Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 265

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Archive 260 ← Archive 263 Archive 264 Archive 265 Archive 266 Archive 267 → Archive 270

Thesis

Hi. Can anyone please tell me, whether this thesis can be considered as a reliable source to expand Saadat Ali Khan I article. This is written by Ashirbadi Lal Srivastava, a historian. Also a forward to it has been written by Jadunath Sarkar, another historian. RRD (talk) 09:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Royroydeb, can be used. It's a good text, though with numerous misprints. The Architecture of Lucknow and Oudh, 1722–1856: Its Evolution in an Aesthetic and Social Context by Banmali Tandan provides additional valuable info, from a different perspective. ∯WBGconverse 10:24, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
@Winged Blades of Godric: Can this book be used as a reliable source? It has multiple authors, and I would cite the part written by Wolseley Haig. RRD (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm sceptical on that per
WP:AGEMATTERS, and "British Raj" sources has been noted as problematic on this noticeboard. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk
) 07:41, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Here is one example: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_172#Are_British_Raj_ethnographers_unreliable?. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:44, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree that age matters and this book is from 1932. Academic views of India have changed a lot since then, and what was considered factual then may no longer be considered so. Modern historians of course can use this book as a source, but they have the expertise to determine what is factual and what is not. TFD (talk) 00:37, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Knowcelebs.com as a source for BLPs?

Knowcelebs has been used as a source for Pascale Hutton. By the way, why doesn't it show up on external links search?[1] Doug Weller talk 16:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

No, just another blog.Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Obviously not, but I only count one use on Moira Kelly. I'm gonna remove it now. feminist (talk) 10:22, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Unreliable. Just another celeb blog.
I've wondered if search tools sometimes don't catch recently added entries. It's rare enough that I've never looked into it. I assume it's indexed searching, so the index may sometimes be out of sync. --
talk
) 15:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Vikaspedia

Is this website reliable. The wiki article says "Vikaspedia is an online information guide launched by the Government of India". - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Maybe if attributed as it seems top be an official government organ. Depends on how they get their info, and that I cannot find out.Slatersteven (talk) 16:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Slatersteven, Hmm, seems you are correct. Probably should scrutinize specific links. Actually I was requested to check this link used in Lachit Borphukan article. It seems the link isn't using any reference. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

A couple of concerns:

  • At least parts of the site, are a moderated wiki (see registration page). The article of interest, was created by "Vikaspedia Assam" (its sole editor), which I guess reflects contributions by some state government department, employee or contractor.
  • We should be careful when using GoI/state-government sources for general history, sociology and other areas where the government itself is not an authoritative source or interpreter of the facts. These resources can be a mixed bag, ranging from legitimate and even high quality content produced by
    WT:INB
    archives for "journals" published by the state government of Odisha).

I cannot read Assamese and therefore cannot assess how much the above concerns are relevant to this article. But tldr: use source with caution, and replace with a less problematic one if possible. Abecedare (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment – When one clicks on the main page of the site, there is a Top 5 Contributors section, which as of now lists the following five people: [2], [3], [4], [5], & [6]. As there is no way to know about their credentials, I clicked on the latest article of Keerthi, who is their second most prolific contributor. It seems word-for-word copy of the cited source. So I guess we can't even it cite here, per
    WP:COPYVIOEL. And it seems that the site accepts content from common people with no credentials, who in turn copy-paste others' copyrighted material. So it doesn't seem like a reliable source. Having said that, I have spent just few minutes on it, and it might have some decent content, as suggested by Abecedare. - NitinMlk (talk
    ) 21:26, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
This leans me towards not RS.Slatersteven (talk) 06:53, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Nice research! It moves me too from meh to "don't use, unless you can argue that the particular article is reliable for some stated reasons". Abecedare (talk) 12:08, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

globalresearch.ca

We have a lot of articles that link to globalresearch.ca, often for somewhat controversial content, and in many cases these articles are semiprotected. The website is a project of Michel Chossudovsky, "a Canadian economist, author and conspiracy theorist". Some information on the website is correct, but the site itself is not authoritative and is known to publish abject nonsense. Read the article: the site promotes 9/11 "Truther" stupidity. I think this site should be deprecated, and I certainly think that all references to it as a source should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.62.109.216 (talk) 15:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Not finding a lot about it, as far as I can tell its a bit of a mixed bag, so I think not for facts no it is not RS. But for opinion (attributed) yes.Slatersteven (talk) 15:33, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Should not be used as a source on anything other than itself and possibly (attributed) opinions of the
WP:FRINGE figures who write for or it or are reblogged by it. It's a fake news/conspiracy theory site. BobFromBrockley (talk
) 15:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
This is a website that publishes hoaxes, falsehoods and conspiracy theories - just read
talk
) 15:44, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
This site certainly is not reliable. Neutralitytalk 15:48, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
152.62.109.216: Please sign your posts. Why do you say "a lot of articles" but not give any examples of the articles that you think are a problem? Did you notice that the top of this page says "be sure" to include such information? It's cited on the articles of Dick Gregory and List of Canadian Jews, and appears a few times with in-text attribution, and I see that you removed it from an article about Srebrenica, but I don't see evidence that there is or was a reason to come to wp:rsn. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:07, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Compare his article with the one on Noam Chomsky. The lead paragraph of that article says he is "...a linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, historian, political activist, and social critic."
The lead goes on to assert that globalresearch publishes conspiracy theories, citing four references. Well one of those three is behind a paywall, and, of the other three, I don't see where they mention either globalresearch.ca of Chossudovsky. That doesn't seem policy compliant, either.
When I first started contributing here there was an excellent wikidocument, that discussed how to neutrally cover controversial individuals. It offered the common view "Hitler is evil". It suggested that, instead, something like, "
The banality of evil
, described ways Hitler was evil."
If we followed that wikidocuments advice we would be specific as to which reliable sources called him a conspiracy theorist. We wouldn't baldly state it in the wikipedia's voice. Geo Swan (talk) 03:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm reviewing the citations on Michel Chossudovsky now. — Newslinger talk 04:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
I have finished reviewing all 10 of the disputed sources in the
The Wikipedia Library
) were used during the review. The 10 citations are listed below:
10 disputed citations in
lead section of Michel Chossudovsky
, all of which passed verification
  1. McEnteer, James (2006). Shooting the Truth: The Rise of American Political Documentaries.
    ISBN 9780275987602 – via Google Books
    . "Intelligence failure is not the question," says Chossudovsky, "but complicity with the terrorists [is]." Chossudovsky is the most overt conspiracy theorist, but others in this film offer disturbing evidence that enabling the attacks served the current U.S. regime as well as long-term corporate goals.
  2. Knight, Peter (2008). "Outrageous Conspiracy Theories: Popular and Official Responses to 9/11 in Germany and the United States". New German Critique. 35 (103). Duke University Press: 165–193.
    JSTOR 27669225
    . Michel Chossudovsky (a Canadian who runs the Center for Research on Globalization) likewise published influential early articles alleging that the U.S. intelligence agencies had far more forewarning than they claimed.
  3. "How a pair of self-publicists wound up as apologists for Assad".
    ISSN 0013-0613
    . Retrieved 10 May 2019. This idea was then picked up by several websites, including the Centre for Research on Globalisation, a hub for conspiracy theories and fake stories.
  4. Clark, Campbell; MacKinnon, Mark (18 November 2017). "THE CREDIBILITY MACHINE; An obscure Canadian website that disseminates conspiracy theories and Kremlin-friendly points of view is an amplifier of global disinformation, according to NATO".
    Gale Biography In Context
    . Global Research has from the beginning espoused conspiracy theories, including that the United States and its allies continue to support and fund Islamist extremists, including al-Qaeda and IS, and has taken the view that the U.S.-led NATO alliance is fomenting war around the world.
  5. Pogatchnik, Shawn (16 March 2017). "AP FACT CHECK: Irish "slavery" a St. Patrick's Day myth". Associated Press. Retrieved 10 May 2019. The story quotes at length from the original 2008 post on the Canadian-based Global Research site, which still displays its own article today with a disclaimer conceding it "includes a number of factual errors." It declines to specify the errors.
  6. Tsang, Derek (19 August 2014). "Bloggers: Edward Snowden leaked NSA documents show U.S., Israel created Islamic State".
    PunditFact
    . Retrieved 21 March 2017. The only lucid defense of the idea that Western intelligence agencies created the Islamic State intentionally comes from the Center for Research on Globalization (CRG), a Canadian website that bills itself as an alternative news source, but has advanced specious conspiracy theories on topics like 9/11, vaccines and global warming.
  7. ISSN 0362-4331
    . Retrieved 30 March 2017. Also in his library was a copy of Michel Chossudovsky's conspiracy-minded book "America's 'War on Terrorism,' " which argued that the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks were simply a pretext for American incursions into the Middle East, and that Bin Laden was nothing but a boogeyman created by the United States.
  8. Edwards, Phil (20 May 2015). "The 8 craziest conspiracy theories on Osama bin Laden's bookshelf". Vox. Retrieved 30 March 2017. The theory: Chossudovsky says 9/11 was a United States government conspiracy to start the Iraq War and enable a "new world order" to help corporate interests.
  9. Tam, Pauline (20 August 2005). "U of O professor accused of hosting anti-Semitic website".
    Newspapers.com
    . The organization singles out a discussion forum, moderated by Mr. Chossudovsky, that features a subject heading called "Some Articles On The Truth of the Holocaust." The messages have titles such as "Jewish Lies of Omission (about the 'Holocaust')," "Jewish Hate Responsible For Largest Mass Killing at Dachau," and "Did Jews Frame the Arabs for 9/11?"
    • Continued on page A8: "A forthcoming book entitled America's "War on Terrorism" In the Wake of 9/11 is described on globalresearch.ca as an exposé that "blows away the smokescreen, put up by the mainstream media, that 9/11 was an 'intelligence failure.'""
  10. Sherwell, Philip (20 May 2015). "Osama bin Laden's bookshelf featured conspiracy theories about his terror plots". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 10 May 2019. In "America's 'War on Terrorism'" Michel Chossudovsky is described as "blowing away the smokescreen put up by the mainstream media that the attack was conducted by Islamic terrorists".
— Newslinger talk 10:43, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Notified: Talk:Michel Chossudovsky — Newslinger talk 10:48, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Fahrenheit 911
    showed Condaleeza Rice's embarrassment when a reporter's question got her to acknowledge that President Bush had received a memo, entitled something like "Al Qaeda likely to attack inside the USA", not long before the attack.
Yes, we should consider sources unreliable when we think they try to knowingly propogate "fake news" - like Andy Jones and his infowars. We should consider a source unreliable when it propogates something ridiculous through incompetence, or because those behind the source are delusional. But the BBC's reporting on Muttawakil is neither.
The attacks of 9-11 were so horrific that there has been a temptation to further demonize the Taliban. The Taliban was not a monolith. There were factions within the Taliban. Muttawakil was the leader of the Taliban's Peace faction. He argued that Osama bin Laden violated the bonds of hospitability by launching a first strike against the USA, from within Afghanistan, so the Taliban had no obligation to protect him, and that they should hand him over to the USA, as requested.
If Chossudovsky and his globalresearch republish credible articles that voice opinions based on this verifiable information there is neither a problem with delusion, or deliberate propogation of falsehoods. Please remember
WP:Wikipedia is not censored
. Terrorism is terrifying. People are terrified, and they really want to trust that our counter-terrorism officials are both honest and competent, and they hate reading articles that cast doubt on those assumptions.
There are topics I hate. Iridology is a quasi-medical system for diagnosing disease by examing the irises of a patient's eyes. But, even though I think the system is ridiculous I would defend anyone who adds to our coverage of that topic, by fairly summarizing any genuinely reliable sources that wrote about Iridology.
Even the most reliable sites have published stuff that they claimed was highly reliable, that turned out to nonsense. In the lead-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq the NYTimes published multiple articles from Judith Miller claiming that she too could confirm that Saddam had a dangerous arsenal of WMD Judith_Miller#Career_at_The_New_York_Times. No credible contributors asks us mark the NYTimes as an unreliable source over its mistaken reporting on Iraq's WMD.
If Chossudovsky and globalresearch are fairly summarizing genuine reliable sources then why shouldn't they also be considered reliable sources?
WP:DUE
should be considered here. It says:
"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."

and

"If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;"
Okay, the BBC also reported the USA received prior warning of the attacks, and so did Michael Moore. Why doesn't this make Chossudovsky and globalresearch part of the significant minority who voice the credible opinion that US intelligence were aware of credible prior warnings of the attacks on 2001-9-11?
Has he also voiced the opinion that there had been clandestine ties between Osama bin Laden and the CIA? My personal opinion on this issue doesn't matter. No wikipedia contributor's personal opinion on this issue should matter. Nevertheless, personally, I doubt that Osama bin Laden accepted any help, any money, any weapons, from the CIA, after 1990 or so.
Prior to 1990 is a completely different question. The CIA had been heavily supporting the so-called Afghan Arabs -- Arab volunteers who had travelled to Afghanistan to help the Afghan militias oust Afghanistan's Soviet occupiers and their puppet government. This is a matter of public record. Did Osama bin Laden, or any of the fighters in his group, receive travel assistance, funding, training, weapons, through the CIA, during the Soviet occupation? That he did is a widely held view. Some others hold the view that, even in the 1980s, Osama bin Laden hated the USA enough, and was rich enough, to buy his own guns, pay for his own travel.
You and I don't have to decide whether or not Osama bin Laden was rich enough to disdain accepting help from the CIA, when every other Afghan Arab, including fighters he recruited into his group had accepted that help.
Did Chossudovsky actually say Osama bin Laden retained clandestine ties with the CIA right up to 9-11? If he did write it doesn't matter that I am personally doubtful, or that any of us wikipedia contributors is personally doubtful. Please bear in mind that the opposite claim - that Osama bin Laden was accepting clandestine help, clandestine training, from Saddam Hussein; that Iraq sent trainers to al Qaeda training camps, who taught al Qaeda fighters how to smuggle nerve gas, germ warfare munitions, and suitcase A-bombs into the west, was at least as questionable. And yet, in 2002 and 2003, this view was so widely accepted that those who questioned it were derided as kooks. I believe some diehards, like Dick Cheney, continue to make this claim. Geo Swan (talk) 16:50, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi
WP:NPOVN
if necessary.
We hold the same standards of
due weight. Classifying CRG as generally unreliable doesn't mean that its statements are censored from Wikipedia; it means that we don't trust its statements enough to take them at face value, and that we only report them if they are supported by reliable sources. ​— Newslinger talk
21:40, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

House of Lords member statement about
People's Mujahedin of Iran
)

Sources have contradicting views on whether MEK targets regular civilians or just government and security forces of Iran. One of the sources that is used in the article to back the view of limited targets is Lords Hansard text for 27 Mar 2001. The source is essentially the transcript of speeches made by a few British congressmen. My question is whether the source can be used as a reliable source or it needs to be attributed. --Kazemita1 (talk) 06:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Definitely needs to be attributed to whoever said it. The UK Parliament is subject to
Iridescent
07:04, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Agree, parliamentary privilege means they are not subject to editorial control.Slatersteven (talk) 09:04, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
And wouldn't be under editorial control even if they weren't speaking in parliament. The views of politicians are just that - the views of politicians. FOARP (talk) 12:18, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Only as the teh viewpoint of a politician, not notable unless the is SECONDARY coverage of the fact that he said it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

apparent self-recorded video on Times of India site?

