Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 257

In considering that DM is treated as a blacklisted source, should information published in other RSes that point back to a DM story as the originating point be considered tainted by the DM and thus these individual stories be unusable for WP? (Or at least the parts that tie back to the DM information?)

Specific case in point: with news that we have a new Ghostbusters film coming, DM published a piece [37] that includes statements from actor Ernie Hudson that would be considered appropriate for inclusion if they came from any other source but DM. Several other sources (Esquire, Consquences of Sound among others) are repeating the information from Hudson all linked to the DM story. My gut says we should consider this information tainted due to DM, and wait for a corroboration from an independent source before adding it. --Masem (t) 16:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

My gut goes the other way; when another source reuses content from DM, they are staking their own editorial reputation upon that usage, and for sources generally considered scrupulously reliable, that's good enough for me. We're not saying that material published in DM is guaranteed to be wrong. If it has been republished by sources we would normally trust, then it has passed that source's trustworthy vetting process, and we can trust it. It's the material that is unique to the DM that I worry about. If real journalists have vetted it, I'm no longer worried. --Jayron32 20:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

It can be looked at both ways. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, I can see that, but I think it's like a net sum game, and we have to consider the quality of the RS repeating what the DM said. If it were the NYTimes repeating DM's information, that would be more than enough to me to offset the DM reliability issue. On the other hand, at least in the case of these Ghostbuster stories, I feel most of these sources are mid-tier RS, and not strong enough to get over the potential reliability problems of the DM. --Masem (t) 20:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

If they're attributing the report in-text to the Daily Mail, they may not have verified any of it. Case in point: Consequence of Sound was one of the outlets that had a write-up on that fake Dwayne Johnson interview where he supposedly bashed "generation snowflake" - Johnson presumably could have told them the whole interview was a fabrication if they had asked him to confirm the story. Nblund ^talk 20:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

That's my impression when I've come onto mid-quality RSes quoting or reiterating information that has a dubious edge on it from a low-quality blog or from social media, information that would require insider information. These mid-tier sources seem to report without some corroboration of their own. --Masem (t) 21:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

NO, as they are RS and thus are presumed to have checked the story.Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

• Maybe: it depends on exactly what our article would say. Assuming this is about the announcement of three original actors reprising their roles in a reboot movie, DM is blurring the lines. Its headline says Hudson "confirmed" the three actors "will reprise their roles" but that doesn't seem to be true. What Hudson actually said in the video interview was: "Ivan Reitman is there and everybody is in. Now whether the studio will do it, I'm the guy who sits by the phone and waits for the call. So if they call, I'll answer. If not, I've got other stuff that I’m doing." Esquire qualified that, publishing the full quote followed by: "That presumably means that Bill Murray and Dan Aykroyd are bang up for a reuniting..." (bold added). COS published the full quote and then points out that since the DM/Hudson story broke, Sony released the movie trailer (meaning "the studio called"), and they point to a couple tweets from Aykroyd indicating his willingness to be in the movie, though Murray has not yet commented. So I don't think we can write that the three actors will be in the movie, sourced to any of it. I'm not sure it's worth mentioning that one of the actors said he'd do the movie if the studio called. However, if we're writing that the media is reporting that two of three actors have shown interest in reprising their roles, then I think that could be cited to Esq and COS, and it doesn't matter that they're relying on DM, because in this case, they're actually citing Hudson's own words in a video interview that just happened to be given to DMTV, so DM is just a conduit and not really a source of information (it's not like there is any suggestion they faked or edited the video interview). That said, give it a little more time, and there will probably be a much more solid official announcement, and the whole issue will resolve itself. ^Leviv_ich? ! 23:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
• The Daily Mail is not blacklisted. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

• It might as well be, no matter how hard the Daily Mail fanbois try to fudge the issue to pretend it's usable. And in this case, using the Daily Mail is not worth the thin "fact" it's trying to justify. --Calton | Talk 09:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

• " Daily Mail fanbois" {{citation needed}}

" to pretend it's usable" {{citation needed}}

There are no DM fanbois. No one has had a positive comment for it. But it's not "banned", as the single-position biased editors amongst those against it certainly claim. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:54, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the Daily Mail is not

