Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 337

Israeli website

Just looking at their Wikipedia article and the site itself, apparently they have a pronounced bias and there are some concerns about the lack of attribution but they haven't published outright lies. With regards to the Syrian civil war article, I think that

WP:EXCEPTIONAL applies: if they are the only source that says that NATO supports the opposition it's probably not good enough. Alaexis_¿question?

09:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable. It is a sensationalist site, posting many rumors.Free1Soul (talk) 14:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I've just added the following to Wikipedia:List of citogenesis incidents:

In 2016, an IP-editor

For "DYK" statements, I highly suspect the Tehran Times cannot be trusted. In this example, I think it is reliable for the fact that the church is being repaired. Just not for stuff they looked up to pad out the article. @4nn1l2: courtesy ping as this came up on AfD. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 08:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• The art of copy&paste has flourished in Iran, and Tehran Times is a key contributor :) The Merry misspelling is ridiculous, as fa:مریم is the famous Mary, mother of Jesus. The number for population seems baseless too. According to the 1956 census (the first census in Iran), Chamaki's polpulation was 164 people (83 men and 81 women)^[2]. The population has since decreased to 33 people in 1986 and exactly 0 in 2016. So the number 600 is nonsense.
• Not only Tehran Times, but also any other "newspaper" or "news agency" in Iran [the world?] is not a good source for statistics. Use the figures published by the Iranian statistical centre. They are reliable. 4nn1l2 (talk) 08:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Citogenesis is a great concern with any source that doesn't show its work. When secondary sources cite their claims it allows readers to follow the pedigree through the published literature. It's absolutely essential for some readers. For neutral style of writing (not all academic writing is neutral) it is indispensable. This is an issue with all mass media sources, but is more common in countries like Turkey, Iran and India. These are not preferred sources for history. Spudlace (talk) 06:42, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Brian Dunning, “science writer and author, and also the Executive Director of Skeptoid Media”^[1] has been used as an ostensibly reliable source^[2] to support a claim made in the WP Grey alien article.^[3] I submit however that Brian Dunning should not be considered a reliable source for the following reasons:

Brian Dunning plead guilty to and was convicted of felony wire fraud (2014), scamming eBay out of an estimated $5 million dollars.^[4][5] With his Skeptoid podcast, Dunning purported to defend the wider public from fraud even while committing fraud himself^[6] – indeed, according to many commentators, including blackmailing a co-conspirator^[7] and defrauding his own Skeptoid supporters in the same scam.^[8] A further indication of Dunning’s character and reliability has been highlighted, also from within his own constituency: “I did not think it was right to gloat when the cultural opposition falters or ceases to be an issue as when Sylvia Browne died. I do not think it proper, or rational to gloat when a skeptic has faltered either.”^[9]

I would like thank the community and ask for a consideration of this matter. Tesldact Smih (talk) 05:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Tesldact Smih, Dunning is a respected expert on this topic. His issues with eBay are not as simple as appears on the surface: he was basically stitched up, but acknowledged that he should have realised that what he was doing was impermissible. That's not relevant to his expertise on the subject of ufology folklore. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@JzG: what are your sources for these claims? - Scarpy (talk) 19:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

FileMaker Pro guru, I listened to Skeptoid for about a year but stopped after his conviction because I was uncomfortable with the lack of judgment it implied. Guy (help! - typo?

) 19:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Guy, I have to agree with Scarpy. What are the sources you rely upon for that assessment? If it is Dunning’s explanation (then talk to the guilty and and they will always plead their innocence to you), please see A Critical Analysis of Brian Dunning’s Explanation^[10]

And Dunning is certainly not a reliable source, his DDT fail is a perfect example.^[11][12][13]

Nor is he particularly respected by his own supporters, who tend toward outrage. “The outrage, however, comes from knowing that I enjoyed Skeptoid enough to do the $4/month donation for several months, finally caving to Dunning’s frequent postscript pleas for money. The donation requests were interesting, since Skeptoid once billed itself as “the only podcast that does not accept donations or sponsors,”^[14]

And a duplicitous hypocrite… In an interview with Alex Tsarkis, after Tsarkis has questioned Dunning about why he will not debate his opponents, Dunning argues the principle that it is easy to throw out false or misleading “one-liners”, but to prove them false often takes a great deal of time and effort.