At Abhijeet Srivastava there's a source from Times of India here that appears to be a self-recorded video by the article subject talking about his aspirations. Is this some sort of crowdsourced platform they offer? Or is this actually something that could be used to show notability? --valereee (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

@Valereee: -- Not crowd-sourced but TOI's entertainment coverage is sheer for-pay spam. We have had an interesting case wherein a subject was dragged to Afd (for having not an iota of coverage in RSs) pending which, a conflicted editor begged for a few days. Out of nowhere, a TOI piece appeared that asserted him to be a highly acclaimed and famed artist, which was subsequently inserted in the article. ∯WBGconverse 16:39, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Then no it should not be an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Well theres' no doubting that
Times of India is a RS but it's entertainment coverage is spam. For rest, it's good. ∯WBGconverse
16:51, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
That is what I meant.Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
LOL. While I didn't know about the case ∯WBG, I can testify to the sheer PROMO nature of TOI online arts coverage. Content is different in print edition.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:36, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Winged Blades of Godric, oh, that is very interesting, thanks! --valereee (talk) 17:57, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Middle East Monitor

Is MEM an RS for this "In March 2019, Neve Gordon, Professor of Politics and Government at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev wrote: "the real point of contention... is not about whether the party should tolerate anti-Semitism, but about what anti-Semitism is." [[7]].Slatersteven (talk) 11:25, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven, I could not find the quote in the source Shrike (talk) 11:37, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
MEMO is an advocacy group - [8] - not a news org - it's far from reliable and doesn't have a reputation for fact checking. I'll also note that the quote doesn't appear in the piece you are linking which says this of Gordon - "The group revealed that Neve Gordon, Professor of International Law at Queen Mary University of London, was due to take part in a panel discussion after the screening. “This is outrageous,” Gordon apparently told JVL. “It certainly confirms the significance of the movie.”" - in this case not even MEMO is taking ownership of the stmt (writing "Gordon apparently told JVL"). Icewhiz (talk) 11:37, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Its not a quote, the quote is the text in the article that the source is being used to supportSlatersteven (talk) 13:36, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Slatersteven,Then the answer is no because the source doesn't support this text and beside that I agree with Icewhiz about the quality of the source Shrike (talk) 13:43, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Middle East Monitor is a highly partisan political advocacy group. Not an objective or reliable source.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:00, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • MEM is a partisan source that shouldn't be used as a source of facts. It could be used to source an attributed statement by someone who writes there (i.e., not for reports by third parties). Zerotalk 15:48, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I suspect I did not make the issue clear, is it a third party RS for establishing that someone had said something?Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

So you are using sources that clearly have an agenda to prove the unreliability of another source?Slatersteven (talk) 22:11, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Industry publications as support for notability

Are non-bluelinked websites covering a single industry regarded as sufficient to support notability?E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:22, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

They can be. I think it is helpful to consider
"Why we have these requirements". We need to ensure there are sufficient reliable sources to write a balanced article. Whether or not the sources have a Wikipedia article does not determine whether they are reliable. But assuming they are, we still have to show that the coverage is non-trivial. And interviews do not qualify as reliable secondary sources. TFD (talk
) 20:26, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree. In addition and in relation to the related AfD discussion at
HighKing++
14:30, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

BBC article about sexual abuse in MEK camps

A BBC correspondent interviewed people of both sides and wrote this article about

MEK. My question is whether this assertion is supported by the BBC article. As can be seen by user discussions here, editors are divided about the conclusions made by the BBC correspondent. Comment from uninvolved editors is appreciated.--Kazemita1 (talk
) 12:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Involved - I'll note that the question here isn't whether the BBC is reliable (it is), but on how to interpret or quote from the BBC (which itself vacillates with various buts and howevers) piece - perhaps more a NPOV/n question.Icewhiz (talk) 13:24, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
: Involved - Misrepresented interpretation of "sexual abbuse". The BBC article says "Former members consistently describe participating in regular public confessions of their sexual fantasies" and "And yet a significant number of politicians in the US and UK would say I was tricked because the former MEK members who spread these kind of stories are, in fact, Iranian agents." Nikoo.Amini (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, but then goes on to saying these politicians are on MEK's payroll or are simply pro regime change in Iran.--Kazemita1 (talk) 15:25, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Are these acceptable sources for
Dogsbite.org

Talk:Dogsbite.org

Pit Bull: The Battle Over an American Icon by Bronwen Dickey Page 186

[15]


Pit Bulls: The Psychology of Breedism, Fear, and Prejudice at Psychology Today

Pitbulls : des données non scientifiques fréquemment citées par les medias Radio Canada

The sad tale of dog fighting: Dangerous, inhumane, illegal by www.tribstar.com

Ms Bronwens book could be used with attribution, though I think weight might come into it (who is she?).

The second two look RS to me.

The third is behind a wall so I cannot check it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:02, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven (talk) Bronwen Dickey is an author and she wrote Pit Bull: The Battle over an American Icon. Dwanyewest (talk) 13:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes I know that, but writing a book does not mean your views are worthy of inclusion. My question is "who is she" not "what book did she write"? what makes her opinion that of an expert?Slatersteven (talk) 13:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
The book was reviewed by Manhattan Book Review which says "Seven years of research and interviewing more than three-hundred-fifty people went into this extensive volume, Pit Bull by Bronwen Dickey." and "The book ends with extensive notes, bibliography and references.". She is a contributing editor at the Oxford American. I would say that this is reliable to use, especially with attribution. PearlSt82 (talk) 15:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Additionally, out of all the sources currently cited in the article, I believe the Dickey one is the source which explores dogsbite.org in the most depth. PearlSt82 (talk) 15:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Per the (cites in the) reception section in
Radio Canada, Psychology Today and Tribune-Star as generally relible sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk
) 18:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

The other sources I want to clarify if they are or not acceptable are the following

The Dodo (website): Per "The Dodo’s goal is to serve up emotionally and visually compelling, highly sharable animal-related stories and videos to as many people as possible to help make caring about animals a viral cause." and their about page [16] I say that we shouldn't use this as a source. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:02, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
My issue with most of these sources is that most don't discuss dogsbite.org in a meaningful way beyond a passing reference. Those that do, like the HuffPo "Montreal Is About To Kill A Lot Of Dogs, Based On Quack Science" article, or the The Atlanta Journal-Constitution source, just end up citing Dickey. It would probably be better just to cite Dickey for this information. PearlSt82 (talk) 19:37, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I have reviewed each citation Dwanyewest has brought up and evaluated it as to whether it is a

talk
) 16:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Pit Bulls: The Psychology of Breedism, Fear, and Prejudice at Psychology Today
    • Not really relevant since Dickey merely directs you to her book. What she says in the interview is a shorter version of what she says in the book.
      talk
      ) 16:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Pitbulls : des données non scientifiques fréquemment citées par les medias Radio Canada
    • This article, written in French, is a hate piece written primarily against Merritt Clifton, then attempts to tie together Clifton and Lynn/DogsBite.org as if they work together (they don't), then writes a scant bit about DogsBite.org (translated here [17]). You really have to ask yourself is a complete hate piece a reliable source for anything since the author obviously has some sort of emotional cascade driving behind it.
      talk
      ) 16:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The sad tale of dog fighting
    • Not a reliable source for the subject. Doesn't mention DogsBite.org or Lynn. This article is irrelevant to the subject.
      talk
      ) 16:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Seven Dog Pages You Need To Stop Linking To
    • Not a reliable source for the subject. This is an opinion piece, and one of only eight articles, all opinion pieces, that this author wrote for The Dodo. Its writing style doesn't even begin to pretend to be a logical, well-researched article. It includes no references to back up its emotional claims. It makes at least one patently false claim, i.e. that Merritt Clifton is associated with DogsBite.org (he is not; ask him). Such opinion pieces are primary sources.
      talk
      ) 16:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Hundreds Of Loyal Dogs Are Killed Every Year Because Stupid Law - The Dodo
    • Not a reliable source for the subject. Writes about Tony Solesky and mistakenly ties him to DogsBite.org as if he works there.
      talk
      ) 16:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Public Policy: Community Safety Through Breed Bans? Humane Society
    • May or may not be a reliable source on the subject of DogsBite.org depending on how you use it. The report itself uses DogsBite.org as a reference, repeatedly. On the other hand, where the report is critical of DogsBite.org it present some falsehoods. In particular, on page 17 it writes of the coverage by DogsBite.org of fatal attacks, saying DogsBite basically covers only pit bull attacks. However, I checked several versions of the dogsbite.org website using the Wayback Machine, checking back about 18 months prior to the March 2013 publication date of the report, and I don't find what they are accusing DogsBite.org of. So I have no idea where they got their information or whether they just made it up. For that reason, I would say this source may or may not be a RS (depending on which parts you use).
      talk
      ) 16:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Yakima to Consider Lifting Pit Bull Ban; Pit Haters Start Foaming at the Mouth Stranger (magazine)
    • Not a reliable source on the subject of DogsBite.org. "While there are plenty of anti-pit bull advocacy groups willing to feed you unreliable statistics on pit bull attacks (see: dogsbite.org, a thinly-veiled anti-pit bull group frequently cited by the media)," Obviously emotional vomit. Nothing to back it up, and it doesn't go into any further discussion to explain their emotional outburst.
      talk
      ) 16:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Montreal Is About To Kill A Lot Of Dogs, Based On Quack Science Huffpost
    • Not a reliable source for anything for Wikipedia. More emotional vomit in a wholey attack piece towards anyone against their opinions. Come on, Dwanyewest, can't you come up with anything that isn't an "anti- anti-pit bull" propaganda piece? Okay, we get it; pit bulls are a volatile subject. But can't you just leave that war out of Wikipedia? As much as you hate DogsBite.org and think its founder is anti-pit bull, the organization reports on ALL fatal dog attacks, not just pit bull. Just because you and the other pit bull lovers hate DogsBite.org because it airs the pit bull's dirty little laundry is no reason to vilify DogsBite.org in Wikipedia. I don't know why I spend so much time trying to block your efforts to smear DogsBite.org, but I guess it's just because you're out of line and I hate bullies!
      talk
      ) 16:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Huge Response to 9 news Pit Bull story
    • Ah man! I wanted to watch that video it refers to. Too bad it's no longer available. The article doesn't really contribute anything other than to say that the pit bull ban issue is a hot topic and emotions are running high on both sides. Whatever use could that be? Just to say there are people who oppose the message the statistics on DogsBite.org points to? Again, more emotional drivel and not news.
      talk
      ) 16:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Five things to know before voting on Springfield's pit bull ban by Springfield News-Leader
    • Reliable source, yes. Pretty good reporting, actually. Covers the topic without emotional language. Covers it quite broadly, actually, and from all sides. Nice, balanced news reporting.
      talk
      ) 16:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Book review: ‘Pit Bull’ offers different view of controversial dog by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
    • Not RS. Just more of Dickey's opinion about DogsBite.org. Not sure how one would even use this as a citation on the subject of DogsBite.org since it is merely saying that DogsBite.org is a source of data for other people to use... use in ways Dickey doesn't like.
      talk
      ) 16:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Pit Bull: The Battle Over an American Icon by Bronwen Dickey Page 186
    • This is the biggie. Not a reliable source for the subject of DogsBite.org. Dickey didn't interview Lynn/DogsBite. Though there are footnotes for SOME of the material in the book, they are pretty scant on the subject of DogsBite.org [18] and don't back up half of what Dickey wrote. The sources in those few footnotes would never have been acceptable if Dickey was publishing for a reputable news organization; they're that weak. The language on pages 186 [19] & 187 [20] (where DogsBite is mentioned) is so carefully and connivingly worded that it's like a minefield. Dickey leads you to believe that the utterances on page 187 [21] were by Lynn/DogsBite, while carefully nuancing the attribution to other non-DogsBite authors with veiled language so as to mislead the average reader as to their source. If a reader does catch the nuance and realizes the trick, they are still lead to think less of DogsBite for not removing such comments or the links to them. For these reasons, the Dickey book is NOT a reliable source.
      talk
      ) 16:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Are we allowed to cite gated studies on Wikipedia?

An editor on the

talk
) 01:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:PAYWALL. We are 100% allowed to cite studies that have restricted access to public users via subscriptions, etc. --Masem (t
) 01:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
This so called "study" is only available from a pay per view website which charges $39.95 per view of the document. This makes the study unavailable for other editors to review. Other editors have expressed concern that the study is cumulative (Meaning the points it makes are already addressed by other sources and content). Wikipedia is not to be used for advertisement, and this includes pointing our readers to "pay per view" websites, which prevent readers and editors from ascertaining the relevance or accuracy of the content. Much of the abstract for this "study" relies on pure speculation, which cannot be verified. Octoberwoodland (talk) 01:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Doesn't really matter. First, that's $40 for buying unlimited access to the document and downloading a PDF. That's typical for nearly every peer-reviewed journal. We're not going to ignore those sources. --Masem (t) 01:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Ok. This resolves the issue. Octoberwoodland (talk) 01:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
So are most of these peer reviewed articles copyrighted generally? I am assuming that those which require a fee are subject to copyright, which means we are not allowed to directly quote from them unless observing the rules for quoting from copyrighted sources? Octoberwoodland (talk) 01:59, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Copyright policies of academic publishers - the answer is yes and no. some are and some are not. Also, many of them are required to transfer the copyright to the journal publisher. I got it. Octoberwoodland (talk) 02:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
We are allowed to use SMALL quotes from any copyrighted material under US fair use allowances, as long as it is properly attributed. --Masem (t) 03:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Here is a link to a free copy of the paper at Berkeley's website. There is no restriction against using articles behind a paywall, but sometimes you can find them posted elsewhere or go through a library. TFD (talk) 02:57, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! Octoberwoodland (talk) 05:05, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Creative Crayon Publishers

This has cropped up over at David R. Hawkins, I can find little or no information about them, other then this [[24]] and this [[25]], so I am concerned this may be some vanity press outfit, or linked to the author in some way as to not be independent.Slatersteven (talk) 08:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven, that definitely looks like a very small self-publishing press to me. The blurbs and the covers are definitely the work of amateurs. --valereee (talk) 13:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Reliability of a MDPI article

Durden, Stephen L. (2010). "Remote Sensing and Modeling of Cyclone Monica near Peak Intensity". Atmosphere. 1 (1): 15–33.

doi:10.3390/atmos1010015. is used as a source for a windspeed reconstruction in Cyclone Monica. It is referenced by other articles but MDPI is known to be a dodgy publisher. I am not sure if the author is the same Stephen Durden that we have an article for, but they have some citation record in what looks like remote sensing. Do people think this is a reliable source for the information? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions
) 09:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I hope not, that should be AFD'd. As to the rest, MDPI appears to be an academic publisher,but does seem to have a record of publishing rubbish. I am going with not reliable.Slatersteven (talk) 09:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • MDPI = junk. Do not use for anything at all unusual.
    talk
    ) 09:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I would personally deem the article reliable for what we are using it for, which is to state that a study into TC Monica's intensity took place.Jason Rees (talk) 10:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
It's also used to support a hypothesis about Monica's intensity, which while not particularly contentious is also not totally uncontentious. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia is allowed to highlight different views about a tropical cyclone's intensity, especially when we consider that 99% of tropical cyclone estimates each year are satelite based rather than based on observations from planes or weather stations.Jason Rees (talk) 20:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
The additional info provided by the paper backs up the assessment by the BoM (est 900-920 mb against the official 916 mb) rather than provide a contentious view. However, only a small amount of info only sourced using this ref isn't available in other refs in the article so not much is lost if it's deemed unusable. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Wide Open Country

Hello everyone. Would the following source be reliable enough for use on the

Aoba47 (talk
) 19:49, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm unable to find what a "contributor" means in that context, but given the author profile, it may be submitted work. I'd be very cautious to use it, if at all. --
talk
) 21:04, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
That makes sense to me. It is a little weird that the term “contributor” is not clearly defined by the site. The source is not absolutely necessary for the article in question. It would have just been used to expand on existing information so I will opt not to use it. Thank you for the response!
Aoba47 (talk
) 21:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Is research by undergraduate student posted in university website a reliable source?