deprecated and blacklisted are Breitbart News and InfoWars. — Newslinger talk

10:47, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

• Generally usable. That the DM was the first to break a story does not suppress said story from the public wiki record - if it were, it would be our Daily Censor. If a
  WP:RS reports facts in each own voice (not attributed but to the DM - and giving credit ("first reported") is not attribution) - it doesn't matter if the DM broke this first, as the RS is reporting it in its own voice, and the information made it through the RS's controls. The situation is more trick when a RS reports that "according to the DM, X has done Y" - in this case, we should assume that some editorial checks were performed at the RS, however we need to be more careful (particularly if this was reported by the RS due to some extreme sensationalism (i.e the reporting of the DM was the news, not the news items itself)). However, even if attributed, if multiple RSes see fit to state that the DM has reported something - it is quite possibly DUE for inclusion. 11:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icewhiz (talk • contribs
  )
• Perfectly usable. The Daily Mail is not blacklisted. It can be perfectly well be used when it is not the sole source. It is a mainstream British paper, mmkay? Furthermore,
  WP:RS which rely on DM reportages are perfectly valid sources. XavierItzm (talk
  ) 11:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
• Copyright is a valid issue In the case that other sources use a quote which is in a copyrighted article found in the DM and is so attributed by that source then it is a clear violation of copyright for us to use the source and not acknowledge the holder of the copyright. I suggest that the EU laws are even stricter than this position. I further note that the "monkey selfie" issue where I opined a few times that WP must, if it has any sense of law at all, obey copyright laws and decisions. Publication of anything does not mean we can ignore copyright.Collect (talk) 15:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Attribution isn't a full defence against copyright infringement in any jurisdiction that I know of. The main question is whether the copying is "substantial". Simply describing facts, in different words and in a different way, should not ordinarily lead to infringement. The reason the papers often give attribution is 1) courtesy, 2) defamation (i.e., they are attributing the statements to a source rather than saying they are their own views), 3) accuracy. FOARP (talk) 16:31, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

• Generally usable, possibly requires attribution. A
  neutral point of view noticeboard). If, in addition to claiming that the Daily Mail reported something, the reliable source also provides original content that further substantiates the Daily Mail's reporting, then the information is usable and attribution is not necessary. — Newslinger talk
  10:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I think it good practice to include in text attribution when citing ANY news source. Blueboar (talk) 12:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

​To clarify, if a reliable source provides original news coverage that corroborates the Daily Mail's reports while only mentioning the Daily Mail in passing, then the reliable source should be referenced (usually with attribution) while the Daily Mail does not need to be attributed. — Newslinger talk 13:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd be cautious based on Levivich's analysis. Maybe this is one to hold off on until a clearer confirmation is provided. Simonm223 (talk) 15:17, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I've added "Generally" in front of "usable" to clarify that this is my position on the general case. I agree with Levivich on this specific case, and note that statements in an article should be more clearly attributed when they are tenuous or controversial. — Newslinger talk 22:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• As a general rule, when something in an unreliable source is covered by a reliable secondary (or tertiary) source, we can cite it to the secondary source; if this weren't the case, we wouldn't be able to cite anything, since all reporting ultimately comes down to someone doing original research on a primary source. Taking information from places like tweets, reddit posts, or (yes) the Daily Mail and turning it into a reliable news story is part of what a
  WP:OR, and since taking unreliable sources and verifying them, analyzing them, performing synthesis with them, and otherwise turning them into reliable content is what a reliable source does. --Aquillion (talk
  ) 04:54, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
• Context matters. If an article published by a reliable source simply reblogs content from the Daily Mail (or any other source considered unreliable), and there is no evidence that the RS has performed their own verification, then that article probably won't be considered reliable. An example: Apple Daily, a Hong Kong newspaper (and the only major left-of-centre newspaper in Hong Kong), is generally considered reliable for local news; however, they frequently publish news articles on their website that are largely based on those of British tabloids such as the Daily Mirror (e.g. [38], [39]), The Sun (e.g. [40]), and the Daily Mail (e.g. [41]). Based on my experience, Apple Daily doesn't do much fact checking to see if the original article was accurate. It's still an RS for Hong Kong news, but clearly these Apple Daily articles on international news aren't any more reliable than the source. feminist (talk) 08:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

• ecastles.co.uk: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

I came across this site a while back, I checked the site and could find no indication at all that it meets

• Self-published source. The site doesn't give any explanation for how the content was compiled. Its home page has an "email me" link, which suggests that "Castles and Fortifications of England and Wales" is managed by just one anonymous author. — Newslinger talk
  12:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject England. — Newslinger talk 12:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

• • Not a reliable source. Doug Weller talk 15:17, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Tend to agree wit the above, unless it can be shown he is an regarded expert in his field.Slatersteven (talk) 09:56, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Recently I added a view by Dr. Gustav Solomon Oppert to article Vanniyar but Sitush (talk · contribs) immediately termed it as unreliable as it supposedly belonged to the British Colonial India and removed the edit. On the other hand Sitush seems to be okay quoting material from other sources that were based upon events that transpired during the Colonial period in India when it favors his POV. So requesting other users to comment on the reliability of this source.

Article: Vanniyar

Content:

..the Pallis or Pallavas of southern India once held a very high position, as rulers of the country, at the time of the invasions of the Chalukyas..

