

There are reliable sources that explain the difference between causation and correlation. Do his own peer reviewed sources that he cites in this article really not make the same distinctions/claims he makes here? They would be much better sources for the article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:02, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

The WikiProject Psychology link says it is not a policy but an essay for advice. Even there it certainly notes that there are exceptions too with blogs, depending on the level of expertise of the author. The "popular press" link also says the same thing in that "high-quality popular press" (it mentions New Scientist and Scientific American as examples) can be good sources for background and context of the issues involved. That is the point of the source to expand on things that are known to correlate with IQ, in context of claims of IQ and religiosity. It all depends on who says it, a general writer or an expert on the matter that can provide context for the issues involved.

I think that rewording, to something more compact and condensed would solve any issues. For instance, something like "According to biopsychologist Nigel Barber, some of the variance in national IQ and religiosity in Lynn et al's study are explainable by various social, environmental, and wealth conditions among countries." Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 02:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Psychology Today has lots and lots of blogs and historically speaking they have, um, varied in quality (
  undue
  for most wikipedia articles.

As for the particular blog entry: the author is clearly just thinking aloud and making plausible hand-wavy arguments here, which is perfectly fine for the medium he chose, but that does not make it a good source for us (eg, the sentence "I doubt that religion causes stupidity if only because some of the most brilliant people of history, such as Isaac Newton, were highly religious like most of their contemporaries", won't survive any scientific review process). Fwiw, his thoughts and speculation are reasonable and if you find better sources making similar points, include them in the article. If not, leave them out per

WP:DUE

.

In short, I'm with User:Rhododendrites on this. Abecedare (talk) 03:08, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the viewpoint in that blog is, like, the standard one. There are many recent studies on this subject and even reviews on it. I'm sure something relevant can be gotten from one of those. Some of them are already cited in the article. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:20, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

This is one that I wanted to post before using for obvious reasons. I know there are certain things Paul Rassinier should definitely not be used for - anything about the gas chambers and anything about the genocidal intent of the Nazis. But can we use him as an attributed primary source for other things like:

To cap their misery, for weeks there had not been an ounce of bread in the camp, and they had had to make do with supplies from the storage pits: plain soup of rutabaga, a quart sometimes half a quart, and small potatoes, in the evening, after a long, hard day of work. Nothing to eat. Everything else vanished before this menace.

I wanted to check before adding this to the Rutabaga article, which already has some unsourced discussion about the importance of Rutabaga (Steckrüben) as a famine food in wartime Germany and also in the camps (discussed by both Rassinier and Werner Weinberg). Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

There is currently an RfC at Talk:History of Crayola crayons regarding whether or not History of Crayola crayons should include a list of Hex/RGB/HSV color values for each crayon. Part of the question involves the verifiability of these values: Newer colors are sourced to http://www.crayola.com/explore-colors.aspx while older colors are sourced to "Color values estimated using swatch of original crayon." Do these sources meet Wikipedia's verifiability requirements? Note that the same sources are also used at List of Crayola crayon colors. –dlthewave ☎ 02:40, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

As has been stated repeatedly in this debate, crayons are a reliable primary source for their own attributes, such as their size, appearance, and the color of their wax, in the same way that a book or a painting or a statue is a primary source for its objectively verifiable qualities. Illustrations representing those colors are entitled to the presumption that they accurately represent the thing depicted, unless there's some evidence that they do not. Anyone can look at a swatch of a crayon color and compare it with the illustration to verify whether the hue, saturation, and value are reasonably described by the illustration. To use Wikipedia's language on the subject, any educated person with access to the source—in this case a crayon, a swatch of wax from the crayon, or a faithful reproduction of such a swatch—is able to verify the color without specialist knowledge, simply by visual comparison. However, any reader can easily determine the attributes of a swatch of color using common and abundant apps or desk accessories to sample swatches depicted on-line. Such tools require no specialized knowledge, and vary only to the extent that slight variations due to the thickness and natural variability of the wax and manner of digitizing the swatch make them approximate; but so long as this limitation is clearly stated in giving an approximate value, there should be nothing wrong with giving a value approximating the color, and indicating what the values of the color used to illustrate it are. RGB, HSV, and hexadecimal color codes are nothing more than three ways to depict the same colors, each of which has its own use and value to readers, and all of which are determinable through routine calculation—which by definition is not original research. They are precise mathematical equivalents of one another, and listing them separately makes the color tables sortable.