"Anna Polishchuk, a student of Milani at Stanford University who made a research on Hoover Institution's documents containing the correspondence for the first time, states that the Soviets denied the request for money but offered limited support."[1]

Nikoo.Amini (talk) 20:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

We have to judge it on a case-by-case basis. In this instance, I'd advise against using this "research paper" because the research paper in question does not appear to be publicly available. It's only summarized on the university website.
talk
) 20:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Probably not - BA student discussing her paper in an interview - per
WP:SCHOLARSHIP. If the paper (I looked, did not find) gets published as a conference paper or peer reviewed journal - then yes (in that case her status would not matter that much, and it would probably have Milani as a co-author anyway). All that being said - her testimony of what appears in the primary source (the Soviet response) is quote probably correct - I have little reason to doubt this.Icewhiz (talk
) 21:04, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree it should be a case-by-case basis. Often college newspapers have high standards equal if not surpassing local newspaper standards, but their journalists and editors just last the experience of professionals. I would think that college newspaper articles would be fine for biographical information, for example, on a student athlete or professor who are notable enough to have WP bios. I would be more skeptical in using it as a source for larger, more controversial issues, in which case a better source should be sought out.
YO
😜 21:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I'd say that it would only become a reliable source if it were published in a professionally peer-reviewed outlet. Although the faculty advisor is assumed to have already reviewed it, that's not an independent review. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
It is only a translation of the microfilm available in the archives. The student knew Russian and the professor assigned her the task of translation. Not much of a research to worry about reliability.Kazemita1 (talk) 01:13, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I would say it is a reliable source, but like a local newspaper, there is no reason to use it for anything beyond its area of concentration. TFD (talk) 00:27, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't think this qualifies as a local newspaper -
WP:V better than the PR item (or the student paper).Icewhiz (talk
) 09:59, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Essentially, you are saying if the student posted her translation online we could use it as a primary source. Or simpler, if she posted the image of the Russian letter along with a small explanation under the image it would be acceptable as a primary source. Kazemita1 (talk) 11:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
The Soviet original, which quite possibly might be available in a reputable archive online (and if not - surely offline), would be a primary source, yes, and if in a reputable archive - a reliable primary source (for the existence and contents of the letter itself). Icewhiz (talk) 11:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
The question then is whether it is a far stretch to take Stanford news's words for the existence of such a letter. I personally think it is not a far reach. Specially, given the work was done under supervision of Abbas Milani.Kazemita1 (talk) 11:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I didn't say it was a local paper - it isn't - I said it was like a local paper in that there is no reason to use it for anything beyond its area of concentration. That area of concentration is what's going on among students at Stanford, and could be used as source for articles that discuss that topic. When's homecoming, who's running for student council, what are the fraternities and sororities doing. TFD (talk) 15:40, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Shashkevich, Alex (23 February 2017), "Iranian Studies Program cultivates student's passion for history", Stanford University News, retrieved 1 August 2018
I was under the impression that unless it had actually been published in (say) a journal or other organ with editorial oversight no it would not be RS.Slatersteven (talk) 12:13, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
The student paper, yes. The
WP:UNDUE. Icewhiz (talk
) 15:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Joule / CellPress

I did find an article on the web of Joule (magazine?), what is part of the CellPress. Can this be counted as a reliable source? Thank you in advance. --Dee (talk) 15:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

It seems like
problem solving
18:47, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

SitePoint for Grav (CMS)

Is the

notability
?

SitePoint is a blog and publisher of technical content targeted to web developers. Their blog contains articles from both staff writers and non-staff contributors. The author's status is not disclosed on the article page, but staff writers indicate their role at SitePoint in the biography, which is linked from their name. SitePoint's "Write for Us" page and Author Documentation detail their publishing process and editorial standards for their blog articles written by non-staff contributors. SitePoint's team, which includes 5 editors, is listed here. — Newslinger talk 22:45, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Software, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Software/Free and open-source software task force, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Websites — Newslinger talk 22:49, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Airline website for fleet figures

Is this a reliable source for

fact}} over citing this source. feminist (talk
) 13:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I would say it depends. For a major carrier where there is nothing to be gained by telling porkies yes. But for one plane wonders no, as it can be seen as deliberately (and possible dishonestly) promotional.Slatersteven (talk) 15:18, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Iberia is absolutely a major carrier. feminist (talk) 01:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Xconomy and HealthLeaders for eMix

Are the following sources reliable for eMix?

Specifically, do these sources count toward eMix's

notability
?

Xconomy is a "Business, life sciences, and technology news" site. HealthLeaders is a website and print magazine operated by Simplify Compliance, a healthcare consulting company. — Newslinger talk 23:58, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Radiology task force, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Technology, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Software — Newslinger talk 00:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Dbase.tube

Is dbase.tube a reliable source in this context? Is it

WP:OR
?

source:

dbase.tube

article:

See You Again

content:

As of May 1, 2019, [the video] has received over 4 billion views and 23.7 million likes,[1][2] making it the site's third most viewed and second most liked video. It is one of 163 videos to exceed one billion views,[3] 34 videos to exceed two billion views, seven videos to exceed three billion views and three videos to exceed four billion views.

References

  1. ^ "All Time Most Viewed YouTube Videos". dbase.tube. Retrieved May 1, 2019.
  2. ^ "All Time Most Liked YouTube Videos". dbase.tube. Retrieved May 1, 2019.
  3. ^ "All Time Most Viewed YouTube Videos". dbase.tube. Retrieved May 1, 2019.

Because one of my questions is whether this constitutes

WP:OR/N and directed editors to respond here in a consolidated discussion. That post is here: Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Use_of_dbase_in_music_articles

--David Tornheim (talk) 23:58, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

  • I would say it is not RS, it is another aggregator that does not seem to exercise any control or discrimination. I do not think it is OR, it does say over 4 billion.Slatersteven (talk) 07:40, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
It is reliable (I see no reason why I shouldn't trust it) but it is unlikely to be a
WP:Reliable source. feminist (talk
) 10:34, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject YouTube, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Internet culture — Newslinger talk 08:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

mylife.com

Should this website be considered a reliable source for... well, anything, ever? This is a website for user generated content, and is currently cited in [https://tools.wmflabs.org/linksearch?limit=500&offset=0&target=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mylife.com%25&namespace=0&associated=0&submit=1&lang=en&wiki=en.wikipedia 51 articles], mostly BLPs, and looks like mostly for birth dates, places of birth, and things like where someone went to college. I don't think I had ever heard of this website before, but it looks like anyone can edit, and thatthough there is some way to "take control" of a page if you are the subject, the ones I looked at that Wikipedia links to all have the "this is me - take control" link still visible, so I guess no one did? Anyway, as far as I can tell this has been the subject of only a single brief discussion previously at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_233#Instantcheckmate_and_mylife. It seems to me like it should just be scrubbed from the site. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

And this is such a non-question that I've started removing them already. Natureium (talk) 02:15, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Certainly unreliable and perhaps blacklist-worthy. As the site's FAQ says:
Why do I have a listing on MyLife.com if I never joined?
The information in your MyLife.com listing, including photographs, is gathered from a variety of pubic records and other sources similar to what you might find in a Google search.
And the "Take control" function looks to me to be akin to the mugshot scam. The site allowed me to take control of a random bio without verifying my identity, but then demanded a $6.95 monthly payment in order to allow me to make any changes (while warning me in bolded text "Items On Your Background Report Are Affecting Your Reputation"!). Abecedare (talk) 02:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

No, its little better then a WIKI.Slatersteven (talk) 07:38, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

  • I remove them on sight because of the user-submitted content and front-page disclaimer. --
    talk
    ) 16:48, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Cleaned out and added to blacklist as clearly unreliable. Black Kite (talk) 10:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Re-posting an archived section?

I would like advice on re-posting or revisiting Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_263#HuffPost_for_paid_editing_at_Axios_(website),_NBC_News,_Caryn_Marooney,_and_other_articles. It's hard to tell what happened here. At first, there was a discussion as to whether it was appropriate to have a RSN discussion since the article had already been thoroughly discussed at ANI. Then, before a determination on that point was reached, an informal RfC !vote emerged, but without the notifications and structure of an RfC. No formal consensus was determined at the time of archiving. There is also "new" information, in the form of a review by an independent admin, User: SoWhy, on the AN closure noticeboard of the ANI discussion consensus about the HuffPo article, "The discussion brought up a number of previously discussed points but regarding the HuPo article there seems to be consensus that a) the article was written by someone who has no idea how Wikipedia works and b) the editor mentioned in said article has not violated any policies or ToU."[26]. (But the discussion was not officially "closed" because a sub-thread evolved into extensive commenting about the subject of "paid editing." Admins said closure would imply policy could be changed on an ANI sub-thread.)

  • Should there be a new discussion here solely on the topic as to whether it is appropriate to have a RSN determination given the matter was already discussed extensively at ANI and there is now AN "closure" of sorts?
  • Or, should the existing discussion simply be brought out of archive for more discussion and/or a consensus determination by an independent admin?
  • Or, should there should a formal RfC be initiated instead of the informal one that emerged in the previous discussion? BC1278 (talk) 16:22, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
This question might be more appropriate for ANI, since it's one of procedure, not content. No one has responded yet here. So I have opened the same request for advice at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Re-posting_archived_RSN_discussion? and request any conversation take place there. Thanks. BC1278 (talk) 16:31, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Websnark

  • Websnark.com, a blog by Eric Burns, a webcomic artist and writer. The specific material in question right now is this article on the blog: "Requiescat In Pace: John M. Ford" (2006-09-25).
    The issue here is that the source is self-published, but
    WP:Webcomic sources states that Websnark is a reliable source in the area of webcomics. The discussion currently taking place on Talk is whether Websnark/Burns can be considered a reliable source in the area of sci-fi lit generally (as the material the source supports is related to John M. Ford
    's novels). We (3 or 4 editors) have not been able to reach a consensus.
  • John M. Ford (sci-fi author and game designer) is the article where this material is now being used and disputed, and there is a discussion on the talk page as well.
  • This is the diff: [27]. The Websnark material is a retrospective discussing/reviewing the author's novels.
    --MattMauler (talk) 17:04, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

No, his expertise is (apparently) in webcomics (thus he would not even pass for print comics).Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree - and I even question whether his self-published website should be regarded as a reliable source for webcomics, as it appears that page
Wikipedia:Webcomic_sources was 99% written by one editor, with no oversight or input from anyone else in the wiki community. But that is not so relevant in the course of this discussion, which centers on whether Burns' self-published material can be considered a reliable source on John M. Ford, and thus, suitable for use in his Wikipedia article. The answer is clearly no. SteamboatPhilly (talk
) 19:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Datarabia.com a reliable source for anything?

Its website welcome page[28] gives no information about sources. It is owned by "Rick Smith"[29] who is a software developer with a Masters in Arab studies. He's also known as Richard Allen Smith,[30] We use it on a number of articles.[31] I asked about it before but the site was evidently down then. Doug Weller talk 15:15, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I fail to see how this is an RS, just another website.Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

  • I would also say not RS... to the extent that it reprints (ie links to) RS news articles, better to cite the original. Blueboar (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY

I am currently sorting out

WP:RS. I wanted to give a background history on the subject, but obviously it is difficult to find any info about it online. I did come across the following article, however. The problem is twofold:
(1) According to the Hartford Courant's website, this press release was written by a community contributor. Since anyone can post as a community contributor, it is clearly a form of user-generated content.
(2)Yet, this specific article was billed as a "press release" and is identified as being written by the Transit district administrator. To me, that makes it some form of a primary source
.

My question is: Should I treat this citation as user-generated content (and avoid its use) or as a primary source (where it can be used in the article in conjunction with proper

secondary sourcing
)?

I don't watch this page, so I ask you please

ping any response. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖
15:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it it primary. I am not sure about user generated content issue, as it is a press release.Slatersteven (talk) 08:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

ISJ report = RS?

Would this be ok for inclusion in the

People's Mujahedin of Iran
article?:

Former Vice-President of the European Parliament Alejo Vidal-Quadras Roca reported that "During a conference in Paris in 2012, L' Col. Leo McCloskey who served as part of the US protection force at Camp Ashraf, revealed how [former MEK member] Ms Soltani had been recruited by Iran… as an agent of the Iranian government."[1]

Thanks for the feedback :-) Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:51, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://isjcommittee.com/2017/10/new-isj-report-irans-ministry-intelligence-active-europe/
While it is an RS for Roca, I see no reason to doubt the veracity of McCloskey's quote. Attribute directly to McCloskey, but watch the title: "Col. Leo McCloskey (ret.), former JIATF commander at Camp Ashraf". François Robere (talk) 11:28, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

That will give undue weight to a non-neutral comment. McCloskey's is a minor viewpoint that can hardly be considered as a third party (read the source) and hence its usage for describing a BLP is not recommended. --Mhhossein talk 06:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Har’el: Palmach brigade in Jerusalem, by Zvi Dror

Is this book (in Hebrew) a

WP:RS for Operation Ha-Har? It has been discussed before, see this
, but then brought no new "outside views".

I found this review by Tom Segev in Haaretz, note he writes "Dror takes pains to state that "Harel" is not a scholarly study", I would argue this is not a RS for the 1948 war, comments? Huldra (talk) 21:07, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

You had outside input last time around. You failed to quote the rest of the sentence by Segev - "The result is an important, very readable book" - who also praises Segev's method despite this not being geared as an academic study. The author is a proffessional and reputable, the publisher is reputable, and as you showed in the link above - it is well received. The only thing going against this book is that, yes, it is not an academic study but rather geared for a popular audience (and clearly stated so in the book). So yes - it is a reliable source. There may be better sources (e.g, something written as an academic study) - however looking at the article it looks you are generally lacking sources - some of the sources there are worse - e.g. John Bagot Glubb's 1957 memoirs which are used unattributed.Icewhiz (talk) 04:50, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Who is Zvi Dror?Slatersteven (talk) 08:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Zvi or Zvika Dror - See Hebrew Wikipedia. He was (retired now, I think, started in the 60s, mainly productive in the 80s-00s - midlife career change) - a full time writer/researcher in this publishing house and this museum (which also does research). Icewhiz (talk) 08:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Mmmm, I think this would need attribution.Slatersteven (talk) 08:36, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
At the very least. The headline from Segev really says it all: "Once a
WP:Primary
. (People directly participating in a war can hardly be expected to remain impartial,)
And Dror (according to Segev) has written about the Holocaust survivors, who were members of his kibbutz, and a biography of Yitzhak Sadeh. Unknown academic qualifications. Huldra (talk) 20:33, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Dror authored around 20 history books - focusing on the 40s and 50s - Holocaust, immigration, 1948 war, and early settlement. This is not a primary source, It is a popular audience history - and a fairly well received one (as evident by the very positive review by Segev - a proffesional historian). It is definitely a better source than Glubb's 1957 memoirs (general commanding the front). An English language, secondary source, published by an academic publisher and covering the battle in depth would be even better - do you have one? For more obscure battles in the period - these aren't always available. Lets quote Segev a bit here - "Dror is the author of one of the most important books ever written about Holocaust survivors in Israel.".... "The result is an important, very readable book" ... "There were other blunders, which Dror cautiously depicts, such". Icewhiz (talk) 20:57, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
My point is that if you have no better source than those who depopulated (or "ethically cleansed") the Palestinian villages, then you might cut it out completely. Presently, virtually all of
Az-Zakariyyas, or two different wars, Huldra (talk
) 23:26, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Aha - so we're challenging Israeli sources generally - in that case (sarcasm) all Arab sources should be omitted due to the joint Arab attack on Israel in 1948. Certainly Khalidi should be omitted in that case, as he is promoting Palestinian entry to Israel, and a Palestinian representative in the Madrid conference (round about when he wrote the book). (end sarcasm). Dror is a decent source - the book is praised for being forthright (covering looting, prostitution, and soldiers fleeing battles). The author is respected, widely published, and the publisher is reliable. Certainly academic English language sources would be better - but that's not cause to blackball Dror prior to finding them. What you really need to do here is search for other sources covering the operation.Icewhiz (talk) 04:04, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Huh??? Last time I checked, Benny Morris was an Israeli, when did I challenge him? (eh, more than I challenge anyone?) Huldra (talk) 20:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why he couldn't be used attributed --Shrike (talk) 15:24, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Tom Segev gave a fair review of Zvi Dror's book, and he mostly praised Zvi Dror as an ideologist in the ranks of the Palmmach. His work is, perhaps, one of the best documentaries of this short operation, and as Tom Segev states: "Dror takes pains to state that 'Harel' is not a scholarly study, although he made extensive use of documents, including letters, diaries, memoirs and oral testimony from brigade veterans who are still alive. The result is an important, very readable book about people who were fighting a war that is described here as if it were an extended teenage adventure. The depictions of the battles do not interest Dror too much, and he focuses instead on the personalities and motives of the soldiers. This is an interesting and justified approach because the Palmach was a very ideological and a very political army." I see no reason why his testimony cannot be used in this important article. A writer's literary style should not be used against him, so long as he sticks to the facts, without deviating from them. The Publishing Office is a well-known and highly respected publishing company, which mainly concerns itself with publishing histories.Davidbena (talk) 16:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Heh, I see all the "usual suspects" are here, with 100% predictable opinions. (I greatly wish for "outside" viewpoints..) Dror, AFAIK, is not an academic, (unlike, say