Source: ^[1]

Thanks Nittawinoda (talk) 17:36, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Depends, its a very old source and modern scholarship may have overturned it. But he was an notable expert in his field, and so might be OK if attributed.Slatersteven (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Dr.Oppert's view as per the above content lends credence to the view that the Pallis (also called Vanniyar) are the

Pallavas. Thanks Nittawinoda (talk

) 17:54, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

This does seem to be a view form about 80 years ago [[42]]], but finding no more modern scholarship. But POV (as in "its British" (even if it is in fact German)) is not a valid objection to a source.Slatersteven (talk) 18:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (with Bish) Who has suggested the problem is that it is British? Or German? I am mystified yet again. The issues with British Raj era sources is HISTRS, methodology, prevailing theories, inherent credulousness, purpose not being academic etc. Nothing much to do with nationality of the authors. If you don't know what you're talking about, say nowt. - Sitush (talk) 18:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

The OP said "belonged to the British Colonial India", thus I took that to mean the objection was to it being a source from the British empire. Now I had no idea what had been said between you two, and had to assume what is says is an accurate reflection of the dispute. Looking (now) at the talk page you say Raj era. So it was the OP that suggested it. Slatersteven (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I understand that. But why on earth not look at the situation before commenting? Anyone who hangs around the boards as much as you do should be aware that caste topics are contentious and complaints often misrepresented. AS for the OP, I think it would have been better if they had notified me of this discussion, and even more so if they had put a notification in the relevant article talk page thread, which is what I am about to do if no-one has beaten me to it. - Sitush (talk) 18:56, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Because I answered the question he asked (it it would not be the first time a wider issue has been placed within a more specific issue, would it?, and he does seem to be trying to make a wider point) If you look I make it clear I am not sure about the source (note the stuff about modern scholarship), because of its age. But I also stand by the idea that whilst a "raj era" source may not be RS for facts, it is an RS for its opinion. And thus (as long as the claim is attributed) is could be included. I see nothing that dissuades me from that opinion.Slatersteven (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

As to this not being about British sources, so would a source published in (say) 1896 be an RS for any fact about Indian myth or history?Slatersteven (talk) 19:45, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Have you read the information Bish and I have linked to below or are you just continuing what seems to be a stream of conciousness? I'm reminded of A. E. Housman: "Three minutes thought would have told him he was wrong; but thought is irksome and three minutes is a long time". Please, step back, read up on the background and consider the implications of what you suggest as it applies to a notoriously awkward topic area that is subject to not one but two different sanctions regimes. I spend far too much time here retreading old ground and it is tiresome, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

What am I suggesting, I asked you if "not sources form the era of the RAj" is a blanket ban on all sources form that era, its a suimple yes or not (and by the way, your user page does not have the force of policy).Slatersteven (talk) 15:18, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Not interested. You're wasting my time, just as you do that of many others. I'd rather get on with building the encyclopaedia. - Sitush (talk) 16:08, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

This is what I am talking about. Sitush and his cronies term any and all resources that talk of a Palli-Pallava connection as being unreliable. They remove any edits made to the article if it talks of a Pallava connection no matter how reliable the source is. Nittawinoda (talk) 03:55, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Not true, and I resent the suggestion that I am tag-teaming or something similar. I am my own person. - Sitush (talk) 05:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

• I note that Nittawinoda has now in at least three different places offered the hair-raising argument that because sources written during the Raj era (a period of "scientific racism", see [43]) are unreliable for Wikipedia, there is some sort of problem with using modern academic sources about events during the Raj era. Here, on my talkpage, and on his own talkpage. I'm sorry, but I don't understand what one thing has to do with another. Are these events supposed to never be spoken of? Edit warring based on such clueless reasoning will soon lead to a block or ban. Bishonen | talk 18:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC).

• Yep. There is also some background at the hopelessly incomplete User:Sitush/CasteSources. - Sitush (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

User Nittawinoda has been focused on messing up caste articles indulging in false glorification, Sources provided by Nittawinoda are not reliable. Sangitha rani111 (talk) 01:20, 26 January 2019 (UTC)Sangitha rani111

Not all of them have been unreliable but many have because I think they've fallen into the trap of searching for specific things that they want to prove rather than reading generally and just reflecting the outcome of that reading. It is a common mistake. We're drifting off-topic anyway with comments like this. - Sitush (talk) 05:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

What is the consensus on using Dr. Oppert's source as a reference? I see that atleast one other editor Slatersteven (talk · contribs) is alright with using it as a reference in the Vanniyar article. Nittawinoda (talk) 11:13, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@Nittawinoda: I can't find any reason to use it. I can find a couple of academic references to his work on Jewish issues and one on his Prester John work. And the Jstor article "A Longing for India: Indophilia among German-Jewish Scholars of the Nineteenth Century". Evidently "He developed the theory of a pre-Aryan/Semitic race called Bharatas in India. Basing his theory on language and religion, 'which in matters of this kind are the most reliable and precious sources of information,'[his words] he claimed that these agricultural Bharatas - a branch of the Finnish-Hungarian race - had settled in India before they were invaded by the pastoralist Aryan and Semitic ancestors". He said that as they worshipped a matriarchal deity they were inferior to the invaders. I don't think I'd touch him with a barge pole for the suggested purpose. Doug Weller talk 16:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

A barge pole is about 4 meters. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

But in the UK it is commonly said that "I wouldn't touch it with a 10-foot bargepole". 4 m (13 ft). Oh, well, that's metrication for you! - Sitush (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Nittawinoda, the consensus is going to be "not reliable". I think even Slatersteven may now realise this. - Sitush (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Do not put words into users mouths, I have asked a question you have refused to answer, are all 19thc sources about India unreliable? Do not take my agreeing (by qauiescence) to stop talking about this with you due to your desire to stop talking to me about it as agreement, it is curtsy. I would not have responded here to you but for you misrepresentation of my position.10:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)Slatersteven (talk)