Beyond all of this, however, I think it worth noting that there seems to be a concerted campaign to expunge topics related to Crayola and Crayola crayons from Wikipedia. On July 22, six articles related to these topics were nominated for deletion, chiefly on the grounds that lists of, discussion of, and depictions of Crayola crayons and related topics were either "fancruft" and thus not notable, or fell afoul of

WP:NOTCATALOG. When these arguments were rebuffed, the deletionists began to argue that none of the sources were reliable, and that most or all of the colors should be eliminated as original research. Three of the six articles have been deleted, and two of the remaining ones are the subject of lengthy debates that would, if the arguments of the deletionists carry the day, be reduced to little more than stubs. The arguments have been carried over from AfD to article talk pages to here; and every time the debate reaches a standstill a new "survey" or discussion topic is added with the same goal: eliminating as much data as possible, not because any of it has ever been disputed by the people seeking to remove it, but because the sources and methods of illustrating the colors can all be excluded, even though they seem to be perfectly reliable. Nobody has yet argued that you can't tell what color a crayon is by coloring with it, or that the swatches made from crayons don't accurately depict them, or that the research done by the expert on the topic (an external source, quoted and documented by published third-party sources) is in any way inaccurate, or that Crayola's own nominal colors as depicted on their web site don't accurately represent the colors of their crayons. In other words, neither the accuracy of the sources, nor the reasons for believing them to be accurate, nor the accuracy of the illustrations depicting the colors, nor the accuracy of the color codes describing those colors has ever been disputed, yet they're all on the verge of being swept out of Wikipedia en masse, despite the apparent ease with which all of the information can be verified by "any educated person with access to the source", without any evidence—or even the allegation—that the information or the sources from which it's drawn are inaccurate. P Aculeius (talk

) 04:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I think that "no" is an accurate response to everything you just wrote. Guessing the precise coordinates of a color from a photograph is going to be influenced by everything that went into that photograph, and the process of scanning it to digital if it started as something else. It's absolutely original research. You can state with confidence what the color is in a specific digital image, but that's it. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:03, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Colour disclaimers are a common feature of websites: wool, paint, blinds. It's easy enough to use tools like Pixie to find out the coordinates of a colour, but colour disclaimers by manufacturers point out that computer monitors, photographs etc can vary considerably and do not always guarantee that what you see is what you get. The values given for the Crayola crayons have been added in good faith, but they are a form of

WP:OR unless they come from Crayola directly.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)}

05:21, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

An illustration created for Wikipedia is entitled to the presumption that it accurately represents the thing depicted, unless there's some evidence that it doesn't. The fact that it's impossible to guarantee a 100% match between additive and subtractive colors doesn't change the fact that it's possible to illustrate one with another, the same way that a digital photograph of a solid painting can still be an accurate illustration. Otherwise, we'd need to delete every photo of a painting on Wikipedia, or include a disclaimer about the colors! But speaking of disclaimers, if you read the articles in question, you'll see that the distinction between additive and subtractive colors has been clearly stated, together with other factors that could preclude stating that the illustrative swatches are perfect matches, ever since the present tables were designed some three years ago. The problem was known, anticipated, and accounted for at the time. The same issue didn't preclude Crayola from creating its own digital swatches to illustrate around a hundred of its colors on its "exploring color" page; those swatches seem to be definitive as far as 1, the "official" digital equivalents of the colors they represent, and 2, the fact that digital equivalents of Crayola crayon colors can be established.

I'll also note that while monitor settings can affect how individual readers perceive values such as "#FF0000", they don't affect the objective attributes of the color, how it's displayed by a web browser or what RGB/HSV/Hexadecimal values it's measured at. Those will stay the same no matter what brightness setting a monitor has. I'd also note that even monitors are designed to show as consistent an image and color palette as possible, with the only setting regularly changed being brightness, and that usually within a limited range. So while it's possible for the appearance of crayon wax to be affected by thickness, lighting, paper, digitization, or simply natural variation of the wax (although presumably the quality control process in manufacture is meant to minimize this), an illustration of the color can only go so far wrong. As long as the inherent variability and impossibility of one exact color being "definitive" is clearly stated by the article, an image that reasonably approximates the color produced can be used to illustrate it, and can still be verified—or refuted—by anyone simply by comparing the illustration with a swatch of the actual crayon, without falling afoul of Wikipedia's policy on original research. P Aculeius (talk) 12:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:OR applies only to Wikipedia itself. Research presented by a reliable external source other than Crayola itself would presumably be acceptable. If this material was published on CrayonCollecting.com itself, there probably wouldn't be a problem given that Ed Welter seems to have been acknowledged as an expert on the subject. --tronvillain (talk