“They’re [whoever Dunning’s opponent of the moment is] not limited to anything. They can say whatever the heck they want. They can throw that stuff out way faster and make it up way quicker than I could ever keep up with or respond to. I’ve found that many debates go that way. I attend a debate sometimes. I watch them.”

However, a few minutes later, after Dunning has engaged in the precise practice that he has just berated his opponents for, Alex Tsakiris politely notes Dunning’s hypocrisy: “You are fulfilling [laughs], you are fulfilling your prophesy about debate. You just laid out about ten points there that would have to be deconstructed and handled one at a time.

A few minutes later, Alex Tsakiris notes Dunning’s habit of lying by omission: “So you just mentioned Scargle’s commentary. Why don’t you mention Nelson’s response to it, published in the Journal for Scientific Exploration, a peer-review journal that he wrote a response to that? Or, the additional papers that have been published since then as a response to it? We have two folks debating here. Don’t we want to hear both sides of the debate?

Alex Tsakiris: I think it’s also an interesting context that do you remember where Scargle’s criticism, where that’s published? It’s published in the same Journal for Scientific Exploration that Nelson and Raden published their articles…”^[15]

Dunning is implacably biased…and the problem with Dunnings wilful ignorance of (potentially) falsifying evidence is that one must forever after be fact-checking whatever the man says. Demonstrably the man cannot be relied upon to provide an honest appraisal of whatever he is talking about.

Oh, and Guy, just because you know someone as a "guru" in one field (Filemaker), does not make them an expert in ufology, nor in FileMaker apparently... Dunnings self-proclaimed qualifications as revealed in his FBI interview prior to his charging and conviction (Dunning plead Guilty btw ETA: ...and he went to prison):

”Summary from FBI record of interview 19 June 2007 which records Dunning's statements: / 1. He has had very little formal education. / 2. He does not have a college degree. (He quit college.) / 3. He attended classes at BYU, UCLA, and UC Irvine. / 4. He is not an experienced administrator. 5. He depended on employees at Rackspace to do most of his technical server work. / 6. He does not have any formal training in computer science or any related technical field. 7. His [claimed] expertise in Filemaker Pro is self-learned.”^[16]Tesldact Smih (talk) 22:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Tesldact Smih, see also poisoning the well. This has nothing to do with his reputation as an investigator of claimed paranormal phenomena. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment. For anyone interested, context for this section of RSN is available here, here, here, and here. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 23:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC) Comment. Sorry JoJo Anthrax, you forgot to indicate the primary context, that is here in relation to here.Tesldact Smih (talk) 01:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Guy, you made the claim that Dunning was some sort of "guru" - I was merely pointing to some pertinent facts to indicate Dunning might not be a "guru" after all. Those facts were directly relevant to the point you raised.Tesldact Smih (talk) 01:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Tesldact Smih, I get it, you hate what Dunning says and are looking for a reason not to include it. My comment stands: he is a well known and respected figure within the skeptical community, and this is in his wheelhouse. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry Guy, you are an unreliable judge. That is, your opinions are biased - you termed Dunning a “guru”. Clearly, he is not a “guru” in anything.

You also claimed Dunning was “stitched up” – when he actually plead guilty, was convicted and was sent to prison. He also had a co-conspirator who he tried to blackmail - and who was also convicted and got an even lengthier sentence. That bias of yours, alone, disqualifies you from any input into a decision in this matter, let alone the following considerations.

And where are your sources for that claim? You don’t seem to grasp WP guidelines. If you want to make claims such as "stitched up, “this is his wheelhouse”, etc., you need to provide reliable sources for you claims. All claims require evidence, and unless you can supply that evidence, we are entitled to dismiss your claims as unfounded.