I said I think. You're a timesink and, frankly, a clueless nuisance, so I've no actual interest in your opinion anyway. I've already answered your question if only you bothered to read the links that were given. Those links collate stuff precisely to save time, not to waste more of it. - Sitush (talk) 10:10, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

• Another reason to see that the proposed source and text is not suitable is to consider that it says "once held a very high position, as rulers of the country". That is a
  WP:REDFLAG claim. If true, there would be multiple reliable sources with detailed information. Johnuniq (talk
  ) 02:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm looking for input on whether the website https://stopterrorfinance.org/, operated by The Consortium Against Terrorist Finance, should be considered a reliable source. I realize this may be a little late since the website no longer works, but it's still in use as a source for a lot of articles such as Wahhabism, Qatar Charity, Qatar and state-sponsored terrorism, Madid Ahl al-Sham, Army of Conquest, Al-Qaeda, and Qatar Investment Authority. In every instance it's used as a source, it pertains only controversies surrounding Qatar, strangely enough. It is used as a source for this rather controversial and vague statement in Wahhabism:

The Assalam Mosque is located in Nantes, France was also a source on some controversy. Construction on the mosque began in 2009 and was completed in 2012. It is the largest mosque in its region in France. The mosque is frequently listed among examples of Qatar’s efforts to export Wahhabism, their extreme and often intolerant version of Islam, throughout Europe.

Another interesting quote which I found on the Al-Qaeda article attributed to this website is:

Qatar finances al-Qaeda's enterprises through al-Qaeda's affiliate in Syria, Jabhat al-Nusra. The funding is primarily channeled through kidnapping for ransom. The Consortium Against Terrorist Finance (CATF) reported that the Gulf country has funded al-Nusra since 2013.

This is contentious because according to FT: "Yet allegations that the Qataris have – directly or indirectly – helped Jabhat al-Nusrah have not gone away. At least one Arab government recently said as much, although experts on jihadi movements say the extremist group’s funding comes from al-Qaeda in Iraq and from private donors in the Gulf, not from governments." A statement as contentious as this should be very well-supported.

The website has 47 results for "Qatar", which is more than all the other Persian Gulf states combined (Saudi Arabia has 16 results, UAE has 3 results, Bahrain has 4 results, and Kuwait has 8 results); it's also worth mentioning that most of these hits for the other Gulf countries are mostly mentions in articles focused on Qatar's activities. I bring this point up because the terrorism financing of Qatar certainly doesn't surpass that of its neighbors like this website seems to suggest, leading me to question its reliability as the sole source for Qatar-related controversies. Several websites and organizations have been created by Qatar's neighbors to denigrate its image as a result of political disputes (such as the similar sounding www.stopqatarnow.com), and this doesn't look very different. Elspamo4 (talk) 05:42, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

It seems a dead link as is their use on Qatar and state-sponsored terrorism.Slatersteven (talk) 09:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

On the face of it, I'm perplexed by its link between Wahhabism and Qatar, as I'm sure Wahhabism is more typically considered to be more centred on Saudi Arabia than Qatar (§Definitions and etymology has some background on this; although the perceived idolatry of having an eponymous "branch" of Islam muddies the water somewhat), and the two countries are fairly distinct from one another, especially following the recent political falling-out between the two countries (to the point that deliberate misinformation against Qatar does not seem implausible). I'm honestly skeptical of the claims in the source, although I can't say I know the literature well enough to provide alternatives/contradictions off-the-cuff. Are there any other sources that reliably substantiate the claims? — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 18:05, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, I looked for reliable sources for both quoted statements. For the Assalam mosque, it goes without saying there's some controversy, but nothing like what's written in the Wahhabism article - in fact I'm pretty sure I read that same sentence 100 times before with 'Saudi Arabia' instead of 'Qatar' the other 99 times. Even the Gatestone Institute, while wary of Qatar's influence on Qatar, doesn't make any claims of exporting Wahhabism or terrorism or whatever, nor is Qatar's specific form of Wahhabism considered an "extreme and intolerant version" (it's more liberal than Saudi's). For the second sentence, as with most allegations of funding groups during the Syrian Civil War, it is very hard to prove. While there are allegations that Qatar supported Al Nusra with weapons (whether directly or indirectly) to topple Assad, there's no concrete dates or proof that there was official contact between the state and group rather than private donors and the group (see FT article above).