) 14:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

The RGB/HSV/Hexadecimal codes represent the digital swatches used to illustrate the crayon colors, and thus are self-proving. The real question is whether the illustrations fairly represent the approximate color of the crayons, something that anyone can verify by comparing them against swatches of the original crayons. Mr. Welter's article depicts nearly all of the colors no longer produced by Crayola, and anyone can compare the colors depicted with those used to illustrate the colors in question on Wikipedia. I believe that comports with Wikipedia's standards for verifiability. P Aculeius (talk) 13:41, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Here comes the science

It is impossible to match subtractive colors with additive colors. If Crayola says that a particular RGB additive color is a close match to the particular subtractive color of a crayon, we can include that information, but it really needs at least a footnote explaining that it is impossible to match subtractive colors with additive colors. There are a lot more subtleties to this; see Color. Color model, Color space and Gamut.

Related question: what is the source for the RGB values shown in Pantone#Color of the Year? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Related: User talk:Guy Macon#Impossible colors: --Guy Macon (talk) 05:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Does Har’el: Palmach brigade in Jerusalem, Zvi Dror (ed. Nathan Shoḥam), Hakibbutz Hameuchad Publishers: Benei Barak 2005, qualify as a RS on the 1948 Arab–Israeli War?

It is used extensively in the article on one operation, namely Operation Ha-Har.

Since it is in Hebrew, I cannot read it, but I cannot find any relevant academic qualifications when I google Nathan Shoḥam or Zvi Dror. To me it looks like an unscholarly account of the Palmach. Comments? Huldra (talk) 20:46, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Reviewd here. Ok publisher. Probably OK for biographical info and basic details (e.g, that such and such was published, such a command was given, etc.). It is not a military history.Icewhiz (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

What are the academic qualifications of Zvi Dror and Nathan Shoḥam? Huldra (talk) 21:45, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

this is the author, hewiki. The author is an established non-acadmic military historian, with multiple titles. This book specifically is biographical, not a military history.Icewhiz (talk) 21:57, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

So in other words, not a RS on Operation Ha-Har. Agree? Huldra (talk) 22:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

No, I do not agree. This is a reputable publisher, and an award winning military historian. The book itself is a collective biography. It should be OK for bio details and basic info.Icewhiz (talk) 22:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Totally disagree, for an article like Operation Ha-Har. "Award winning military historian" is not the same as an academic. After all, this is a field with a zillion academic sources. But again, lets hear what other editors say, Huldra (talk) 22:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually academic sources are not so easy to find for all military operations - which is quite evident at Ha-Har at the moment - which outside of the very short lede does not use a single academic source. If you had 3-4 INDEPTH high quality academic sources covering the same detail than it would be easier to advocate replacement. Quality wise, the book by Zvika Dror is better than a modern secondary piece in a reputable newspaper. It is not as good as an academic source. I am a supporter of

WP:HISTRS, however it is not policy yet and it too would not totally preclude non-academic sources which can be useful too.Icewhiz (talk

) 05:03, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

We regularly use non-academic sources in ARBPIA area.For example articles from Haaretz. --Shrike (talk) 13:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Shrike, but only for contemporary articles, not for historical articles unless for example Haaretz is hosting a historian like Benny Morris or Tom Segev. The source can't be used unless the relevant information is cited from a reliable secondary or tertiary source written by a competent academic historian.Nishidani (talk) 18:54, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

The Publishing house has a web-site here.Davidbena (talk) 19:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Is

Avi Shemmi (Schmidt), Friends Speak About Jimmy (5th edition), HaKibbutz HaMeuhad: Tel Aviv 1958, p. 200 [Hebrew title: חברים מספרים על ג'ימי] (Yad Tabenkin Archives, Testimony of Danny Agmon, 16-12/52/194)

a RS on the on the 1948 Arab–Israeli War?

It is used in the article on one operation, namely Operation Ha-Har.