WP:PRIMARY: "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." Presently almost the whole of Operation Ha-Har is based on the Zvi Dror book. Huldra (talk
) 20:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz is a very competent and gifted editor here on Wikipedia. It is a great honor to have a person of this caliber working for this encyclopedia. As for the sources used, anyone can see that other authors are, indeed, mentioned in this article. As I recall, there would have also been an additional academic source (Heally Gross, Adullam: `veshavu banim ligevulam`, Jerusalem 2014) had her contributions to the subject matter not been deleted on grounds that she held only a BA in her field of research, instead of a PhD, and that her works were published on behalf of the Mateh Yeduda Regional Council. The next time I visit the Hebrew University Library, I will look for additional secondary sources.Davidbena (talk) 21:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Pr this: "Consensus is that the books published by this author, being self-published by a non-expert, are not generally reliable sources." Btw, the Zvi Dror book is apparently published by the Kibbutz Movement; not exactly an academic publisher last time I checked. Also, according to Tom Segev: "The copyright belongs to the association of Palmach veterans that initiated the idea for the book". This is Wikipedia, not Palmachipedia, Huldra (talk) 23:44, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree with the assessments made by Slatersteven and Huldra, the book is a primary source. The fact that it is meticulously researched does not negate the clear conflict of interest for the author (and publisher). signed, Rosguill talk 00:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that was the consensus of our editors regarding the noble works of Heally Gross. Very sad, in my view. However, with respect to Dror's book, it was published by this publishing house. In Israel, it is a renowned and respected publisher. His work was also well-received by a critic, Tom Segev, whose approval of Dror's work should allay all fears as to its accuracy. As for his work being a primary source to a war that he was involved in, Wikipedia's guideline allows us to use primary sources with caution. The use of primary sources are often our only recourse to history, whenever secondary sources are scarce. This history, of course, should be attributed in the name of its reporter, for greater accuracy and balance. If it were altogether forbidden, we would end-up deleting, I would guess, 25% of our encyclopedic entries.Davidbena (talk) 00:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Gross is self published. Zvi Dror, however, is a widely published historian, published by a reputable publisher, and very well received in reviews.Icewhiz (talk) 03:46, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
And no - a source written by a historian in 2005 analyzing events in 1948 is not a primary source by any stretch. Gross being a low ranking conscript in 1948 (in a non-fighting role) has very little bearing on his career as a historian decades later - the book is not based on his recollections (in a low ranking staff role) - but on gathering and analyais of source material. Many WWII historians, for instance, were conscrips or lived through events in occupied Europe. Some of the material included (e.g. witness interviews), or quoted (reports) is primary - the book itself is very clearly secondary. Icewhiz (talk) 04:04, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
It is published by this publishing house, which mostly publish fiction, according to themselves. The writers academic credentials (if any) are unknown. So far, the only "outsiders" to comment here (Slatersteven and Rosguill) seem to agree that is is a primary source and needs attribution. I hope for more "outside" views, (PS and even Davidbena and Shrike seem to think that it should be used with attribution, which it isn't today) Huldra (talk) 21:57, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Many important historians lack advanced degrees, work as writers, not academics, and are reliable sources, cf. Barbara W. Tuchman, David McCullough, Edward Gibbon.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
This is a SECONDARY source. 15:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.M.Gregory (talk • contribs)
  • While checking into the question raised here, I used what I found to create Zvi Dror. His books are cited in books by reliable publishers and in academic journal articles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:50, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • To put this book into perspective - this a popular audience brigade history - published almost 60 years after the war, by a professional historian, who used both archives (e.g. orders, movements, etc.) and interviews (attributed in the book AFAICT). The 3-5 day battle/operation which is the subject of the article pitted this brigade (or elements thereof) on one side vs. opposing forces of approx. the same size. This was not a large battle (strategically - this was a diversion for the much larger Operation Yoav which took place on the other side of the attacked Egyptian troops) - so it is not surprising that sources are lacking. Brigade or regimental histories are certainly "lower on the totem pole" of historical sources - but in a battle of this scale, this is often what exists which is also detailed. Icewhiz (talk) 09:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Computer Business Review has the only surviving source for a certain niche Wikipedia article

The source is an archived web page: https://__________________/news/intel_acquires_patents_technology_from_real3d/. Replace ________ With the domain URL for Computer Business Review.

The Wikipedia article this link is to be used for: Intel740

The content in the article the source is supporting:

Intel purchased the company's (Real3D's) intellectual property, part of a series on ongoing lawsuits, but laid off the remaining skeleton staff. Some staff were picked up as contractors within Intel, while a majority were hired by ATI and moved to a new office.

The original source for the content above is now a dead link, suffering from link rot, and redirects you to a search engine instead of the actual source reference. The source given above is from Computer Business Review, written back in October 1999. I would like to request for approval as a reliable source of contribution, because this is the only surviving source of reference that can be referred to, and that it poses an interesting topic where the only surviving source is under a blacklisted domain. Maybe there exists a talk somewhere about this?

The last talk for Computer Business Review was mentioned in Archive 166, and it did not lead to any conclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom mai78101 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Did you look into why Computer Business Review was blacklisted? Seems to me this could be quite significant in determining whether there was concerns which may make it not an RS. In any case, while we could use the source if there are no concerns, I see zero reason why we need the source. Remembering that sources do not need to be
WP:LINKVIO concerns do not arise.) Nil Einne (talk
) 01:51, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
See [36] further affirming my view that the deadlink was always rather irrelevant. The link itself is irrelevant since it's just the same as any other offline source i.e. equally acceptable to an online source. (I have no idea whether the Computergram International is actually an acceptable source.) Nil Einne (talk) 02:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
<pI had a quick look and found these discussions: MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/September 2011#cbronline MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/December 2013#cbronline.com MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/April 2015#cbronline.com MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/March 2016#cbronline.com MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/July 2016#cbronline.com MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/November 2017#cbronline.com MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/October 2018#cbronline.com (removal request). Also related: MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/July 2012#How do I view the list? MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/June 2014#naval-technology.com MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/November 2014#\bpower-technology\.com\b MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/July 2015#energy-business-review.com. It sounds like someone has been spamming the site and others by the same owners for quite a while however the owner are new and only came in the last 10-20 years, and there aren't other reasons for the blacklisting. Those are key points.

In a number of countries, including most of Western Europe which seems to be the site's target market spamming is something viewed poorly enough that there are always likely to be questions over whether the owners of any business who appear likely involved in any spamming can be trusted to make a team with the necessary fact checking and independent editorial decision-making etc to run a site which will qualify as an RS. But since it's a newer development, such concerns probably don't affect older content

So IMO the blacklisting doesn't say much about whether the site is an RS for old content.

In answer to your question about what we do, the simple answer is we use whatever RSes are suitable for our articles. AFAIK blacklisting a site is never really intended to completely stop the use of links to RSes on the site, except in cases where it would cause potential harm to our users such as a malware infected site. While having the site the only RS may help, I imagine even in cases where it's not you could get a link whitelisted on a page if it's is an RS and is helpful. (If there are multiple other RS you may be less likely to convince people to bother.)

Of course my earlier comments also come into play. It's not generally necessary to have a link for a source. Even for online sources, if there is sufficient info provided in the citation for people to find them, this is generally sufficient, a link is more for convenience. And while it is very useful to have, in some ways it's more important to have the other details since as illustrated here, it means we have a decent chance of finding the source if it disappears, much harder if it's just a link.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:31, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

This topic is not one I know anything about, so I'll leave it to others to read and figure out what these support and whether they are RS. DMacks (talk) 08:31, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm also want to leave it to others to decide, as I'm not well-versed in making sure sources are reliable enough. Tom Mai (talk) 00:59, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Anna-Lynne Williams
sources

Are sources like this generally considered reliable and notability supporting for creative artists/musicians or are these something credible only to those in the alternative music scene? I'm not too familiar with source evaluations for musicians so I wanted a second input.

https://www.residentadvisor.net/reviews/5737
https://thesteinbergprinciple.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/interview-anna-lynne-williams/
http://stereosubversion.com/interviews/anomie-belle
Graywalls (talk) 13:21, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider these reliable sources, for musicians or anything else. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:28, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

BBC

A BBC correspondent interviewed people of both sides and wrote this article about

MEK. My question is whether this assertion is supported by the BBC article. As can be seen by user discussions here, editors are divided about the conclusions made by the BBC correspondent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.38.113.56 (talk • contribs
) 06:40, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion is not about whether the BBC article is reliable (BBC is a reliable source), but whether describing confessions of sexual fantasies constitutes "sexual abuse", so more of a NPOV problem. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:19, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes it does support it, other then (as above) this is not sexual abuse.Slatersteven (talk) 07:57, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

¡Hola! and Paris Match magazine

I would RfC for ¡Hola! (similar to Hello! magazine) and Paris Match as a reliable source for celebrities. Otherwise it contains Spanish and French languages alongside with Europe. --Humanist920 (talk) 02:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

It would be best if you followed the instructions for this noticeboard by identifying a specific reference, content, and article.
I didn't look for any independent sources that would help, but here's an initial impression from looking at their websites:
¡Hola! looks too gossipy to use in most situations, especially for notability and any biographical information that might be questionable.
Paris Match looks better, but deserves care for notability and biographical info. --
talk
) 03:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Paris Match is pretty close to reliable journalism-wise, athough it does sometimes partake in 'light gossip' (focus on scandals, etc.)... it's the French equivalent of 'Life' magazine (or it would like to be... at one point in time, at least). 'Hola' is... let's just say that if one is going to cite them as a source, best include them as the source in the text (as it is often but (empty) opinion/heresay). Cheers. TP ✎ ✓ 18:43, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
@Humanist920: I've removed the "RfC:" from the section heading, since this discussion doesn't use the {{rfc}} tag. If you would like to turn this discussion into an RfC, please follow the directions at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, and then change the section heading back. — Newslinger talk 20:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Magazines, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spain, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject France — Newslinger talk 21:03, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

census2011.co.in

https://www.census2011.co.in is a website that repackages Indian census data in a more usable way. It was discussed here last year as a part of a large batch of similar sites. Nothing specific to this website was said there, so I'm bringing this up for discussion again. How reliable is this website? I've been reluctant to use it (better to go straight for the official source that it's based on), but I've checked it against that on a few occasions and it has been correct. Obviously this doesn't guarantee anything, but how likely are errors to have arisen? I've used it sometimes out of sheer convenience: you know, when what is at stake is a bit of data in an obscure village article, you'd prefer to verify that instantly, rather than, say, wait for the official website to come back online after yet another outage and then expend time and effort to manually wade through the tables.

What I'm looking for is some agreement on what to do with citations to this website. I think what we choose to do should be proportionate to the confidence we have in its (un)reliability. I see several alternatives:

  • Do nothing
  • Explicitly discourage use, but stop at that
  • Discourage use, and then replace all instances with a citation to the official statistics
  • Discourage use, and then tag with {{
    better source
    }}
  • Remove all uses and replace with {{
    cn
    }}

Sitush appears to have taken up the last option and is applying it a large number of articles, which is partly what prompted this post. Pinging also Utcursch, usernamekiran and Winged Blades of Godric. – Uanfala (talk) 11:11, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

It is listed at
WP:BLACKLIST. - Sitush (talk
) 11:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
It's not on the blacklist, but there is a proposal to add it there. – Uanfala (talk) 11:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Weird. I did close the section asserting that the multitude of discussed sources are unreliable and I fail to see about why I needed to make specific determinations. The official data is available over multiple websites, very easily and thus, I am hell against enabling spamming of such links. Nuke them (the last option) is my call. IIRC, the links are blacklisted. ∯WBGconverse 11:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. These are pretty much spam sites (try without adblock): they should be blacklisted, and should be replaced with District Census Hand Books or another decent source. utcursch | talk 12:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I've been wondering about the reliability of this myself. Take
problem solving
19:24, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
That said, I really dislike the practice of completely removing unreliable sources and then tagging as if the material never had a source at all. I much prefer using tags like {{
problem solving
19:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
The links are for different villages: the first one is in Rajasthan, the second one in Maharashtra. The correct census2011.co.in page for the Maharashtran village [37] gives the same population as onefivenine. – Uanfala (talk) 20:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
We should not be driving visits to adsense accumulators, though I realise that this is by no means always possible. Many of the articles do in fact have the official census data link somewhere. - Sitush (talk) 06:07, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I too dislike it that the website features ads, but that's a different question from its reliability as a source. – Uanfala (talk) 13:08, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Report made by consulting firm

When drafting an article for a South American salt lake,

Salar de Hombre Muerto, I saw this source. It's apparently written by a consulting firm with the help of geologists and mining experts for a mining company. Can such a source be used to write about things like geology or geography of a water body? These particular water bodies are usually poorly documented, so it's probably the only substantial source for this topic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions
) 20:45, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

No. Even if you could find evidence that the consulting firm had a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, it still has a
R2 (bleep
) 23:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

M.G. Easton M.A., D.D., Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Third Edition

The full text of the dictionary can be found here, and it's public domain. I've been looking to use this source for etymology purposes in cities that have been mentioned in the bible. Alex.osheter (talk) 07:54, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Given its age, and the fact he was not an etymologist I would say this might not be all that reliable.Slatersteven (talk) 08:51, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Mondoweiss again

At Killing of Aisha al-Rabi, of the 4 sequential reverts (here,here,herea and here)two removed at sight two articles from Mondoweiss as though it were established wisdom that this website is not RS. The RSN noticeboard has discussed this repeatedly, and no such judgement has been registered. To the contrary.

The two articles removed are by a Bethlehem based journalist who also writes for Al Jazeera, Yumna Patel, and an Israeli musician, translator, and journalist Janathan Ofir, who writes for Mondoweiss.