To me, this has all the hallmarks of an Emirati or Saudi smear website, similar to the way the UAE uses the Foundation for Defense of Democracies to try and influence the US' relationship with Qatar through misconstrued facts (the FDD is also used as references on some of the articles above), and also similar to the UAE's release of several multimillion dollar movies accusing Qatar of terrorism. In fact it strikes me that all of the articles above were edited by a paid editor, and I'm pretty sure I found 4 socks of the same user who has a very special and unique interest in writing only about Qatar's ties to 'terrorism' using mostly primary sources, FDD and stopterrorfinance.com. I found it all very suspect since they account for probably the majority of edits to any Qatar-related topics in the past several years aside from my own edits. Anyway sorry for the wall of text - I recognized my own bias on this messy topic and don't want to be unilaterally 'white-wash' these articles without hearing community input. Elspamo4 (talk) 21:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

It seems that Filter 894 (log) has had no meaningful effect on the rate of addition of self-published material from vanity presses. The filter picks up:

• AuthorHouse / Author House authorhouse.com - insource / all links, see also AuthorHouse / Author House
• Trafford Publishing trafford.com - insource / all links
• iUniverse iuniverse.com - insource / all links
• Lulu.com lulu.com - insource / all links
• Xlibris xlibris.com - insource / all links

Note that these searches turn up only a subset of the likely total, search is not especially reliable, regex searches in CirrusSearch are expensive and a definitive search, for example, /publisher\s*-\s*author\s*house/i, times out.

There is definitely a mix here of outright spamming, good-faith additions by people who don't know about the vanity press model, and a very small minority that are, by consensus, legitimate sources.

In many cases the links are not to the publisher's website, they are to Google Books or Amazon (a problem in itself), so just blacklisting the domains would not fix the problem.

What, if anything, can we do about this? I must have removed several thousand references to vanity presses over time and the numbers are growing much faster than any one person can remove them. Guy (Help!) 12:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Strengthening MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-selfpublished might help. The icon can be changed to File:Information orange.svg or File:Nuvola apps important.svg, the same ones used in level 2-3 warning templates. The message can include a sentence, preferably in bold, briefly explaining and linking to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not § Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. If this isn't effective, then the message should also caution editors that spamming will lead to a block, and inform them that Wikipedia uses nofollow tags (as seen in {{Uw-spam3}}). — Newslinger talk 13:10, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

That is easy to do, so I have done it. Let's see if it makes a difference. Guy (Help!) 14:11, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks great. — Newslinger talk 14:17, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the strengthening of MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-selfpublished, but if I am allowed to, I have a suggestion concerning the grammar:

and can lead to your being blocked or banned from Wikipedia (current)

and may lead to you being blocked or banned from Wikipedia (suggested rephrasing)

I am not a native speaker though. --Leyo 21:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

​The words can and your are technically correct in this context, since can expresses the possibility of something happening, and your being is allowed according to Merriam-Webster's usage notes. I think your suggested rephrasing sounds more natural when read out loud, though. — Newslinger talk 03:26, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I believe it's copied from the warning templates. It's a templated message anyway: {{edit filter warning}}. Guy (Help!) 21:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the grammar lesson. --Leyo 22:56, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

The site e-flux.com (articles: e-flux, e-flux publications, Supercommunity) appears to be a website that accepts press releases and other material for a fee from museums and other cultural organizations, and publishes them on their site. See the paragraph under heading, "What are e-flux's announcements?" on their About page. Dozens of articles on Wikipedia on artists, curators, galleries, and museums use this site as a source. This doesn't sound very much like a reliable source to me. Can we get opinions on this? Mathglot (talk) 01:26, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Not sure why we would need to use this rather then the originals anyway. I think we need to know what it is being used for.Slatersteven (talk) 10:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Click the link for examples. It's also used at the e-flux article itself, but maybe that one is okay. Mathglot (talk) 09:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

A discussion has begun at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry#Mass removals which is (in my opinion) becoming heated and drifting in unproductive directions. The basic issue is in the specialty area of this noticeboard and would benefit from broader input, so I am starting a discussion here. The relevant parts of the discussion so far:

• JzG has been removing references in chemistry articles to the Compendium of Pesticide Common Names. A recent example is this removal of a reference to this page that is used to support the assertion that "triazofos is a chemical compound used in acaricides, insecticides, and nematicides." Objections to removals of references to the PAN Pesticide Database have also been raised.
• Edgar181 and Leyo have objected to removals on the grounds that the articles are worse without the references or replacements being included, and also questioned JzG's expertise in chemistry. Edgar181 has posted that "I have found [the Compendium of Pesticide Common Names] to be an entirely accurate database (much more so than sources such as, for example, the PubChem database which is much more widely used on Wikipedia chemistry articles). I have used it mainly out of convenience because it is so easy to source this basic information. I have no objection if someone wants to replace it with a different source, but I object to the simple blanket deletion of all references citing this source."
• JzG has pointed out that evidence of editorial oversight or other indicia are needed to establish
  WP:RS
  – which is correct, of course.
• However, it seems to me that
  WP:SPS may apply to the Compendium of Pesticide Common Names as it is maintained by Alan Wood, who has for several years served on the British Standards Institution / International Organization for Standardization committee that assigns common names to pesticides. This appointment
  is recorded on the website. Assuming this information was confirmed (which could be easily done by contacting the Secretary of the Committee), and noting that the information being provided is not controversial, would the Compendium be considered an RS under SPS?
• JzG, would you be willing to stop these removals while a discussion is held? Edgar181, Leyo, and any others, are there other sources you wish to raise and other evidence of reliability or the expertise of the publisher to consider under SPS? The PAN Pesticide Database appears to me to be maintained by an advocacy organisation, so I am unsure that it could be used to support any controversial information.
• I will post a notice of this discussion at WT:CHEM.