Since it is in Hebrew, I cannot read it, but I cannot find any relevant academic qualifications for Avi Shemmi (Schmidt), Huldra (talk) 20:53, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Please follow the guideline of this board.What information its used to source?--Shrike (talk) 21:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Several items in the Operation Ha-Har article, do you want me to list them all? Huldra (talk) 21:17, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Reliable for attributed witness stmts. See hewiki on editor, and "חברים_מספרים_על_ג'ימי"hewiki on book, Father edited it, various friends wrote down their testimony. Reputable publisher and well known book (multiple edition). So definitely reliable for primary stmts by fighters/commanders who penned chapters or segments. Not a secondary source.Icewhiz (talk) 21:24, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

So in other words, not a RS on the article Operation Ha-Har. Agree? Huldra (talk) 22:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

No, I do not agree. RS policy does not work that way. This would be a reliable source for an attributed statement to someone. It would not be a RS for most other stuff - we should not use this unattributed.Icewhiz (talk) 22:13, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I do not agree that a primary, nonacademic source can be quoted in an article like Operation Ha-Har, even with attribution (unless, of course, it has been quoted by an academic source). But lets hear what other people have to say. Huldra (talk) 22:45, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

We generally do not use PRIMARY sources (which by definition are not academic analysis). However that is not so much a RS question. This source could be used for an attributed quote and little else - same as Glubb. Some of the writers in this book are more relevant to Ha-Har than Glubb - however both should be used apringly and attributed - if at all.Icewhiz (talk) 04:48, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I will note that the article at present also uses a book by John Bagot Glubb, A Soldier with the Arabs, as a source - which is probably only OK for Glubbb's views.Icewhiz (talk) 22:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

John Bagot Glubb is "slightly" more known than "Jimmy and his friends." But I agree, Glubb, if used, should be used with attribution, Huldra (talk) 22:45, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd really want to know specifically what it is being used for, but I'd think generally no. So I'll admit I haven't read the book, but based on the article section on it, the book is compiled from interviews, correspondence, and Jimmy's personal writings? So basically the whole thing is primary sources. I don't see why it would be used except in an article on ג'ימי שמי himself. I mean, even if an academic publisher had printed and published a pile of soldiers' letters, that doesn't make them reliable sources. Articles are supposed to be based on the secondary analysis of experts, after all. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:43, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Primary sources can be still user in the article per

WP:PRIMARY

Its reliable source for the testimonies --Shrike (talk) 07:48, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

• At the moment is used in combination with another book to stitch a story together (this book about playing the sound of machine guns, and another book about the effect that noise had). This is an obvious SYNTH violation. Zero^talk 14:34, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually, two sources speak about the very same thing. One is a Secondary source, while the other (that which is in parentheses) is a Primary source.Davidbena (talk) 19:11, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

The above noted content does not represent or substantiate an opinion, fact, but represents itself.

I recently added to a page on Raoul Wallenberg SONGS section 5 songs about Raoul Wallenberg. Wallenberg^[1], There is a man,^[2] Raoul we thank you^[3], The Rescuers^[4] and Louise and Marie^[5] which I feel merit this. I don't know if the songs are referred to in any external document. The songs were removed with a revert since they are not independently referenced.

This presents a general problem since these days much quality content is posted on-lime without reviews or endorsement by "reliable sources". In fact, aside from science and similar journals these days the concept of reliable sources is questionable. For example CNN and FoxNews often (mostly?) offer point-of view vs. purely fact based content. Same for the major newspapers.

The problem of valuable content possibly not independently reviewed etc. extends also to science, technology and similar on-line content. I recently saw two excellent explanations about "Quaternions" involving 3 distinct imaginary numbers i, j and k which have important applications in physics. ^[6] and.^[7] I have no idea who the first presenter is or if his presentation is referenced anywhere. Still, based on understanding the math and common sense I'd surely want to use the video as a reference in an article on the topic. The second reference is by a very bright postdoctoral physics student at Cambridge U. I don't know if her presentation is reviewed anywhere, but would certainly assume she is worth quoting on a Wikipedia page solely because of the quality of the presentation and the fact that she was accepted to be at Cambridge.

Would appreciate guidance on this matter Emesz (talk) 07:17, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

On the article Daniel Doheny, a Popbuzz.com article was being used to give his birthdate and age. However, two other sources at the same article contradict him being born in 1997: one from a well-known daily Vancouver newspaper, The Vancouver Sun, which lists him as having graduated from a Vancouver-area high school in 2008 and another from a local theatre program, Bard on the Beach, which lists him as in college in 2013.