Jonathan Ofir on Mondoweiss was approved of at this board as RS for a specific incident. Nishidani (talk) 15:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Seems RS to me, at least as much as any other news website. I will not comment on the rest, as it is bring out my Sarky nature.Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

  • If you assert something is not RS and go ahead and systematically remove articles cited from it, you must be confident that the RSN board has determined that beyond equivocation. You know that it hasn't done so. To the contrary it has often affirmed that articles may be cited from, depending on context. See all recent discussions (one of which you cherrypicked from above. All recent discussions are nuanced, not dogmatic, and as frequently as not, allow material from Mondoweiss.
  • September 2016 (note that discussion was disturbed by a NoCal sockpuppet, Epson Salts
  • here Dealing with the use of Miriyam Aouragh’s review of Gilbert Achcar’s book, again disturbed by the sockpuppet Epson Salts, (as was an earlier discussion by Ashtul who wanted an incompetent negative criticism of the book retained.
  • February 2017
  • idem here March 2017
  • You repeatedly asserted Norman Finkelstein could not be cited from Mondoweiss here June 2918, and the verdict was you were wrong. In such cases, independent editors have challenged the repeated assertion it is just an SPI, a blog, a hate site. There is absolutely nothing with using an American Jewish run website covering the Palestinian side of the I/P conflict to redress the systemic bias of mainstream (non)reportage of the area.Nishidani (talk) 17:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • RSes reporting on Mondoweiss disagree. RSN never had consensus to use this site - outside of specific circumstances of using their translation of Arabic or Hebrew reporting in a RS. For the particular topic of al-Rabi - there is no lack of mainstream media reporting in English.Icewhiz (talk) 17:22, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
False. To cite just those who gave their considered views on each Mondoweiss issue and who have no horse in the I/P race, and are therefore neutral,
Snooganssnoogans and K.e.coffman all gave balanced reasons for accepting that Mondoweiss could be used.Nishidani (talk
) 19:37, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Untrue, the discussion on Finkelstein here had every single uninvolved user agree that it was fine to use. Please dont make things up. nableezy - 17:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
The consensus for use of mondoweiss was for use as convenience link for translation.
WP:ONUS for this site was never met. --Shrike (talk
) 17:29, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Please, pray tell, where is this consensus? The discussion on the Finkelstein source seems to have a consensus that it was reliable. nableezy - 17:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Nope. It was deemed reliable for the attributed opinion of Finkelstein. For attributed opinion - the bar is very low, and has little to do with the editorial oversight of the website.Icewhiz (talk) 18:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
That is unequivocally not true. Verging on purposely misleading. Every single uninvolved person agreed, here, that it was a perfectly fine source. Comments such as He is RS, he is a noted commentator and recognized expert, Perfectly useable. Even if it was self published it would be useable., Reliable: a scholar & a recognised expert in the field;, gives the lie to the claim that it was not found reliable, and not as an opinion, full stop. nableezy - 20:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
That discussion was on Finkelstein specifically, as an expert, and not on Mondoweiss. Several editors, including yourself, invoked "
WP:RS#Exceptions: Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert..." - the discussion there had little to nothing to do with Mondoweiss's editorial controls or lack thereof. Icewhiz (talk
) 05:29, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
We are not discussing only Finkelstein. You stated that Mondoweiss is not RS, period, and I showed several cases where precedent disagreed with you, in the face indeed of a relatively recent case where you argued against it with the very same arguments given here, and your view was given the thumbs down. I'll try to get a diff where someone was warned about going through articles and systematically elided all sourcing to Mondoweiss, a POV cen sorship push that was frowned on.Nishidani (talk) 06:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Depends on the author. If the author is an expert then the source is fine, if the author is not then Id say find another source. So for the piece by Yumna Patel Id say fine to use, the one by the musician probably not. nableezy - 17:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

That he is a musician by profession is neither here nor there. He is cited because he translates and comments on much of what the Israeli press tells its own public, but not the outside world. That is why respectable academic works cite Ofir (here,here and here, for example.Nishidani (talk) 19:43, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Patel is not an expert. She is a freelance, and there is little reason to use a piece by her published in a website with little editorial controls or reputation.Icewhiz (talk) 18:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
On a question of coherence and policy compliance, Icewhiz. Above you asserted that a BLP figure Philip Weiss, runs an antisemitic hate-site. Just a few moments ago, the most brilliant and dedicated I/P wikipedian in its history was weirdly banned for 3 months, and part of the 'evidence' you provided maintained she had committed a BLP violation by implicitly referring to an unnamed person as having engaged in ethnic cleansing in 1948. I.e. here and here. Why is it okay for you to run up an argument that an outstanding editor should be banned because of a putative BLP violation, and, the next day, assert a personal right to make, what in your terms, is a BLP violation of the kind you apparently deplore. The only difference is, surely, that Zvi Dror is a historian of a Palmach group that engaged in ethnic cleansing (not to be smeared), whereas Philip Weiss runs a website critical of Israel's occupation (targetable for smearing). Because admins never read widely, if at all, in the topic area, they are totally unfamiliar with the change-tactics-and-policy-priorities-according-to-POV aims, and get their impressions of a dangerous 'battleground mentality' from a few trivial diffs out of tens of thousands, but this is such an egregious example of switching views from page to page, and of not tolerating in other editors what you appear to arrogate to yourself as a personal right, that I'd like an explanation, since it bears on the quality of your judgment in editing Wikipedia in the way the diffs above illustrate. Nishidani (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I asserted no such thing, and said nothing on Weiss. I linked to reputable sources that make various assertions: “Mondoweiss” is a hate site (UPDATED), Washington Post, David Bernstein, 2015, [39], Mondoweiss Launches Anti-Semitic Attack on New Editor-in-Chief of ‘The Atlantic, Tablet. Icewhiz (talk) 19:38, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Who runs the antisemitric hate-site (utter rubbish) which, by your cherrypicked smears, you put over as being such? Philip Weiss. Nudge nudge, wink wink.Nishidani (talk) 19:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Take it up with the editors of the Washington Post, etc.. And lest we overlook the real BLP issue here - Mondoweiss is being suggested as a source for information on relatively unknown minor, standing trial, who as of yet has not been convicted. We have a big
WP:BLPCRIME issue in the article - and we should be using mainstream sources.Icewhiz (talk
) 19:51, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Silly. You can, with a will, find any newspaper/journal/scholar commenting negatively on Israeli occupation policies branded as an 'anti-Semitic' or as an 'anti-Semitic hate site/venue'. No editor can prove anything by citing that rubbish, which is pure polemical smearing. But if a Wikipedia editor cites smears, whatever the source, in an evidence brief, the citation in context means that editor underwrites this kind of innuendo. That is what you did, otherwise what was the point in insinuating that?
Again, you advocate 'we should be using mainstream sources' but that is not your practice. When 238-Gdn, after you'd just edited, introduced Arutz Sheva, a notoriously non-mainstream settler POV-pushing website, you did not remove it. (In the past you have even argued that it is a 'mainstream' organ of settlers, hence usable, remember?). You only removed Mondoweiss when I removed Arutz Sheva (tit for tat?) because, as I showed, it falsified by suppression of court evidence the news reported, and is notoriously unreliable. In other words, you let Arutz Sheva stand, and only moved on Mondoweiss when the former was properly removed as distorting reportage, something neither of the Mondoweiss articles have been shown to do.Nishidani (talk) 20:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Can generally be used with attribution, per past discussions. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
    K.e.coffman, What pass discussions?The only thing that found it can be used as convenience link nothing more. Shrike (talk) 14:08, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk pages consultation 2019 – phase 2

The Wikimedia Foundation has invited the various Wikimedia communities, including the English Wikipedia, to participate in a consultation on improving communication methods within the Wikimedia projects.

Phase 2 of the consultation has now begun; as such, a request for comment has been created at Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019/Phase 2. All users are invited to express their views. Individual WikiProjects, user groups and other communities may also consider creating their own requests for comment; instructions are at mw:Talk pages consultation 2019/Participant group sign-up. (To keep discussion in one place, please don't reply to this comment.) Jc86035 (talk) 14:48, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Is Toronto Sun a reliable source?

(Originally posted at

WP:NEWSORG
.

  • Source
  • Article
  • To support: "Badawi denied any links to the Muslim Brotherhood,[18] (existing citation) but in 1992, Badawi's name was listed in a Muslim Brotherhood directory listing him as being on the Shura Council.

Thanks for your time and clarifications. --Yamla (talk) 21:23, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

The Sun is normally reliable for news reporting but as you have stated, you're pulling from an op-ed. Now, I doubt the Sun would allow a completely bogus op-ed fly that was pulling facts of out thin air, but we still should expect that the fact checking on an op-ed piece is not as strong as a staff writer's work. At absolute minimum, you are going to need to attribute the claim to the ope-ed writer. But there is fair enough issue that if that's the only source that mentions this that it might UNDUE w.r.t. BLP. --Masem (t) 21:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Not wading into the question whether the Sun is or is not reliable, I'll point out that this is an opinion piece and it's not clear what sort of editorial oversight Tom Quiggin gets when writing pieces like that. I can assume that there have not been any corrections or retractions to the piece that is now three months old so it does not seem to be problematic. However, a piece by The Globe or even CBC news would be preferred. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
The citation is not reliable. Per
News organizations, "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, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." Otherwise the Toronto Sun is a reliable publisher. Note the article says, "Special to Postmedia Network," which is the parent body that owns the Toronto Sun and includes many prestigious broadsheets, such as the National Post. TFD (talk
) 23:25, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Another concern I have with using this citation is that there is actually no mention of the main subject of the article in question, the Muslim Association of Canada. Would it a be a violation of
WP:NOR to use two separate sources and argue for a connection thusly: op-ed A to say that Organization X is linked to Person Y, then cite op-ed B to say that Person Y is linked to Organization Z, and so the Wikipedia article argues that Organization X is linked to Organization Z? 2601:243:903:3F5B:254F:CE78:74E5:1209 (talk
) 23:45, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • In addition to the sourcing issues mentioned above, note that the source article mentions "North American Muslim Brotherhood" (not the Muslim Brotherhood per se) and it is not clear if that refers to an actual organization by that exact name, or is a generic stand-in for "a front group, in North America, for the Muslim Brotherhood." The pdf of the directory is unclear on that matter. This distinction is important because Quiggan has declared several organizations to be such front groups and his expertise to do so has been questioned. See, for example, this Mclean article, which says in part, However, Quiggin’s various research conclusions and work with the obscure TSEC Network have been vehemently criticized by acknowledged security and terrorism experts..
(TL;DR)  don't use the source for such purpose even with attribution. Abecedare (talk) 00:04, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, everyone! --Yamla (talk) 16:11, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Distinguishing a review from an essay

At Talk:Glyphosate#Acceptable reviews, editors are discussing this source:

The question is: should editors regard this source as a literature review (as defined at

WP:MEDRS), or as an editorial-like essay? What do editors here advise about that? Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk
) 16:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

It was published as a review at PubMed. Gandydancer (talk) 23:04, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

It is obviously an opinion essay. It says in the abstract, "We conclude that current safety standards for GBHs are outdated and may fail to protect public health or the environment," which is a statement of opinion. Reviews on the other hand provide an overview of the literature and explain the opinions that other experts have reached. TFD (talk) 01:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I believe that this is what our medical articles guidelines call a "narrative review". Yes, it was published as an opinion essay in BMJ but they took it directly from PubMed which called it a Review [40]. Our guidelines say: Broadly speaking, reviews may be narrative or systematic (and sometimes both). Narrative reviews often set out to provide a general summary of a topic based on a survey of the literature, which can be useful when outlining a topic.
Actually reviews commonly give a statement of opinion on the outcome of their review, for example this review [41] states "Urgent action is needed to lift the veil on the presence of adjuvants in food and human bodily fluids, as well as..." Gandydancer (talk) 12:29, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
But that's another opinion piece masquerading as a review. SmartSE (talk) 16:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I find it hard to believe that PubMed would attempt to hoodwink its readers into believing a falsehood - after all, they are the ones that labeled it a review. Gandydancer (talk) 17:59, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces: thanks for the feedback. I want to add that I'm the most interested in opinions from editors who have not been involved in the discussion, but since Gandydancer has presented her take on it, I will point out that every page of the published paper says "Essay" right at the top of the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Considering that you did not include the fact that PubMed had previously published it as a review (even though I had repeatedly brought that up on the talk page) I felt that our readers needed all of the facts when they made their decision. Gandydancer (talk) 17:59, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Well, I initially posted a neutrally worded request that did not include my opinion either. PubMed did not publish the article. They are a search engine for medical science articles. It would be like saying that Google published something that showed up on their search results. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, of course I am aware that PubMed gathers their articles and then serves as a data base rather than to serve as the publisher, though they do maintain certain standards. As far as I can tell the article was first published in Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, is that correct? Gandydancer (talk) 19:54, 14 May 2019 (UTC) PS - found it Gandydancer (talk) 20:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that is the publisher, and I linked to it in my initial post. (And as I said, it is labeled there as an essay, at the top of every page.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:57, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • It's classified by the publisher as an "essay"; PUBMED have it as a "review". So it's not clear-cut. Okay to use with attribution I'd say, but not to
    talk
    ) 18:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Alex, I did find it and IMO you give a good and reasonable way to use this information. One thing, do you have any further comments on what WP calls a "narrative review" for med-related articles? From my understanding it is my best guess that PubMed called this a review in the same way that WP refers to "narrative" reviews. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 20:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Narrative reviews can make very good sources. As to PUBMED, there are a number of ways a publishing workflow can get the PUBMED "publication type" metadata item populated, and I wouldn't want to speculate. One further bit of evidence: if we look at the ToC of the January issue we see this journal can include articles that it classifies as a "Review"[42] however it does not take this option for the Glyphosate article and instead classifies is as an "Essay".[43] That the publisher explicitly does not classify it a "Review", an available option, rather weakens the case it is a review.
talk
) 05:04, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Here is PubMed's list of the categories of publication types that are used at their website: [44]. They don't have a category of "Essay". I think they had to choose between "Editorial" and "Review" (or "Scientific Integrity Review" or "Systematic Review"). According to our page on editorials, they are typically thought of as being written by the "staff or publisher" of the publication, not by outside authors, as the source discussed here was. And here are the Instructions for Authors at the journal where this piece was published: [45]. They have separate categories for "Essay" (the classification of this source) and "Review". They define essays as: "Manuscripts reporting analytic, interpretative or critical point of views and scientific arguments about a subject relevant for epidemiology or public health." They define reviews as: "Manuscripts reporting exhaustive, critical assessments of published literature on relevant epidemiological questions." This information may be helpful in evaluating the question here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
To answer one of the questions above: A systematic review is a very particular thing. A narrative review (aka literature review) is any other type of review.
As to the content question,
User:Alexbrn's approach sounds like a good starting point. WhatamIdoing (talk
) 04:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks to all for the expert help. If I use the information from this essay/narrative review I will say that the information is the opinion of the authors and that should take care of it. Gandydancer (talk) 14:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I think that's a helpful result, thanks. But I want to pin down the specifics about kinds of information a bit more. It seems to me to be fine to use the source for attributed opinions about regulation, but that the source is not really an appropriate one for summarizing the science. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:50, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for bringing this up because I planned to add something similar to what was deleted with changes in wording to show that it was an opinion. Here is what I had added and which was consequently deleted: [[46]]
I'll copy it here: "Noting a 100-fold increase in the use of glyphosate-based herbicides from 1974 to 2014, the possibility that herbicide mixtures likely have effects that are not predicted by studying glyphosate alone, and that current safety assessments rely heavily on studies done over 30 years ago, a 2018 review found current safety standards to be outdated and "may fail to protect public health or the environment."
None of these statements are disputed and IMO they are connected to the author's concerns regarding current safety standards. I see no reason to omit their reasons for concern since they are not controversial but are rather part of present-day understanding of the product. Gandydancer (talk) 20:50, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
The increased use over time and the differences between pure glyphosate and mixtures that contain it are covered at length elsewhere on the page, so there is a question unrelated to sourcing, about how useful it is to repeat it. And it's a 2019 source, not 2018. But more importantly, that language says that the source is a "review" and that it "found" those things to be true. I would argue that, instead, it would be more appropriate to word it as:
Vandenberg et al. argued in 2019 that current safety standards are outdated and "may fail to protect public health or the environment."
What do uninvolved editors think about which kind of wording better reflects the source? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
It might be appropriate to include some of the reasons why they developed that view.
On the more general subject, I haven't looked into that article, but I hope that it does a reasonable job of balancing "it's probably not entirely safe" with "the realistic alternatives are also bad, and some of them are worse". ("The entire world goes vegetarian, so that we can all eat organic food" and "Nobody cares how much tilling you do next to that stream" are not realistic alternatives.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't particularly mind including their reasons. But what about calling it a "review" and saying that it "found" these conclusions, as opposed to saying that the authors "argued that" these conclusions are the case? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
That seems good to me Trypto.WhatamIdoing there seems to be a general impression that any editor that complains about a pro Monsanto bias on the Monsanto pages is opposed to GM products. I am not opposed to GM nor am I certain they are safe. (In fact I wish they'd invent that GM deer tick they've been talking about ) What I am opposed to is corporate deceit, of which there has been plenty of at Monsanto, that makes it hard for the public to make reasonable decisions. You may not be familiar with Monsanto's practices but I know that you are familiar with certain drug companies that have apparently not been honest about what the drug makers knew about untoward side effects. Just like in politics or anything else, we need accurate information to make reasonable decisions. Gandydancer (talk) 18:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Gandydancer. Setting aside the corporate POV issues for now, I think that we have found a good consensus on the sourcing issue, and I'm happy with going with that. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:34, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Tryptofish, I'm usually uncomfortable with words like "argued" (sounds like we're emphasizing that there's another side to it), "stated" (sounds more certain and absolute than plain old said), "noted" (sounds like it's WP:The Last Word on the subject, or an aside meant to undercut another view), and the like. I usually stick with "said" or "wrote". But my views seem to be in the minority, and I admit that it likely leads towards boring prose. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:27, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I see what you mean; thanks for pointing that out. In this case, there very much is another side to it: in essence, the official views of multiple regulatory agencies around the world (the source says they all may be getting it wrong). The question behind this entire RSN discussion is whether the source is primarily stating a generally accepted fact, or a point of view. And the source is making an argument for it. I looked at
WP:CLAIM, and found "commented" there, and I would be OK with that. --Tryptofish (talk
) 21:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I looked back over the talk page discussion, and remembered that "recommended" would also be a good choice of words. Either "commented" or "recommended" would be fine with me. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:27, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I prefer recommended, as it is something (potentially) meaningful that they actually did. "Commented" has that mutter-under-the-breath feel. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:53, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. And the good news is that editors have come to agreement at the article talk page, on a version that uses "recommended" and that all of the involved editors seem to be happy with. Thank you to everyone from RSN who gave advice during this discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Will you agree to this: Noting a 100-fold increase in the use of glyphosate-based herbicides from 1974 to 2014, the possibility that herbicide mixtures likely have effects that are not predicted by studying glyphosate alone, and that current safety assessments rely heavily on studies done over 30 years ago, in 2019 "Vandenberg et al concluded that current safety standards are outdated and "may fail to protect public health or the environment." Gandydancer (talk) 13:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm fine with including all of that information; the question is the best choice of words to use for it. I think there are multiple ways to convey it.
WP:CLAIM is a good place to go to see the pluses and minuses of various word choices (including "noted"). I think it's best to discuss wording of the page (as opposed to source reliability) back at the article talk page. Interested editors will find that discussion at Talk:Glyphosate#Acceptable reviews. --Tryptofish (talk
) 17:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Amy Sequenzia