Thanks to all for your input and thoughts. EdChem (talk) 02:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• Further thought, regarding the PAN Pesticide Database... JzG has removed this reference to the database's page on sulfur. It was supporting the statement that elemental sulfur "can cause redness in the eyes and skin, a burning sensation and a cough if inhaled, a burning sensation and diarrhea if ingested." As a chemist, I can say that I'm confident on the accuracy of the information. I'm also confident that it could be found in a much better source, like (for a start) the MSDS for sulfur. However, in removing the source, we lose the link to the symptoms which is followed by "Source for Symptoms: Recognition and Management of Pesticide Poisoning, 5th edition, U.S. EPA, Chapter 8. March 1999. (EPA R&M)" – and so, the PAN source actually points to a vastly better source. If the conclusion is that the PAN Database is judged to be a non-RS, would providing a list of all pages on which it was used by possible so that superior sources (potentially linked from the Database) could be provided? Alternatively, would JzG restore these and allow time for replacements to be sourced? EdChem (talk) 02:32, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
• This is routine.

There are two sites under consideration here.

Pesticide Action Network, an activist group. From their website: For too long, pesticide and biotech corporations have dictated how we grow food, placing the health and economic burdens of pesticide use on farmers, farmworkers and rural communities. PAN works with those on the frontlines to tackle the pesticide problem — and reclaim the future of food and farming. Does that sound like a neutral source for toxicity data? It sounds more like the EWG's Dirty Dozen to me. In many cases their classification was being treated as a significant thing in their own right, but always self-sourced: PAN calls it highly toxic, source, PAN calling it highly toxic. They may even be right, but they have a definite dog in the fight and in virtually every case a more neutral source exists and should be used.

Alan Wood’s Web site, Alanwood.net. This is being presented as "the Compendium of Pesticide Common Names", but here's the site's About page: About Alan Wood. It is, unquestionably, a personal website, a one man project by a retired information scientist. Alan Wood appears to be a smart man and certainly knowledgeable, but it's a

WP:MEDRS

territory.

Thus, I removed both. Because removing unreliable sources is kind of my thing. And yes, it gets pushback sometimes, because these sites are often considered useful or interesting, but we do have this whole thing about reliability and independence. A site can be right about something and still not reliable. Reliability is not judged by our personal review of information for accuracy, after all. Guy (Help!) 08:17, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

re PAN: I don't see how "activist group" and "works ... to tackle the pesticide problem" could be mentioned to claim a disqualification. Every newspaper we cite, every company, every government policy and what else, all may have a policy running (not always hidden), and so have a dog and an interest in the race. I do not understand what your reference to Dirty Dozen means. (This article has half a dozen sources straight from the producing company). -DePiep (talk) 09:56, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

With respect for all of the participants in this discussion, based on what I see, I oppose citations to PAN and any SPS or blogs. For me an "activist group" and "works ... to tackle the pesticide problem" is absolutely a disqualification. SPS's generally devolve into something spammy or vain, often praising the author and his credentials. I want agenda-less sources. Nothing is perfect, but starting with an agenda seems unlikely path to provide info that will allow readers to draw their own conclusions. We have been through some of this type of debate with the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), a collection of many PhD's (with lofty sounding titles) with the specific agenda of discrediting the use of fluoride for dental health. FAN basically doesnt exist as far as Wikipedia is concerned. --Smokefoot (talk) 11:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I wrote that "activism" by itself is not an argument. There may be other arguments sure, but not that one. IOW, once that part of the argumentation is struck (removed), does the objection still stand? And inverse: if activist Greenpeace has a sample researched for toxity, does that make the result not OK? -DePiep (talk) 11:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Well you are making it difficult. Personally I dont like the term activist. Being a tree-hugger, I admire some aspects of Greenpeace, but as an editor I would hope that we can get sources other than Greenpeace to support our text.--Smokefoot (talk) 11:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

A pressure group, which PAN is, can't be an authority for information on the thing they are committed to doing away with. They may or may not have a valid view, which could be quoted if it's noted by independent sources, but being an NGO does not confer any legitimacy here. DePiep, this is perfectly normal. We can quote activist organisations if their views are independently assessed as significant, but we can't accept them as an authority in competition to the governmental bodies covering the same subject area. I take it that the personal website is not controversial here. Guy (Help!) 11:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Is what I am saying from start: the fact that they do advocacy does not say anything about being a RS. No status (NGO or other) by itself can claim authority or reliability. Nor does it do the opposite. Your argument is elsewhere. -DePiep (talk) 11:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

No, I am addressing that specifically. There is no evidence of authority, and its status as a pressure group indicates that caution is merited, therefore we should not present it as an authority. Which is exactly how we normally handle these things. Guy (Help!) 12:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Just to be clear since my comments were copied here from another discussion: I have added alanwood.net as a reference to chemistry articles because I find that I can rely on its factual accuracy; I object to its blanket removal from Wikipedia articles unless it is replaced with another source. For the other website, the PAN Pesticide Database, I am sympathetic with those that have expressed concerns about using it as a source, especially for potentially controversial content, based on its perceived lack of neutrality. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, though,

WP:RS is. Guy (Help!