As a result, I edited his age here. It is sometimes being reverted to the 1997 date based on the Popbuzz.com source, so I'd like opinions as to their reliability on this kind of information (actor birthdates). —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:32, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Your edit is wrong. The source you have given doesn't say he graduated from high school at 18, so we can't put that. You can however use that as a source in the article for claims that it actually makes. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:14, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

It has its own Wikipedia article, sure, but it's pretty

The website and magazine has existed for decades (and clearly shows it!); it has a dedicated staff of writers, editors, photographers, and others; all content appears to be controlled and filtered by that staff (i.e., no

I seriously doubt that a self-described Fanzine can be viewed as a "reliable source." Collect (talk) 13:49, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Usable with caveats. It's definitely a cut above the everyday "fanzine" put together by somebody in their basement. I'd say it's OK for basic info like band X released single Y, or band A played at venue B on date C, or direct quotes from musicians about their music. But it shouldn't be used controversial

biographical information or other sensitive purposes. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk

) 14:25, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• More reliable than InfoWars. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:29, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes but so is my dog. He gets peer reviewed. On point, I would say reliable for interviews etc and non controversial material. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• Source Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Asia and Oceania by Barbara West Google Books link
• Article Rouran Khaganate
• Content ...was the name of a state established by proto-Mongols, from the late 4th century until the middle 6th century.citation
• My concern is the author (Barbara West) is a social anthropologist:
  • "West, who holds a Ph.D. in social anthropology, defines a people based on shared language, ethnicity, nationality, tribe, or religion. Ancient peoples may also be classified by archaeological complex (shared material culture)."[14]
• So does her book pass as a reliable source for history and language-related topics? --
  talk
  ) 07:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

• Note: It is an encyclopedia, and Barbara West is merely the editor. Question for
  Wario-Man: Do you have any reason to doubt the accuracy of that encyclopedia entry, regardless of who wrote it? Softlavender (talk
  ) 07:37, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
• Note 2: Nothing on page 687 of that text mentions a
  Khaganate article. Softlavender (talk
  ) 07:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Unless there a good reason to doubt the name or content i'd consider that encylopedia not an optimal but a sufficient source in general, but you can probably find better ones. If Khanate/Khaganate is not explicitly mentioned, then of course the encyclopedia is only good for the name Rouran. However a quick look at google books quickly yields other (scholarly) sources using the name (see [15], [16]). So the name if fine and you could use any of those 2 sources (or others) to source the full name.--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

The use of khagan as a title is also supported in the body by the Rousset cite. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 16:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Upon revisiting Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Archive_65#THEM_reliability, T.H.E.M. Anime Reviews seem to have been used in some books and editorials. However, the website is currently run by hobbyists with no notable credentials and longevity is not a factor in websites used as valid sources. It also originated as a student-run organization from Arizona State University. Carlos Ross is one of the only known notable members who has appeared in press segments but he is no longer affiliated with the website. Perhaps at the time of review, this could be considered a valid source, but not by today's standards, especially when more industry-related resources are available. (Basically, the notable alumni of T.H.E.M. Anime Reviews seem to be valid sources, but the website itself should not be.) Please advise on this. lullabying (talk) 17:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Are they still being referenced by other sources? It seems that they qualified as an actual reliable source some years ago, but things change as personnel change. If secondary reliable sources still quote THEM nowadays, I'd say it's still OK. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

If the status of the website did change then it wouldn't effect the anime that was reviewed by the former staff. The status would be changed to "situational" in which reviews from the website up to x date would be considered usable. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with this point. I think it'd be best if we specify up to which date and personnel reviews from them should be allowed. lullabying (talk) 17:44, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I know that the

Go for it. That's what everybody's been doing so far. GMG^talk

19:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

This site clearly fails RS, as it is a fan wiki. If there any way of running a bot to remove it, and then blacklisting it to prevent it being used again? GiantSnowman 15:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Do you mean like

WP:BLACKLIST? -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC) (please  mention

me on reply; thanks!)