You also stated Dunning “is a respected figure within the skeptical community” However, my sources cited above come from within the skeptical community and they seem to be somewhat outraged, as they should be, as every thinking skeptic should be (you should see what some of the skeptical forums have to say about him - would you like me to supply more sources in that direction?). Yet you seem to laud the man, a convicted felon, convicted for fraud (!) no less, perpetrated on his own followers as well as eBay, as some kind of hero.

Further, with your poisoning of the well statement “you hate what Dunning says,” means you do not “get it" at all. You totally misjudge my character and purpose - go to at my talk page for example or read my comments on the Grey alien article in question, or the the article I constructed in my sandbox… (have you done any of those things btw?) ...besides, you have presented no evidence for that claim, which is in fact the commission of the fallacy of ad hominem. All claims require evidence. If you cannot support your claims with evidence, then we are entitled to dismiss them as unfounded.

So on those grounds I do not accept your ”my comment stands". Tesldact Smih (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• What we can say, for sure, is that Dunning's fraud conviction is totally irrelevant to whether he's a subject matter expert, as it would be for any other person. If, to take a random example, Klaus von Klitzing was to be found guilty of fraud tomorrow, would it make him no longer an expert in quantum physics? Of course it wouldn't, that would be silly. The only thing that decides whether Dunning is reliable or not is whether he is described as such in reliable sources. Black Kite (talk) 22:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

A counter example: Jan Schön Schön scandal was considered to be a shining star of condensed matter physics. He was later found to have faked his work and is now not considered to be an expert on anything. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:45, 16 April 2021 (UTC).

With all due respect, this strikes me not so much as a counter example and more of a non sequitur. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

It is a real counter example to a fictional speculation. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC).

The Dunning question is: if someone did something wrong in one area, can they still be a reliable source in another area?

You gave an example of: if someone did something wrong in one area, can they still be a reliable source in that same area?

Totally different questions. That is why it is non sequitur. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:46, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Dunning was committing fraud while claiming to protect people from fraud. Xxanthippe has presented a valid counter-example. Tesldact Smih (talk) 10:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Xxanthippe, that isn't a counter argument at all. Schon isn't reliable in that area because he faked his work in that area. What is being claimed here is that Dunning isn't reliable in the field of skepticism because he was convicted of wire fraud. Black Kite (talk) 09:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

If a person has cheated in one thing they have lost their credibility and cannot be considered to be reliable for anything else. Xxanthippe (talk) 12:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC).

• Comment. It is clear that Skeptoid or Dunning cannot be considered to be reliable sources for Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Xxanthippe (talk • contribs) 00:20, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• I agree that eBay fraud has nothing to do with source reliability. For the earlier episodes/material of Skeptoid, I think we'd have to abide by the
  rules for self-published sources because it's not clear what oversight Dunning had in his research and his main academic qualification is in engineering. On the pro side, Skeptoid 1. now has a board of directors, presumably meaning its information is not sourced to one person's judgment, 2. and Dunning's work has been syndicated/republished and covered by reliable news sources.^[17] —Wingedserif (talk
  ) 00:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Wingedserif, just to clarify, Dunning doesn't have any academic qualifications. - Bilby (talk) 01:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Nor does Skeptoid lauding Skeptoid count as a reliable news source. Tesldact Smih (talk) 10:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Having a board of directors and being syndicated by news sites are surely not exceptional claims. Per
        WP:ABOUTSELF, it's fine. —Wingedserif (talk
        ) 13:38, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
• On Wikipedia, especially for fringe topics,
  WP:ATTRIBUTE as necessary if controversial. —PaleoNeonate
  – 00:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • • You will of course have reliable sources available for "Dunning is notable for reality-based criticism"? All claims require evidence. If you cannot support your claims with evidence, then we are entitled to dismiss them as unfounded. Thank you. Tesldact Smih (talk) 10:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable per
  Attribution as necessary. JoJo Anthrax (talk
  ) 02:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Point of order: Again and again in the discussion above I am seeing the word "convicted". See our article on Conviction. The correct term is "pled guilty as part of a plea bargain", See our article on Plea bargain. The reason this makes a difference is that there are two common cases where what someone agrees to in a plea bargain is radically different from what the result would have been in a fair trial.