) 14:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

But "

WP:RS unavoidably relies on editors making judgements about the accuracy of sources. -- Ed (Edgar181

) 17:56, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes and no. Breitbart has an editorial process and article review, but we find it unreliable. But a one man site with no editorial process? It's very, very unusual to find one of those counted as reliable. The only one I can remember was so massively spammed by its owner that people just assumed it was dependable. Guy (Help!) 18:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• There's pretty much no question that PAN, a fringe advocacy group, should not have ever been used as a source due to lack of fact checking, so removing that is pretty uncontroversial. The Alan Wood site is indeed an SPS, so that shouldn't really be reached outright, but the
  WP:ONUS
  is on those wanting to include specific content.

I can't figure out why people are making a fuss over removing those sources though. The sources were either removed without removing the content or else it's there in the article history. There's no need to stretch for a low quality source though. There's NPIRS' database or straight from the EPA that includes pesticides that aren't currently registered in the US. Those are also much more likely to remain updated compared to a personal website.

talk

) 19:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• Alan Wood's website (Compendium of Pesticides Common Names) doesn't violate
  WP:SPS
  :

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.

Wood has been a member of the BSI/ISO committee and can therefore be considered an established expert. He's still the chairperson of the technical committee within ISO standardizing common names for pesticides and agrochemicals. An ISO Standard is a reliable third-party publication.

The compendium itself is updated within weeks of ISO's updates.

The compendium is also a reliable source used in a website chemists all over the world (in both academic and industrial environment) utilize daily: ChemSpider is created by the Royal Society of Chemistry. And it is one of the reference sources for the Göttingen State and University Library.

Furthermore, Wood's work was referenced in a peer-reviewed journal in 2003:

Society of German Chemists

.

I have no objection in the use of the compendium as a reliable source for Wikipedia articles.

Georginho (talk) 20:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

One cite 15 years ago? Er, right. And it seems that Chemspider has the review that Wood's website does not, so we can cite that instead. Guy (Help!) 21:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the age of a citation matters. In an academic article, pesticides are referred to by their common names without the authors having to cite sources to prove that these common names are correct. The article I link was used by the author to bring Wood's website to the attention of a broader scientific community.

The downside of ChemSpider is its crowdsourcing aspect. It's meant to be a database of millions of molecules, as an alternative to, e.g., CAS. ChemSpider is free, but it needs crowdsourcing. CAS is proprietary, but it's reliable because the molecules are entered by full-time scientists in one center in the US. If you ask chemists (like myself) and agrochemists, they will certainly use Wood's compendium as reference work, not ChemSpider.

Georginho (talk) 22:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Sure. And the downside of Wood's website is its no-other-sourcing aspect. There does not appear to be any indepndent review of content, so unless he is infallible we should not be using this as a source in this way. Guy (Help!) 12:54, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand the no-other-sourcing and independent-review bits. WP:SPS gives room for established experts. He's one. He updates his compendium according to ISO updates. His work is accepted as reliable by chemists from what we've seen in the academic article I mentioned above and even in the patent I linked below. Chemists at the biggest agrochemical company in the world view Wood's compendium as an important source, so significant that it was included in their patent.

I don't understand your objection in using his website. Chemists at WikiProject Chemistry accept it as authoritative. Will it be easier for you if we can invite any agrochemist editor to give his/her opinion here (albeit I'm not sure how to find one)? Or shall we contact a couple of agrochemical companies like Syngenta and Bayer? Or we can contact an agrochemist professor (which may be easier).

Georginho (talk) 13:11, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

• Is this person also an "expert" in the greek alphabet, Microsoft Word, Mac OS fonts, pesticides or the dozens of other articles this website (which really appears to be a hobby site) this is spammed on? I'd say this is closer to refspam than anything that satisfies reasonable inclusion. Praxidicae (talk) 00:14, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  • This is the case, as the author is also an expert on unicode. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:44, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
• From what I can see, PAN, apart from failing as an RS (its an advocacy group, you might as well cite PETA for facts about animals instead of a biologist published by an independant reliable publisher), was being used in part for medical information, and PAN doesnt come remotely close to being MEDRS compliant. RE Wood's website. Its clearly a self-published website and so only useable per SPS. Is he an expert? I would say given his career he certainly qualifies as an expert on "standardizing common names for pesticides and agrochemicals." I would even extend that to general information about pesticides. I am not so certain he would qualify as an expert for everything about chemicals/pesticides though at a more technical level. I cant imagine if its contained in his website it couldnt be found in more reliable sources. Like any SPS I would say the individual content matters. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