That's the one, thank you! GiantSnowman 07:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

The Globe Newspaper(Zambian) Publishes both Hard copy newspapers and their online edition, i need your input on accessing whether it can be considered a reliable source on wikipedia see http://theglobeonline.news/entertainment/mic-diggy-apologies-to-slap-d-on-znbc-radio-4s-hip-hop-eardrum/ Regards

Some context is necessary here I think. The article appears to be recounting a feud between two musicians and the subsequent apology one made to the other. Is this source being used at an article referring to one of the involved parties?Simonm223 (talk) 14:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

If you are trying to establish notability for a musician, and you haven't previously brought this to talk at the article or it's associated

WP:BOLD would apply here.Simonm223 (talk

) 12:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Simonm223 one of the AFD active participants advised, i cite this reference, and see how the community reacts, and the AFD admin also thinks this is probably a reliable source. He didn't exactly reverse the deletion and i am not an admin so i can't. What would be the best step? recreating the article or ? 41.77.149.190 (talk) 12:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

If there is an AFD, you'd post that you Oppose deletion on the grounds of notability in a media source and provide the link. Then participants in the AFD can discuss whether they believe it imparts sufficient reliability to warrant retention of the article in question. But even if the source is reliable it might still not be sufficient to demonstrate notability per issues like

WP:AFC and making your case there. If there's a current AFD in progress I'd suggest you pitch the source there and see if it floats.Simonm223 (talk

) 12:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

ETA I followed your IP address back to the concluded AFD. It's done. The page is deleted. If you believe there should be a page for this artist, I'd suggest taking the source to

WP:AFC that the new sources warrant inclusion then a new page could be created. Simonm223 (talk

) 12:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Simonm223 Thank you very much that was useful information.41.77.149.190 (talk) 13:03, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

In a recent AFD an editor suggested The Space Gamer, an early 80s magazine on fantasy games like Dungeons & Dragons, was a peer-reviewed journal. On the basis of it not having a process of double-blind review, being indexed, or being sponsored by an academic publisher, I don't believe it is. However, out of a preponderance of caution, was wondering if others could offer some input on this question. If there's a consensus that The Space Gamer is a scholarly journal, and I have misinterpreted it, I would like to amend my !vote in the aforementioned AFD. Chetsford (talk) 00:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• Topical RS, not scholarly' - my impression is that it was a semi-normal magazine, and would be reasonable RS within it's topic field. But it seems in the category of a general magazine, like Time, or The Atlantic, or Popular Mechanics rather than an academic journal or the journal of a society. I believe they had editorial oversight and did print corrections, so could be a RS if the context is something they covered. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• RS for games, not an academic journal (even if it had a peer review process - one would need to look at the identity of the reviewers). For Wiki notability - a review there would definitely be significant for establishing notability (assuming independence of the product from the magazine - which in most cases was the case).Icewhiz (talk) 07:02, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

No it is not a peer reviewed journal, but then neither is the Times. But is did have some editorial policy and staff. So it would be RES for gaming.Slatersteven (talk) 09:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

This satisfies me; thank you Slatersteven, Markbassett, and Icewhiz! Chetsford (talk) 19:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

This is being claimed to be a reliable source for adding an entry to

No definitely not a reliable source.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:36, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I find it hard to imagine a worse source than that image. I know it was provided simply as a convenience link, but @TFBCT1: needs to include a proper citation if he wants to even discuss that report. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

No, I don't want to discuss the issue any further. Even my point is lost here. Which was that in the past we have accepted information on these Prefecture reports as valid sources on the longevity pages in that Japan has provided credible Prefecture reports on their oldest residents for over 110 years. So the information presented is likely accurate, however it has now been pounded into my head that 'said information' cannot be used if downloaded as an image from an unknown party to a website. Message received.TFBCT1 (talk) 23:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

[17]. Looking for references for

You should start by simply looking at who the publisher is for each book. Looking at the first page of results, there are several books from Wiley, one from Harvard University Press, and one from Springer. All of those would probably be presumed reliable for most purposes absent evidence to the contrary. Others might be reliable, at least for finding significant opinions, depending on who the authors are. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Aside: The hyphenation in the article title needs to be fixed. Either Ultra-high net worth individual or Ultra-high net-worth individual (see sources, google ngram etc for which is more prevalent). Ditto for High-net-worth individual. Abecedare (talk) 06:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Is this sufficient for the birth year of a BLP? Eg this page? Doug Weller talk 12:14, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

That LoC page indicates

WP:CIRCULAR

.

However: a viable solution can be found on that person's Wikidata page (i.e.