Several citations are

WP:SELFPUB: the subject's (or, more probably, the subject's facilitator's) own blog on Ollibean. Is that a reliable source? --Hob Gadling (talk
) 02:23, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Tough one, officially these are her words (and thus RS if attributed). But there are serious doubts about who actually does the communicating when using the various facilitated communication methods (well as far as the scientific community is concerned I can find no doubts they all seem to say its the facilitator). Thus it can be said the source for this is a tad unreliable. But we really would need a source saying her words are not her own, rather then them saying there is a serious flaw in the practice (after all she could be the one case where it does work). It might be best to say something like "Sequenzia has said using facilitated communication".Slatersteven (talk) 17:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
And I have now talked myself round into thinking that as FC is a discredited fringe medical practice any claims made as a result of it are not reliable. So not, unless it can be shown these are her words nothing she writes can (to my mind) be considered reliable even for what they say.Slatersteven (talk) 18:04, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

RfC: HispanTV

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was option 3 and 4. There seems to be overwhelming consensus that HispanTV is both generally unreliable and that sometimes it even publishes outright fabrications. There was one dissenting argument, but the user making it provided no followup. Their argument that the Iranian view counterbalances systemic bias in Western sources (which does exist — I argue, acutely), seems diminished by how monolithic Islamic regime-dominated Iranian mainstream publications are (and I would even add opportunistic). El_C 04:22, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

HispanTV is similar to Press TV, so this could be checked out too.

  • Option 1: Generally
    reliable
    for factual reporting
  • Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
  • Option 3: Generally
    unreliable
    for factual reporting
  • Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be
    deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail

Thanks.----ZiaLater (talk) 13:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Bad Question. The top of this page suggests discussing "The Wikipedia article(s) in which the source is being used" and "The exact statement(s) in the article that the source supports" -- which this RfC isn't. And there's no mention of a dispute that would justify an RfC. And this is supposed to be about applications of policy e.g. WP:RS which emphasizes context, not about overriding WP:RS and linking to an essay. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • ​The question is fine, as editors frequently inquire about a source's general reliability on this noticeboard. However, I've removed the "RfC:" from the section's title, since this discussion doesn't use the {{rfc}} tag. If you would like to turn this discussion into an RfC, please follow the directions at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, and then change the section heading back. — Newslinger talk 21:08, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
    • I have unarchived this section (which archived yesterday) because after doing my homework, I forgot to come back to this, and also noticed that the first bit of feedback caused a problem. I hope I have unarchived it to the right place, and will post my response shortly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 3 or 4 for both,
    Telesur (TV channel)), and of more recent concern, I checked out a "documentary" from last week that was pure and classic, psychological warfare and conspiracy theory state propaganda. It is most unfortunate that the "documentary" is in Spanish, and others may not be able to appreciate the full impact—I hope anyone who speaks Spanish will view it. SandyGeorgia (Talk
    ) 16:08, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
    Press TV is already listed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, but is used to source BLPs; HispanTV is similar. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I went to their website last week to check on recent reporting, and found listed as a documentary on the HispanTV website a "report" on the blackouts in Venezuela:

The HispanTV "documentary" promotes ideas like the United States detonated a nuclear device to cause the blackouts, and while interviewing several "engineers", offers ZERO proof for this notion. It includes zero mention of mainstream information about the years of deterioration and maintenance issues that led to the blackouts. But the blackout "documentary" is only a pretext, as content moves quickly from discussion of the blackouts to pure stuff of conspiracy theory and psychological warfare. It is really just a crude propaganda video, although presented with some level of professional videography. It used the foundational claim that the U.S. caused the blackouts to move on to other conspiracy theories about the U.S., while using classic techniques like tight photo shots to imply limited support for government opposition, and different photo shots to imply broad support for Maduro. It offers the example of plenty of food available in Venezuela by showing images of several quite overweight Chavismo supporters who do have access to food (one can speculate whether the food was provided for the purposes of the video). It offers videos of opposition supporters who appear angrily deranged juxtaposed against the portrayal of calm patriotic government supporters. I hope others will watch it: classic propaganda that should have no place on Wikipedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Google blocks both
Anti-semitism claims
And all of these state media outlets (several already indicated as unreliable on Wikipedia) parrot each other, according to this from HispanTV—content that I cannot verify because archive.org link is empty:
According to the Antisemitism in Venezuela 2013 report by the Venezuelan Confederation of Israelite Associations (CAIV) which focuses on the issue of
TeleSUR, Venezolana de Televisión (VTV), Alba TV, La Radio del Sur, Radio Nacional de Venezuela (RNV), YVKE Mundial, Correo del Orinoco and Ciudad CCS.[1]
The Venezuelan Confederation of Israelite Associations states:[1]

"These media reproduce accurately the numerous notes that, on a daily basis, are published by HispanTV, a media that considers and treats the State of Israel and the Jewish people as enemies ... In other words, what HispanTV publishes on a daily basis, our media repeat without editing or changing anything, transforming Israel and the Jews into hated 'infidels' ... In this manner, HispanTV and its national repeaters use diverse fallacious or distorted arguments in order to delegitimize Israel’s existence, accuse it without evidence of all the evil in the world, especially in the Middle East and even going as far as gloating when involving Latin America and using the well known anti-Semitic prejudices applied to the Jewish State ... It is obvious that HispanTV, the Spanish Iranian TV channel, jointly with similar media such as Press TV in English besides other tools, are part of the ayatollahs’ huge propaganda apparatus".

References

  1. ^ a b "Antisemitisim in Venezuela 2013". Venezuelan Confederation of Israelite Associations. Archived from the original on 12 July 2014. Retrieved 13 January 2015. {{cite web}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; 13 January 2015 suggested (help)

Press TV is used to source quite a few BLPs:

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Option 3 or 4 In short, HispanTV is a Iranian state-owned corporation. The channel has already been removed in several European contries as well as in the United States, and journalists have noted its bias and lack of objectivity. --
    talk
    ) 17:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 1
    PressTV are both appropriate outlets that represent the Iranian point of view about global affairs. I believe that they are also both legitimate alternate sources of information because they report on the inaccuracies of Western outlets and are beneficial to provide a well-rounded and NPOV perspective for Wikipedia articles. -- Viva Nicolás (talk
    ) 01:00, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
    • User:Viva Nicolás, it would be helpful if you could provide an example of one of "the inaccuracies of Western outlets" reported by either of them. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:39, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 4 It is deprecated by everyone else, which would be perhaps the biggest red flag if I hadn't just taken a look and noticed its "reports" are not merely opinion, they are wild speculation, practically fantasy, reporting as fact that "[United States RS] hasn't mentioned [wild conspiracy theory supporting Iranian state dominance and humiliating US], which is plausible, without sources, just trust us". It's just... made up. It may be an Iranian POV, though I hope and believe not all Iranians live in such fantasyland, but it's not an accurate or encyclopedic source by any stretch of (their clearly extensive) imagination. Kingsif (talk) 23:55, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Could someone please explain why the bot keeps archiving this RFC, and how to make that stop? SandyGeorgia (Talk)
  • Between Option 3 and Option 4 - as RT (Russia) - these are Iranian propaganda outfits transmitting the regime's narrative from a country with no press freedom. The only plausible use of Iranian regime sources is to present the view/stmts of the Iranian regime itself.Icewhiz (talk) 21:46, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 4. Government run media in a country that currently ranks 170 out of 180 on the current press freedom index.[47] That alone is enough to almost grantee it's unreliable. After investigation, I see it's definitely unreliable. It runs conspiracy theories (particularly Jewish conspiracy theories), and I'm seeing a lot of "news stories" that are just repackaged wacky crap from the Russian disinformation machine. Alsee (talk) 13:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 2 - Context always matters, so I can not support options 3 or 4. Sure, There are likely to be few contexts in which this will be the most reliable source available, but we should allow it in contexts in which it is reliable. Blueboar (talk) 13:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Option 3 or Option 4 I think Option 4 is a understandable and appropriate option and given the evidence cited above, we would certainly not be acting bold in any way if we took that step. That being said, I am also sympathetic to Blueboar's point that context matters and there could be a point where their information is necessary. However, I am not absolutely sure that that need outweighs our accuracy considerations. Tfkalk (talk) 16:31, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
As this RfC has run for 30 days, I've submitted a request for closure at
WP:RFCL § Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: HispanTV. — Newslinger talk
17:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is LiveMixTapes a reliable source?

Hi folks. I noticed that, here and there,

Better source}}? --77.173.90.33 (talk
) 16:42, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

hmm..I'm thinking not..they claim it is "highly curated" but this is under their user terms and service under "user generated content" "LiveMixtapes users may post, upload and/or contribute (“post”) content to the Service, including text and playlist compilations (“User Content”). You are solely responsible for any User Content you provide and for any consequences thereof." Doesnt look hopeful. Curdle (talk) 18:00, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Hm, okay. Thanks for the feedback. --77.173.90.33 (talk) 19:33, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

"News Analysis" Pieces and WP:RS

WP:RS says this: 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, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Does "analysis" here include so-called "news analysis" pieces? For example, here's the sort of piece I have in mind: [48]. Here's another one from NYT: [49]. It seems to me that these pieces contain a lot of factual content, but they also include a good bit of opinion. For my part, I think it makes sense to treat these pieces with care, since they seem to blend opinion and fact in this way. Anyway, an editor suggested to me that there was already a broad consensus on this, and that such pieces are regarded as reliable for statements of fact. I could not find that consensus in the archives, but I may have missed it. Shinealittlelight (talk
) 01:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

These sources are almost always better when phrased with inline attribution. Telling the reader who says what is never wrong. Blueboar (talk) 01:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
If the part you want to quote is controversial or disputed, then attribute it. If it's the purely factual part, then just state it, because attribution makes facts appear to just be opinions which can be ignored. Just don't make facts appear to be opinions or vice versa. --
talk
) 03:29, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Two questions about this. First, do you say that "analysis" in the policy does not refer to the pieces I linked? Second, how do you propose to determine whether a particular claim in such a piece is a fact (vs. an opinion)? (These questions are sincere--I'm not asking them as covert arguments!) Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:40, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I'll answer the second part first. Check multiple RS to see if the "fact" is actually a fact. Use fact checkers liberally. Sometimes you'll have to wait a few days for more evidence to accumulate. Never use unreliable and fringe sources for this. In fact, don't read them, as they will confuse you. Don't believe people and
leaders
who are known to lie all the time.
The "assessment" of the news should remain factual, IOW an opinion can be factual, but if it's political spin or personal opinion, then be more careful. Use attribution in such cases. If the writer's assessment is counterfactual, don't use it at all. They are not a source you'll want to use. --
talk
) 03:49, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
If there is a "particular claim" in one of those sources you're wondering about, feel free to ask on my talk page. Maybe we can figure it out together. Being very specific is helpful. --
talk
) 03:56, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Safest is to use "opinion pieces" for opinions, cited, used and attributed as such. Op-eds, for example are not vetted by anyone else on a newspaper, and frequently, the use of adjectives is not found in actual sources. Collect (talk) 11:47, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

But are "news analysis" pieces like the two I linked to be counted as "opinion pieces"? Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:07, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
No as (presumably) as they are published under the auspices of the newspapers they reflect the editorial standards of those rags. Opp-edds are a special case because the newspaper makes it clear "we had nothing to do with this".Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The number of sources one finds information in is usually an indication of how to reference something. If something only appears in this so-called "news analysis", and no other source mentions it, I would be very deliberate about saying "So-and-so, writing in the New York Times, states that" so the reader knows exactly where it is coming from. If many different sources have the information (such that it is more generally available), then it is OK to just footnote. --Jayron32 15:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Should have added that myself, but I would say the same applied to any news story, or indeed any other source.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
@Jayron32: and @Slatersteven: this is very useful. Would either of you say that several "news analysis" pieces from different venues expressing similar opinion-ish claims would allow for unattributed citation, or would you want to see corroboration in straight news reports? My own sense is that, since these pieces are analyzing the news, any factual content should appear, well, in the news that they are analyzing! So my preference is to always cite the news sources for factual claims, and then attribute the "analysis" part to these sources. Then you can easily tell which parts are factual content, and which parts should be treated as opinion under the quoted policy, by looking at the underlying straight news reports. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:45, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Your preference is correct. Cite the news part without attribution, and attribute the opinion part. --
talk
) 17:56, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I concur with BullRangifer. If something is widely reported, there's no need to directly attribute it. One other thing to consider here; is that the analysis you are citing needs to be relevant and itself notable enough to bear reference to. Just about anyone can write just about anything they want. Some of them even get published in major publications. Before we include it in a Wikipedia article, we need to establish that it is relevant to the narrative the article is trying to tell. That, of course, requires
seek outside opinions on the relevance of the text. --Jayron32
18:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Wait, but BullRangifer, what I'm saying is this. Suppose you have five news reports that say "event e happened". Then you have a "news analysis" piece by author X that says "event e happened, and it happened because of reason R". Then my view is that we cite the five news reports, and not the "news analysis" piece, to support the factual claim that event e happened without attribution, but then we cite the "news analysis" piece (assuming it's due, reliable, etc.) to say that "according to X, this was because of reason R". If we followed this approach, we'd never cite "news analysis" without attribution; we'd always cite the underlying news reports instead. I think you don't agree with this approach. I'm not sure why, though. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't disagree with that approach as it is certainly an extremely cautious approach. Depending on the circumstances I might do one or the other. I'm just not very pedantic about this. If it was controversial I would be. I would just try to make sure the opinion was attributed, regardless of the source. --
talk
) 18:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight, you ask: "are "news analysis" pieces like the two I linked to be counted as "opinion pieces"?" Good question. There is some truth to that, but a real (not just the label on the article) news analysis article will still contain the factual news, whereas a purely opinion article may only mention it in passing, so you would treat them differently. The labels of "analysis" and "opinion" don't always describe the exact content. It can vary from article to article, even with the same author, but the label stays the same. Keep in mind that there are no absolutes here, so deal with each on a case-by-case basis. Other editors will also weigh in when you try to use a source, so take that into consideration.

There is a rather long sliding scale (see below about the Media Bias Chart) from "Original fact reporting" to the extremely partisan opinions which twist facts and end up being counterfactual, fake news, and conspiracy theories. With the latter, the dots of fact are real, but the connections between them can be unrelated to reality.

Analysis pieces are getting into the opinion area. If the analysis is controversial, it's better to treat it as opinion and attribute it. "When in doubt, attribute."