  I wonder if anyone has read http://www.pesticideinfo.org/Docs/data.html#AccuracyofData prior to stating an opinion on the reliability of this database. --Leyo 01:01, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• This paraphrases what I just wrote over here:
  WP:RS. I also believe that both are very accurate, but that is beside the point. My point is that simply removing all citations to them without replacing them with better sources is more problematic than leaving things alone. It would be better leave them in place and add an appropriate sourcing template (like "questionable source" or "medical source needed" or whatever) than to have no source at all. This is especially true when the information being sourced is not in dispute and the existing source, like pesticideinfo.org, provides the references to more authoritative and WP-compliant sources. In other words, pesticideinfo.org provides citations to reliable sources for just about everything it says. So rather than completely removing the citation to pesticideinfo.org it would be better to change the citation to whatever pesticideinfo.org is citing. But that's a lot of work. If you are not willing to do it yourself, at least give others to opportunity to by leaving the citation to pesticideinfo.org in, and adding a tag. Nothing is gained by leaving things unsourced. (At least when we're talking about content that no one disputes. I agree that more aggressive removals are called for if there's an actual content dispute, but that's not the case here.) Yilloslime (talk
  ) 01:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

  Actually 'removing but leaving the material if its not contentious' is a perfectly fine option where the material is likely correct but needs a better source. See

  WP:BLP. So thats well in line with current written policy and practice. Keep in mind that an alternative is that any editor would be justified in removing the material outright because of obviously SPS. Only in death does duty end (talk

  ) 08:47, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• Certainly these references should not be removed without replacing them. alanwood.org is very likely accurate given that the person is an expert. That site will not fail the RS just because it is self published. There may be better sources with more oversight and checking, but until they are located and inserted the others should not be removed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:44, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with Graeme Bartlett. Like I mentioned in my comment above, chemists view Alan Wood's Compendium as a reliable source. In fact, I would like to add that even agrochemists at Syngenta also used the compendium as reference work in 2012.

I strongly support the use of the compendium.

Georginho (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I would like to mention that PAN Pesticide Database has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Toxicology task force as a useful source for not less than 9 years—without having been disputed. This clearly shows that no single user may just go through all articles and remove this reference without seeking consensus before. --Leyo 10:33, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I would like to ask if Radio Farda can be considered a reliable source on the

Also how about the reliability of this community on this article?Saff V. (talk) 07:25, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Not sure, as it used to be a white propaganda station during the cold war. I would so OK with attribution.Slatersteven (talk) 09:57, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven:, Are all three OK?Saff V. (talk) 10:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Ahh I see, Radio Farda is part of radio free Europe (the thing I was referring to). HRW (as far as I know) a general considered an RS for their views, but needs attribution. iranhumanrights, unsure about, might be better to use clear cut RS, anything they say worthy of inclusion will appear elsewhere.Slatersteven (talk) 10:09, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

RFE/RL is a serious news organization and should be considered reliable, but I think attribution is called for on subjects that are close to its propagandistic mission. Eperoton (talk) 22:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

There are issues in using RFE/RL due to their propaganda mission. HOWEVER, the issues with Iranian media - which is regime controlled, journalists are intimidated (and imprisoned/killed), and is mainly a regime mouthpiece (see RSF, Freedom House) - is far greater. Given the state of reporting from within Iran, RFE/RL is an important source - better than any inner-Iranian source. Icewhiz (talk) 11:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

When searching for sources, this is one site that has popped up many times over the years. Past discussion has indicated it as an unreliable source. It's easy to see why, because anyone can write for it. However, there's also staff writers like Simon Gallagher. Perhaps we should use this as a case-by-case thing, much like

I'd avoid it for RS, fine for RSOPINION. --Masem (t) 17:56, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I would say avoid as well. I would not call it UNreliable... but anything it covers will have better, far MORE reliable sources easily available. Blueboar (talk) 18:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Not even sure about opinion if it is user generated.Slatersteven (talk) 09:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Except, it's not entirely user generated. Articles written by staff do exist, like I mention above.

talk

) 13:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Maybe, but to what degree? We would have to have an "only if written by staff", and even then do the staff just rewrite user generated content, is there an editorial policy? There are just too many possible problems for us to not just go to better sources.Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

What is the purpose of using this website as a source? Is What Culture used as a review (i.e. opinion) or for statements of fact? feminist (talk) 12:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Greetings,

do people think that this publication is a reliable source for lava tubes in the Payún Matrú volcanic field? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:17, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

who is Carlos Benedetto?Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Apparently the president of the Argentine Speleological Society. I see his name mentioned a number of times in newspapers, when the context is Argentine caves. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:23, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:07, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Not sure that is enough, what are his quantifications?Slatersteven (talk) 09:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

They exist for all to see.^[1] EEng 13:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Also as president of then body that published this there may well be issues of SPS as well.Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Argentina, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Volcanoes, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mountains, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology. — Newslinger talk 10:00, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

He has a paper published in the peer-reviewed International Journal of Speleology, accessible here. Mikenorton (talk) 10:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

That means that would be an RS (possibly), not something published by the organisation he heads.Slatersteven (talk) 11:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

There is a discussion concerning container categories for predatory journals. Please participate.

There's a discussion at

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan — Newslinger talk 02:28, 3 February 2019 (UTC)