GND 142124524 as a reference for the person's birth date should normally be unproblematic. --Francis Schonken (talk

) 12:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• Actually that page indicates this as the source. See images, author bio. Confirms birth year. I would just use that book (authored by the subject) as a source for the date rather than messing around with un-user friendly database entries. AFAIK, when it lists 'exact matching data' it means other databases with the same data, not that the data (from those databases) has been used to populate that entry at the Library of Congress. Usually whats used to populate it is listed under 'sources' (which leads to the above book). Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

  Well, that's a

  notability". GND, as a secondary source (or: arguably a tertiary source) is generally less problematic in various contexts. --Francis Schonken (talk

  ) 12:46, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• For the purposes of birth year its fine. Its an author bio in a book they wrote. I wouldnt use it on anyting about Columbus for reasons too long to go into here, but for basic (non-puffery) biographical info about the author its ok. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm dubious about the content @

Had this happen a lot with certain newspapers in the USA. But no I would say not being able to access it is not a valid reason for exclusion, just ask them to post a quote on the talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 09:14, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I've had this happen a lot. Perhaps the only good thing that could possibly happen here with Bloody Brexit is that we could abandon the effing stupid eurolaws about data and shit and allow Search results to be honest, or as honest as a giganticorporation can manage, and Merkian newspapers not allowing people in the mother country to read their news. sigh. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 09:40, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Bishonen: Use a free proxy or archive.org. wumbolo ^^^ 09:44, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

UTC)

I didn't have problem accessing it and from my glance it looks like a legitimate source. The article is one on Proud Boys as a whole and one of the parts of the article was this "The Proud Boys also have a “no wanks” policy urging members to avoid masturbation and pornography to motivate them to get “off the couch” and meet women." which matches what is in the article. However since reading the about us on the page, I'm not sure if it is reliable or not so happy for others with more knowledge to advise.

^(talk)

09:46, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

the GDPR tripwire or similarly paywalls as such are no reason for the exclusion of sources or to doubt them. There is are requirement on sources to be online or accessible for free. However if you have reason to distrust the content, authenticity or proper use of a source, you cannot access yourself, then you can ask other involved editors for details or copy or ask at

WP:RX. If you don't want to pursue the issue yourself, simply post a message on the article's discussion page and leave it other editors to pick it up eventually.--Kmhkmh (talk

) 09:51, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

While they have this on their About us page "The Wisconsin Gazette is Milwaukee’s most honored alternative publication. Our mission is to: help build a strong, informed community; promote social equality and justice; support immigration and electoral reform; expose government secrets and call out political corruption; celebrate and support the arts; and foster appreciation and respect for the state’s extraordinary natural resources.". They do have managing editors, editor in chief etc and a circulation of 29,500 copies, distributed every other week.

^(talk)

09:54, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Not sure why are you telling me this. I didn't assess Wisconsin Gazette myself, I just pointed out what to do in GDPR and paywall cases (and that they as such of have no bearing the reliability assessment of a source). Btw. the mission statement is mostly meaningless for assessing reliability.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry

^(talk)

13:06, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• Several people seem to get from my post that I want to exclude the source, or that I think it's untrue that it says what it's supposed to say. Not at all. I've no reason to doubt the reliability of the Wisconsin Gazette, or to doubt that its article says what is claimed. I just wanted to see for myself whether or not the text of it gives a good reason for including the content in our article. Like, whether it makes the content appear
  WP:DUE — you know, to evaluate how the source is being used. @Wumbolo: Thank you, but you're not speaking my language. Imagine that you're explaining it to your mum. Bishonen | talk
  11:27, 15 August 2018 (UTC).

A source which can easily be accessed using a free proxy (which you can easily find on Google) should not be treated any differently from other sources. It's not dead, rather it's in a "coma" - when (and if) the website becomes GDPR-compliant, the link will become freely accessible again. wumbolo ^^^ 11:42, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

The Wisconsin Gazette isn't the actual source. The story is a reprint of a piece originally done by Wisconsin Public Radio, an affiliate of NPR. This bumps reliability up by a notch or three. Here's the original. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 11:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

^(talk)