Most sources have some bias (the ones without are pretty boring), and our NPOV policy allows the use of biased sources. Opinions are part of the reality we are required to document. If their bias is so strong that it starts to affect their factuality, then don't use them for facts, but treat them as attributed opinion, or, if they are so biased that they become counterfactual, don't use them at all. That's the area where Hannity, Limbaugh, Ingraham, Solomon, Carter, Bongino, and most of the hosts at Fox News often dwell, and explains why we steer clear of them here. The real journalists at Fox News (Shep Smith and Chris Wallace) often scold the other hosts for their deceptive opinions, and the counterfactual pro-Trump spin doctors don't like that.

If you follow the principles in the Media Bias Chart you'll be on better ground. Study it often and stick with the sources within the green and yellow boxes. Treat the ones at the extreme left, right, and bottom of those boxes with caution. Don't use or read the sources in the orange and red boxes at all, not even outside of Wikipedia. (Only do it for careful research.) They'll poison your mind. Notice the descriptions on the left and right sides of the chart. The top starts with "Original fact reporting" and ends at the bottom with "Contains inaccurate/fabricated info".

That chart is the best one around. It's created by a non-partisan team which evaluates an enormous amount of data, and the chart gets revised occasionally, since some sources will start chasing stories down a rabbit hole of conspiracy, and that will get them downrated and reclassified. Fox News started out much higher, but as it has become more partisan and devoted to one single mission, to protect Trump, truth be damned, its accuracy has suffered greatly and it has been downrated. Other sources have also changed position. --

talk
) 16:18, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@
BullRangifer: Thanks for the reply. Let me make sure I understand your view on the specific question I'm asking, since you said a lot here. You're saying that the quoted policy applies to the controversial portions of "news analysis" pieces in reliable venues (e.g., WaPo and NYT), and that one must determine which parts of such pieces are controversial by building a consensus, case-by-case, on the relevant talk page. And you add that we should err in the direction of attributing if the consensus is impossible. Does that sound like a fair summary of what you're saying? Shinealittlelight (talk
) 17:39, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure that's a fair summary because I suspect you are making a more specific application, whereas I was addressing broad principles. Two different, but overlapping matters. --
talk
) 17:59, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I was trying to state the general principles you were endorsing. Perhaps I didn't quite understand you correctly. I don't see where I was misunderstanding, though. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I am not saying that you misunderstood me. I may not have been addressing your exact concerns, and that may explain any confusion on my part, and maybe yours. Don't try to squeeze too much orange juice out of my comments, as they may be made from mandarins. It's not a big deal. --
talk
) 18:44, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I would say, yes if several (by that I take it to mean organs, not writers) say something we do not need to attribute it. If however the claim is a contentious one we should say "but according to some.." or some such thing.Slatersteven (talk) 17:49, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok, so that brings you somewhat in line with BullRangifer, who also advocates distinguishing the controversial from non-controversial parts and treating only the controversial parts as opinion. What would you say about the approach I endorsed, where we always look to the underlying news reports for the factual content, assuming that what can't be sourced in those reports is the "analysis" that should be attributed? Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I strongly oppose this line of thinking. If the factual parts of an analysis are supported by non-analysis reporting, then there is no need to cite the analysis... we can cite the non-analysis reporting instead. The analytical parts, however, are opinion (perhaps expert opinion, but opinion never the less)... and thus should be attributed. Blueboar (talk) 18:43, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
This is exactly the view I support. Nicely stated. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
In case this wasn't clear, I meant I support Blueboar's view, not BullRangifer's. Sorry, BullRangifer. I still don't understand why this approach is not favored by the rest of you. It seems like the most careful approach that is least likely to lead to POV pushing. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm surprised that this hasn't come up more often. See [50], [51], and [52] to see how this developed.
User:Blueboar, do you remember the conversations leading up to this? It looks like it happened as a result of Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 33#PROPOSAL: Ban Fox News as a source of information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Just a couple of comments up from your notice on that page, I said, and I quote: I've opened a discussion of this at RSN if anyone would like to weigh in. Did you not see that? Grr indeed! lol. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
You're right. Apologies.
R2 (bleep
) 00:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I hereby strike my retaliatory growl. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:43, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I think participants could benefit from a better understanding of how these "News Analysis" pieces work. The differences among various types of stories is described by The New York Times in its Readers' Guide. (I linked to an archived version because the current version is behind a paywall.) "News Analysis" pieces are not editorials and they are not op-eds. They are edited by the newsroom staff, like standard news reporting, they include "thorough reporting," and they are "subject to the same requirements of factual accuracy." The difference between "News Analysis" and standard news is that News Analysis "draws heavily on the expertise of the writer. The article helps the reader understand underlying causes or possible consequences of a news event, but does not reflect the writer's personal opinion." We can draw from this what some editors have noted here, which reflects our typical practice with these sources. Factual reporting is reliable and can generally be cited without attribution. Conclusions that seem subjective or value-laden can be cited but only with attribution. Attribution should be to The New York Times, not to the author, since these conclusions reflect the editorial judgment of the Times, not the personal opinion of the author.
I haven't managed to find an explanation of The Washington Post's "Analysis" pieces, but I think it's similar. From my personal reading experience I suspect the Post gives its analysis writers just a touch more leeway than the Times gives its writers. But the principles and how they apply to WP are the same.
R2 (bleep
) 00:09, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I have a few questions for you about this,
Ahrtoodeetoo
.
First, do you think the policy I've quoted, which uses the word "analysis," does or does not refer to these sorts of pieces? And, if it doesn't refer to them, do you at least think the policy as it is currently worded is misleading or should be changed?
Second, is there any other policy that is currently written that can be cited as support for the view you're describing, where editors are required in a case-by-case way to determine which parts of such pieces are "value laden" or "subjective" or "contentious" or ... well, lots of words can and have been used here, and it isn't very clear what word we should use--anyway, is there such a policy?
Third, it seems like you're suggesting that we should treat each source's pieces according to their "reader guide" (or analogous document). This seems to me very impractical, and that seems to me to count against your approach.
Fourth, why do you oppose the view Blueboar and I have laid out?
Fifth, your view of NYT "news analysis" seems to stray from the NYTs own description of these pieces. They say that opinion does not occur in them at all, right? Do you disagree with their characterization? Or is it that the parts you call "subjective" or "value-laden" are not "opinion"? I'm not clear on what you think here. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:40, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
This isn’t a debate society.
R2 (bleep
) 01:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Huh. I thought that this is a place to reason together about what sources are reliable. That's what I was doing. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm not going to answer your 5 questions but I am willing to provide the following response.
I've seen a thread through your understanding of WP:RS that I'll submit is misplaced. Namely, when a publication uses a particular word that appears in WP:RS (such as "opinion" or "analysis"), that doesn't mean that the publication means it in the same way we do in our guideline. This is evidenced by the fact that, as I demonstrated, an "analysis" piece means something different when it comes from The New York Times than when it comes from The Washington Post.
Why does this matter? Because when these publications label their pieces as "Opinion," that doesn't mean that every sentence in those pieces is an opinion, and therefore it doesn't mean that
WP:NEWSORG
automagically applies.
WP:RS doesn't explain the difference between fact and opinion. For that, you can consult a dictionary, or perhaps an elementary school learning tool. (As an aside, here's a relevant article.)
R2 (bleep
) 23:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I think it's rude of you to direct me to that material for children. Your proposal is incoherent, unworkable, and inferior to the proposal that Blueboar and I have made. That's the force of the questions I asked that you didn't answer. Your point that because the policy says that opinion and analysis pieces are "rarely" appropriate sources for statements of fact is well taken. That implies that there's a strong, but not total, presumption against using them as sources for such statements. Since this isn't a debate society, perhaps we should conclude this exchange. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I didn't mean to offend. My point is that the distinction between fact and opinion is one we learn as children and doesn't require an explanation in our guidelines. My "proposal" isn't a proposal but is simply common practice, though it's certainly not universal. It's perfectly coherent and workable, but I'm not suggesting that you must adhere to it.
R2 (bleep
) 00:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Apology accepted. Unfortunately, you are right that it is common practice to use these pieces for statements of fact, and in my view this is out of step with the plain language of the policy, according to which they should only "rarely" be used for that purpose. It certainly is incoherent to suggest that NYT reader guide is authoritative, while also maintaining both (i) that this guide says that "analysis" pieces are free of opinion, and (ii) that there is nevertheless opinion in these pieces. That's what you seem to have said, so it's hard to follow. Also, it is certainly unworkable to require each RS to be assessed according to a corresponding reader guide, so that for example NYT "analysis" pieces get treated differently than WaPo "analysis" pieces. That's going to be a total mess, and it is not common practice at this point as far as I can tell. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:32, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

All I did was look at the publications’ editorial practices. That is perfectly workable, coherent, and common. People here do it all the time, and it’s perfectly consistent with the guideline. It’s certainly not forbidden by the guideline. If you disagree, I suppose you could raise the issue at

R2 (bleep
) 01:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Before you two get much further along in this, I'd like to remind you more clearly that this language was added to the guideline in the context of television shows (i.e., not the newspapers you're looking at), and specifically about one called Hannity, whose article says that it does political and legal "analysis". If you want to know what editors actually intended to limit, it's whatever that show does. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:51, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks WhatamIdoing. I have nothing else to say about R2's view. It looks to me as if participants in the old discussion decided that Hannity does news analysis, and so they decided to state a policy on news analysis. If we're now suggesting that the policy was rewritten too broadly, and should not say that news analysis is only rarely appropriate support for statements of fact, which is what it now says, then we should revisit the policy. But my view is that the policy is well written as it stands, and that news analysis, whether it's in a written form in NYT or a television format elsewhere, should be used only rarely for unattributed statements of fact. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:34, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't think that you should assume that anything that every single thing that is called "analysis" was meant to be covered. For one thing, if analytical sources were banned, then we'd have to re-write
WP:SECONDARY. WhatamIdoing (talk
) 19:32, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough, I agree. But the context is one in which opinion pieces in news media are under discussion. In that context, to say that analysis pieces should not be relied upon for statements of fact is fairly unambiguously referring to "news analysis" pieces in newspapers. Or, at any rate, that seems like a natural interpretation, and much more natural than the idea that it's referring to all "analytical sources". In any case, it's undeniable that these "news analysis" pieces do contain some opinion, and plausibly the policy on opinion pieces should apply to them, no? Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:19, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Breitbart News ... but hear me out

Hello guys. I'm well-aware of Breitbart News' blacklisting here. But I want to propose a specific use for it. I specialize in articles about the Mexican Drug War and have formally studied the topic for over a decade. One of Breitbart News' drug war writers is Ildefonso Ortiz, who is regarded as an expert in the field (specifically on the Gulf Cartel and Los Zetas crime syndicates). He used to work for

✉ • ✎
) 15:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Who regards him as an expert?Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Several books have cited him specifically on the Gulf Cartel/Zetas: see here. They mention him as a "top journalist" (the book is about Los Zetas and
✉ • ✎
) 16:04, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
That is one book, and lists him as a journalist, not an expert in the drug cartels. Nor does it say what he was used for, he was one of a umber of sources used for a table. This does not make him a recognized expert, it makes him a journalist.Slatersteven (talk) 16:09, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
He's mentioned as a "top journalist", but OK, point noted. Grayson also mentions him in another of his books: "I must mention Ildefonso Ortiz, an investigate reporter for the Monitor of McAllen, Texas, who courageously allows his by-line to appear in first-rate articles about the Gulf Cartel, Los Zetas, border atrocities, and related subjects." see here.
✉ • ✎
) 16:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Another journalist who wrote a book about the Gulf Cartel mentions him: "The journalists of the Rio Grande Valley, Marcia Caltabiano Ponce, Lynn Brezosky, and Ildefonso Ortiz, who knows more about organized crime in the area than anyone I know and who I hope one day will write his own book, provided context and contacts that proved invaluable." see here.
✉ • ✎
) 16:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
That a bit better, but I would point out its still only two people. If this was not Breitbart we were talking about I might agree he is RS. I am not sure its enough, if he was this good why is he not writing for a more mainstream and reliable source?Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
He's cited in other books too, which I can share. But the two above are my strongest examples. To answer your question, I have no idea. I guess it's b/c of the money. I also don't know how much demand there is for what he writes (like I said, some of what he writes might be "too niche" for the average American reader). No idea. But hopefully we can treat articles written by Ortiz on a case-by-case basis?
✉ • ✎
) 16:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Why not just cite what he's written in "the Monitor of McAllen, Texas"? Local papers are considered RS. Good journalists don't usually write for partisan sources like Breitbart. It damages their credibility. --
talk
) 02:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
@
✉ • ✎
) 03:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Can't you access his old articles at the Monitor, or are you only interested in the new stuff he writes at Breitbart? If it's only the new stuff, start following a different journalist, because his cred is dirt now. --
talk
) 03:24, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
If the material is actually useful and reliable, I'd expect sources besides Breitbart to pick it up. Otherwise, sorry, but the site has a well-known reputation for terrible fact-checking and outright lying when politically convenient. Given that the drug war in Mexico can be intertwined with American politics and specifically fear-mongering around immigration from Mexico and Central America, I would not trust Breitbart on this issue at all. If he's a good reporter, he should find a better outlet for his material than the Trumpist/Bannonite equivalent of Pravda. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:53, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't expect others to cover it in that level of detail, since most of what Ortiz writes would probably be considered too niche for other outlets. But I get what you're saying about the Mexican/American politics thing. That's my biggest concern here, but I'm trying to evaluate the journalist on his own merit.
✉ • ✎
) 16:04, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Agree with NorthBySouthBaranof. As long as Breitbart has any degree of editorial control, it's not a reliable source. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:17, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
And the points above should be ignored? Ortiz is regarded by other journalists in the same field as reliable. I know this discussion will probably go overwhelmingly against me just because others will see "Breitbart" and not give it a chance, but Breitbart is already blacklisted and citing a single source would require to individually whitelist it. Could a case-by-case use of a source help? That's more reasonable to me.
✉ • ✎
) 16:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
We do whitelist the use of single pieces of content from blacklisted sources, but normally only for use in the bio of the person doing the writing, ergo what they write about themselves, never about others. --
talk
) 02:34, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I'd be one to probably find a way to allow this, but I'm not seeing the type of evidence I'd like to see to agree to this. I think it is unfair to criticize Ortiz working for BBN and immediately discrediting his work because of BBN's nature - a good journalist that has done their own fact checking is not going to change that approach. But at the same time, I would like to see what others in the news world see about Ortiz's work at BBN, and the lack of any real usable hits via GNews using "Ildefonso Ortiz -site:breitbart.com" is a sign that Ortiz may not be the fundamental expert on the war on drugs. If Ortiz' work was referenced more by other sources (and not questioning reliability of what Ortiz says), then I would be fine with this exception, but I just don't see enough here to consider that. --Masem (t) 16:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your thorough response. To clarify: Ortiz is well-respected specifically for his work on the Gulf Cartel and Los Zetas. I would not use him for the general drug war (not because he isn't reliable, but because I could probably use other sources here). Here is an article that talks about Ortiz from the view of another journalist now that Ortiz works for BBN: "Many of you reading this are probably skeptical of Breitbart Texas, which is a right-wing news site with a reputation for erratic quality; I get that, but in general I put more stock in individual reporters than in the outlet they work for, or the ideological affiliation of either, and I have a high opinion of Darby and Ortiz as border reporters. Both have extensive experience and expertise, built up over time. Both have a lot of good sources, including in law enforcement, notably. Both are aggressive and have a record of breaking news..."
✉ • ✎
) 16:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The problem remains that the item was published by an unreliable source, meaning, they probably did not do the stringent fact-checking that are done by RS. Even credible authors expect their work to be subject to fact-checking, but we know from history that Breitbart does not fact check.
    YO
    😜 16:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
The gist of my objection, I call it the Irving conundrum. A given writer may at first be perfectly respectable (even reliable), until there is no longer anyone around to control their worst impulses. Then they publish personal opinion as researched fact.Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Reason enough to allow it. While I'm no fan of Breitbart or the Daily Mail et al, incidents like what we have here now are reason enough to exercise extreme caution about blacklisting sources, especially considering the mess stemming from 2016 forward that caused major problems for quite a few RS as demonstrated by the following reports:
And it goes on and on. The following excerpt from one of Jimbo's TP comments describes it quite well (my bold):