13:06, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Last time I checked you couldn't access the LATImes or the Chicago Tribune, two major US newspapers. I use a VPN but man does it slow down my PC! Doug Weller talk 14:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Bishonen: You may be able to access the same Proud Boys article at the WisconsinWatch, The Capital Times, or the Wisconsin Public Radio website. Given the article's provenance (it also won an award from the Milwaukee Press Club), I don't think there is much concern about its reliability, although due-weight issues may exist about the particular content. Abecedare (talk) 15:06, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I see now that User:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris had already provided the WPR link. A small clarification: the story is not original to WPR or any of the other "publishers". It is produced by Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism, which is a (high-quality) non-profit, investigative journalism outfit that prouces such investivative pieces but instead/in-addition to publishing on its own niche website, offers them to its affiliated partners that have a broader reach. See ProPublica, which follows the same model at a national scale. Abecedare (talk) 15:17, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

This has to be the strangest sourcing I've seen and I'd like some additional opinions on it: Recently an editor added this youtube video as a source for a date of birth where the subject of the article (

I think we can say it is RS for his saying it is wrong.Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, as this is a verified account (tick mark next to GameGrumps, and Dan Avidan is one of the duo in GameGrumps). Per
  WP:ABOUTSELF the subject may be used for info such as DOB (assuming it's in there in the 13 minutes(4 parts - 79 minutes in all - listening to it). Actually a great way to correct one's Wikipedia's article while providing a RS for the article. Kudos to the article subject.Icewhiz (talk
  ) 15:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
• To a limited degree, yes. Simple facts that make no claims about third parties might be judged reliable. Date of birth can be cited to self-published sources, for example. If the subject makes exceptional claims, obviously that's not going in the article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
• What Ninja said. The 'limited degree' when it comes to age\DOB is that people in media routinely lie about their age (usually to appear younger or just to obfuscate it). If there is no contradictory information, it can be used as a self published primary source. How was the birthday sourced previously? Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:28, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

• There was no birthday in the article previously. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

• Then there is no issue. Altho why he would want his birthday in the article is beyond me. But as a SPS from what is clearly the subject, and with no contradictory info, it's fine. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:38, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with the above, though my main reason for commenting is to say that, generally, YouTube videos from reliable sources in which the article subject comments on their Wikipedia article are excellent sources for the subjects on themselves. In principle, they are even better than text sources insofar as verifiability goes given how nigh impossible it is to fake a voice or video of the subject. Back in June 2018, I
  reliable YouTube sources do exist and can be great sources for those willing to take the time to watch the video, note the timestamps, and transcribe the statements. When it comes to sources like the latter and the Avidan video, they are basically standard autobiographic sources—for YouTube-published interviews, standard interviews. So long as they pass the usual sourcing and verifiability criteria, the fact that they are in videographic form does not matter much. {{Cite AV media}} exists for a reason, after all. With that said, great find! —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs
  ) 08:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Disagree that we should use Youtube more. Ugh. This is a scholarly project, not part of the blogosphere. Jytdog (talk) 02:08, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

    I much prefer "scholarly" sources over YouTube videos any day, and I hope that one is found anytime I (or anyone else) ever consider using YouTube as a source. If there is simply no better source and the YouTube source passes all pertinent policy and guidelines criteria, however, then I think using it to help further

    rules to know whether a YouTube source is acceptable and when to use it, and even then it is difficult and unclear (as evinced by this discussion, started by one of the top 500 most prolific editors). For anyone who is new to Wikipedia and its sourcing rules, YouTube as a source should be avoided until that changes. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs

    ) 03:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Like any
  WP:BLPSPS, ok for simple, uncontroversial facts. Beyond that, no and hell no. What a nightmare this would open up if we forgot that basic classification.Jytdog (talk
  ) 02:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Hyderabad/ts-youngsters-design-a-virtual-cricket-game/article22839684.ece
• https://www.timesnownews.com/sports/cricket/article/har-koi-banega-sehwag-nawab-of-najafgarh-hails-president-ram-nath-kovind-for-embracing-new-form-of-cricket/201980
• https://pixr8.com/india/when-indian-president-played-cricket-at-up-investors-summit/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.93.17.118 (talk • contribs) 07:14, August 17, 2018 (UTC)

I would say they are RS, but I wonder why there are no more recent ones.Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Depends upon what you plan to use them for.

fluff pieces, clearly based on press-releases ("Vikram’s team claims the product is considered the most impressive VR Cricket experience..."), and should therefore be handled with care. Pix8 is essentially a repository for company press releases and not an independent reliable source. Abecedare (talk

) 16:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)