"I'd like to add that I don't mind a little bit of personal chit-chat here about politics, I'd like to always seek to tie it back to Wikipedia. We have chosen a very tough job: NPOV. Dislike for the President, fear about things that are happening in the world, may make it emotionally harder to remain neutral, but remain neutral we must. I happen to personally think that given the decline in quality of the media across the board (there are still fantastic journalists out there, but overall the landscape isn't great) the best way for us to help the world heal is neutrality."--Jimbo Wales

Atsme Talk 📧 11:44, May 14, 2019
Which says nothing about reliability of sources. Of coarse we should be neutral, that does not mean giving an idiot the same weight as a genius. Now if the argument was "we should never use any news media" I would agree, that is how to achieve better neutrality, wait until;l the experts actually deign to notice it. What I cannot accept is the idea that just because it is "right wing" it should be allowed lesser editorial controls (in this case none) in the name of Neutrality.Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
WP:RECENTISM come close but I'm thinking you're referring only to Jimbo's comment. The point I was impressing upon more than Jimbo's comment was the list of sources pointing out the errors and omissions (which is how my former media liability insurance listed it back when I was doing field production for CNN) of RS in MSM. News sources are not infallible and are driven by the hand that feeds them - it's a survival thing - whereas academics enjoy some protection from dictates by university funders. I am more interested in what the historians and academics surmise once all the media frenzy has died down...and it will. It's the nature of the beast. Atsme Talk 📧
18:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
As I said I agree it would be a good idea to ban all news media, including new media. But that is not the question being asked.Slatersteven (talk) 19:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Not sure I'm parsing this correctly. Are you arguing that all mainstream media sources (including those that we generally consider reliable) are unreliable and/or biased/problematic, so we should also use the sources that are broadly considered unreliable? I don't think anyone will disagree that academic sources are preferable, but news media certainly are not equivalent. (Sorry if I'm misreading you). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:18, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Even if Breitbart were not blacklisted, but was rated as "generally unreliable," the articles would not meet rs. Journalists are not experts and their articles are only reliable sources when appearing in reliable publications such as mainstream media or book publishers. When a journalist writes outside the mainstream, they do not have the same constraints such as double sourcing, documentation of investigations, fact-checking and post-publication error correction. Also, original investigations by reporters present a problem of weight. Generally I would only use information in them that had been picked up in other sources. However, the Breitbart ban does not extend to Ortiz articles published in reliable sources or where his reporting is mentioned in them. TFD (talk) 16:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. And trust me, I'd love to use other sources if I could (and I have when they exist). But most of the Tamaulipas local press won't write about the Gulf Cartel and Los Zetas due to self-censorship, and use Ortiz and others to get their information to the public. I've refrained myself from writing at least two new articles because at least one source would be of Ortiz's making. Now, Mexican bloggers often report on the same incidents Ortiz do, but anonymously. Here is an article (unreliable b/c its a blog) that is likely run by "citizen-journalists" and reporters. Ortiz wrote about the same incident too (article titled Gulf Cartel Leaders Presumed Dead in Turf War near Texas Border, since I cannot post it here), but using his English platform. I usually cross-reference this to make sure Ortiz's work in BBN is "fact-checked". BTW, in the BBN article I shared, it mentions he worked with "J.A. Espinoza", who in The Guardian is cited as a Mexican journalist from Tamaulipas. Hope this helps.
✉ • ✎
) 16:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
If other publications ignore this information then it lacks weight for inclusion in any article. Articles should "strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." And of course, even considering the reputation of the journalist, we don't know now accurate the information is. Also, since Wikipedia articles rate high on Google searches, by using this source we would be providing the information more exposure than it otherwise would have. In that case, Wikipedia could be in a role of influencing public opinion.That would be particularly embarrassing if the information turned out to be incorrect. TFD (talk) 17:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
It depends. In this situation in specific, it seems like the information is not covered elsewhere in the Mexican press due to censorship (see pg. 4 of CPJ here, which talks about the role of the Gulf Cartel in the local Tamaulipas press). We all know Latin America is mostly under-represented in the U.S./World news, so I'm not surprised most of these incidents do not reach the U.S. media. I'm trying to make a specific case for Ortiz's work and still treat it as a case-by-case every time we cite his work.
✉ • ✎
) 18:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Not necessarily in this case, but I would take issue with "journalists are not experts". Investigative journalists can certainly be experts if their sole focus on reporting is that topic area, they have shown to have connections to authoritative sources, etc. Investigative journalists may not be the authoritative source, but more often better present and come to conclusions on information than the authoritative source. --Masem (t) 17:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Expert can mean different things. Someone could be for example an expert in flipping hamburgers. But I think in this case it means authoritative. Someone who typically has a PhD in the field, has published articles in peer-reviewed journals and whose opinions are routinely cited in learned papers and textbooks. TFD (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I still wouldn't use Breitbart, even if one of their journalists used to work for a real newspaper. Unfortunately, his work is tainted by their lack of editorial quality. His work published outside of Breitbart is probably OK, but him writing for Breitbart does not fix the problems with it as a source. Simply put: he hitched his wagon to the wrong horse. --Jayron32 16:54, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Question... if this guy had self-published his reports (say in a blog) would his reputation be enough for us to accept them under the WP:EXPERT clause of SELFPUB? If so, this may be a valid WP:IAR situation. The actual publisher does not matter, because we would accept it even if self published. Blueboar (talk) 17:49, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Excellent question Blueboar. Atsme Talk 📧 18:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I do not think anyone has produced evidence they alter their own staff stories.Slatersteven (talk) 18:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
In fact, I think there's consensus that Ortiz is / could be considered "reliable". The question is all about Breitbart and fact-checking at this point. I don't see harm in treating his articles on a case-by-case. Many others in his field (as shown above) have lauded at his work and reliability.
✉ • ✎
) 18:29, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
If Ortiz were self-publishing, absolutely we could use his work, as he's a noted subject matter expert, or I'm assuming that everything written about him here is accurate. But that's not the case here. He's not self-publishing, he's publishing under Breitbart's brand and under their editorial influence, which means that there is at least an open question as to how much he has had to temper his normally reliable expert opinion to meet the extreme bias of the publisher. I think you make a good case for evaluating normally blacklisted sources on a case-by-case basis in this manner, but I think that Breitbart is right out. In my opinion it doesn't even matter whether or not or to what degree this editorial influence actually exists, just the possibility that it might makes anything published by Breitbart suspect, and thus a poor source with respect to
reliability
.
Reliability is a spectrum, of course, but you're talking about using something published by "the platform of the alt-right" to describe criminal activity in Mexico in the "build the wall" era. I just can't think of any way Wikipedia can claim NPOV based on that kind of source. If you can find other more reliable publications using Ortiz's work or repeating his statements/opinions, I think there would be no problem with that. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I do not think that being a journalist makes one an expert in terms of SELFPUB, otherwise op-eds would almost all be reliable sources. TFD (talk) 01:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
"
WP:SPS rules do not mention academic degrees or limit that status to peer-reviewed publications. WhatamIdoing (talk
) 06:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

The Daily Mail also has/had widely acclaimed theatre and film review teams despite otherwise being flagrantly a populist tabloid. So it wouldn't be the first time we throw the baby out with the bathwate because "right-wing bad". --Pudeo (talk) 18:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Not reliable. I agree with Wikimandia and TFD's reasoning. Reliability is first and foremost about the reputation of the publication and its editorial staff. As unintuitive as it might seem, the reputation of the author is secondary.
    R2 (bleep
    ) 23:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

London Gazette" (or other Newspapers of record) as an authoritative source. It would also mean that Wikipedia articles such as Eritrean–Ethiopian War (1998–2000) could not have been written until years after it was. The article was created in 2005 and by the end of that year was an unusual article (for the time) for carrying so many citations, nearly all of them citations to news reports. It would mean that articles on those found guilty of genocide and war crimes at the Hague, would not have the conviction added to their biographies until some academic journal published something on it -- possibly years afterwards, unless the article relied on the primary source of the trial transcript (or court press press-release) which are currently considered to be less desirable than using a new report as a secondary source (see for example List of Bosnian genocide prosecutions). -- PBS (talk
) 12:23, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeas that is what it would mean, it would also mean we would not have to update articles on terrorist attacks or scandals every time a new story is published in the press. We do not have to rush in and write up a story to get a scoop, we are an encyclopedia, not a news paper.Slatersteven (talk) 12:31, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
I think the use of news media to create timely articles like Eritrean–Ethiopian War and the List of Bosnian genocide prosecutions outweigh the bother of "hav[ing] to update articles on terrorist attacks or scandals every time a new story is published in the press".
People come to Wikipedia articles to look for details about things they are interested in, which can often be events in the news/current affairs, this often includes birth, marriage and death of people mentioned in the news-media. Are you seriously stating that Wikipedia ought not not mention these events in Wikipedia articles, unless the events have been published in a non-news-media, non-pimary, reliable source? -- PBS (talk) 13:04, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Given how often they get many of these things wrong, no. We do not need to rush in and have timely stories. Anymore then a real encyclopedia does.Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
It is not a matter of timely "stories" but timely facts within articles. Take for example the article mentioned previously the "Eritrean–Ethiopian War" (1998–2000) where should facts in that article be found? I ask because before 2006 there were next to no publication other than news articles. The only book that existed was "Brothers at War: Making Sense of the Eritrean- Ethiopian War" by Tekeste Negash (Oxford: James Currey, 2000). If one looks at for example "Dealing With Conflict in Africa: The United Nations and Regional Organizations" edited by J. Boulden (Springer, 4 December 2003) then the notes on the journal article by W. Ofuatey-Kodjoe called "Ethiopia-Eritrea war" also relies on news reports similar to those used in the Wikipedia article see pages 179 ff. The Negash article is not very detailed on the actions in the war (military history), but is predominantly an analysis of the political/cultural causes of the war, and political efforts by third parties to end the war. -- PBS (talk) 15:28, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
This deraill has gone on too long and is not about the thread.Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Twitter

We can see that numerous articles use Twitter as references. We also have Template:Cite tweet for this. However, Twitter is a kind of social media, similar to Facebook and Youtube, do they still considered as reliable source? --219.79.97.3 (talk) 06:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Tweets would be considered like any other self-published source - potentially reliable for uncontroversial statements by a subject about itself, subject being the owner of the twitter account. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

John Solomon

1. Sources.

2. Article. Spygate (conspiracy theory)

3. Content. Wookian has proposed adding content described as follows: The content would be a brief summary of how the FBI used the Steele Dossier in their FISA application(s) for Carter Page, even though State Dept had previously become aware of inaccuracies and partisan motivation of Christopher Steele, and had actually reached out to Strzok's team about the interview. As Solomon documents, the State Dept secretary who met with Steele and then wrote to the FBI discovered that Steele wanted to get his material out before the election to damage Trump (partisan motivation), and that he claimed there was illicit activity at the Russian embassy in Miami - when no such embassy even exists.

R2 (bleep
) 23:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Even worse than i thought. Solomon is a "contributor" to The Hill. Here's the application form to become a contributor. There's already consensus here that articles written by Hill contributors should be treated as self-published. See
R2 (bleep
) 00:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
R2 (bleep
) 02:58, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
WP: EXCEPTIONAL, etc. And I'm also saying that the arguments given above (namely: that he was pictured standing with some people that some of us dislike, that some of us disagree with his opinions, or that The Hill has stated that his opinions are not necessarily theirs, or that his non-opinion journalism has been criticized) are obviously not good reasons to treat this differently than we treat any RS opinion. Shinealittlelight (talk
) 11:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood my question. My question is how to apply your understanding of
R2 (bleep
) 14:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I would not object just on the basis of unreliability to using Solomon's work with attribution. Using it in this specific context might face other objections that are not relevant on the reliable sources noticeboard. I'm not commenting on that. I think it's important to register, however, that Solomon's work is RS opinion, and that the arguments to the contrary above are very weak, even if his work is not usable in the context in question for some other reason. The current consensus, as noted on the summary page, is that opinion contributors at The Hill do not have appropriate editorial oversight. I'm unaware of any good evidence for this, and I think it should be changed. As far as I can tell, these opinion pieces in the Hill should be treated as RS opinion. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm just trying to understand your position. So you're saying that everything in these sources should be treated as "RS opinion" rather than as factual reporting, and therefore citable with attribution (other policies aside), because The Hill has marked them as opinion?
R2 (bleep
) 15:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that's right, with two additional remarks: first, "other policies aside" is really important there--obviously opinion pieces in the Hill might be fringe or not prominent enough or irrelevant or undue or whatever. Second, it isn't just because the Hill has marked them as opinion; it's because The Hill is a reliable source, and so I'm deferring to the judgment of the editors at that publication. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:10, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
"Manufacturing fake controversies" is right. Solomon's history of "journalism" is full of instances where he publishes stories that insinuate a controversy for a Democrat (always Democrats) by omitting basic information and crucial context that make clear that there is no controversy. The stories always fall apart under the slightest of scrutiny from reliable sources.
talk
) 15:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
As I said above, the fact that his non-opinion journalism has been criticized does not seem to bear on whether his opinion pieces at the Hill are correctly regarded as reliable with attribution. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:43, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
This is not "criticism". The "stories" he publishes are just straight-up misleading and/or false.
talk
) 15:45, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
He's been criticized. That's a perfectly appropriate word. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Not reliable - We already know that The Hill contributors are essentially unedited opinion columns, and there doesn't appear to be any evidence that Solomon himself has a reputation for journalistic credibility; to the contrary, he's apparently viewed within the profession as a partisan hack (as per above sources). NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    So what? We cite partisan hacks all the time, if they have something noteworthy to say. Attributed of course. — JFG talk 06:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
    The difference here is that the content sought to be added isn't some noteworthy opinion by an involved party, expert, or famous partisan hack. It's factual reporting by a discredited journalist, with the word "opinion" slapped onto it so that the publisher can avoid liability.
    R2 (bleep
    ) 22:23, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Kinda like Dan Rather, would you say? Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
I didn't know Rather had that sort of reputation in the journalism community, but maybe.
R2 (bleep
) 03:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Well, of course it is political and controversial, just like with Solomon, and some people won't admit to this day that Rather did anything wrong. He had falsely reported that CBS had obtained and authenticated documents allegedly proving that George W. Bush had failed to live up to his obligations during his National Guard service. This was right about the time that he "retired" (or was forced out), and he's never taken responsibility. But, for all that, I'd be fine with someone citing an opinion piece he wrote in the Atlantic, as long as it met the other relevant criteria for inclusion and as long as it was attributed. Here's why: Wikipedia editors have to defer to the editorial judgment of the Atlantic, just like they have to defer to the editorical judgment of the Hill. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Not reliable – We include attributed opinions now and again. But, the source has to have some credibility. Article John Solomon (political commentator) uses cites to show quite the opposite. Opinions from someone with no evidence of credibility have no weight, unless it’s in an article about them. O3000 (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Reliable for his own views – Can be used with attribution, just like any opinion source. — JFG talk 06:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Reliable with attribution - like any opinion piece in a RS. Atsme Talk 📧 01:44, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Not reliable. As with all sources, he's reliable for his own opinion on his own article, but he's not reliable enough to be used anywhere else. It's rather sad how he used to be a good journalist, but his path has been downward for several years. Now he's extremely partisan, ignores proven facts, and spins everything in one direction, facts be damned. He'd be accepted on Fox News.
We are always tasked with rating sources as RS, opinion, and then fringe and counterfactual. We distribute weight accordingly between the first two, but leave out the last. He's in the last group. Differing opinions about facts are okay, but denying them or hiding them is not. --
talk
) 21:13, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


Sources

  1. ISSN 0190-8286
    . Retrieved 2018-05-15.
  2. ^ "John Solomon Gives Us Less Than Meets the Eye -- Again". Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved 2017-11-01.
  3. ^ "Something fishy?". Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved 2018-05-15.
  4. ^ "Wash. Times' new executive editor, John Solomon, has history of distortion". Media Matters for America. 2008-01-15. Retrieved 2017-12-16.
  5. ^ Wemple, Erik (2018-01-17). "Opinion | Staffers at The Hill press management about the work of John Solomon". Washington Post. Retrieved 2018-01-23.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_265&oldid=1187779112"