1. Case one: The jury would have almost certainly convicted on charge A but to save court time and costs and to avoid the possibility of acquittal the prosecutor offers a plea deal for lesser charge B. This may also happen if the defendant has information the police wants or is willing to pay back money that would otherwise be safe in an offshore account. Low level drug dealers often get a far lesser charge, zero time and no fine if they cooperate in bringing down the big fish.
2. Case two: The jury would have almost certainly not convicted on charge A but the prosecutor offers a plea deal where the accused gets a far lesser punishment. Imagine if you were accused of crime A which you didn't commit. You are given a chance to go to trial and serve 40 years if convicted, or plead to a lesser charge and get six months probation. Your lawyer says that you will probably win in court but that you are rolling the dice with a jury. Also, whichever way it goes you will lose your life savings in legal fees and spend months on the front page. Remember, in this imaginary scenario you are 100% innocent. Are you sure you would take a chance on the 40 year deal?

For these reasons we should always specify whether someone accepted a plea deal or was convicted in a trial. It is an important distinction.--Guy Macon (talk) 03:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not sure this is actually relevant to the disucssion, but pleading guilty does not mean you are not then convicted. When you enter a plea of guilty a judgment is entered without a trial, but you are still convicted of the charge you plead guilty to. - Bilby (talk) 04:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• That isn't correct. A guilty plea is often followed by a conviction but not always. For example, it may be followed by adjournment in contemplation of dismissal, which may be followed by dismissal after adjournment in contemplation of dismissal. This happens when a decision is made to put off the convict/dismiss decision for a certain amount of time and if you keep out of trouble during that time, complete drug rehabilitation, or some other condition, your case is dismissed. Always check to see if there was an actual convicyion instead of assuming that there is one besed upon a guilty plea, Even if there is a conviction after the guilty plea it is important to distinguish a conviction by plea bargain from a conviction by trial. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• All interesting, but in this case it was followed by a conviction and 15 months imprisionment. Thus saying he was convicted of fraud is accurate. You can, if you wish, say that he was convicted after pleading guilty, but both the statement "he was convicted of fraud" and "he entered into a plea bargin" are true. - Bilby (talk) 07:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Not to lengthen a digression, but I have to side with Bilby here. It is quite correct that dispositions other than conviction are possible after a plea, but where the disposition includes conviction it seems appropriate to couch it in those terms. Cheers. 12:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable with attribution. Imagine that we were using OJ Simpson as a reliable source on something football-related, Bill Cosby on something comedy-related, or Harvey Weinstein on something movie-related. Would they become any less expert because they committed crimes unrelated to their fields of expertise? Brian Dunning is a well respected as a skeptic, even by people who say that they now have no respect for him as a person. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• I'm finding this a bit difficult to answer. Is he reliable in regard to any fringe topic? No - that's far too broad. Is he reliable in terms of the history of UFOs? That depends on what expertise he has in the field, but given that I'm not aware of academic qualifications needed to be a UFOlogist, I'm leaning towards saying he is as qualified as anyone else can claim to be. Is Skeptoid reliable? It's a podcast, and seems to be (like many podcasts) self published, so it isn't reliable for BLPs, and has made at least one significant error in the past, so I'd be wary of using it in general. - Bilby (talk) 04:17, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable. There is no connection between the conviction and the texts used as sources. If you want him to be classified as unreliable, you will have to find a much better reason. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:46, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable with attribution To be honest, I am not a big fan of the man personally, but Skeptoid has been cited and seems well-known. I don't know that it has been cited enough for general blanket reliability, however. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 12:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

  Dumuzid, yes, that's exactly my point. Dunning does have a reputation for putting the effort in, he cites his sources, and his show is not sensationalist. It's not SGU, but it doesn't need to be. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable with attribution. Here is the sentence that we are being asked to determine if Dunning is a reliable source for: According to science writer and skeptic Brian Dunning, the Hill's alleged abduction introduced the gray alien into popular culture, although popular use of the term "greys" would follow years later. Dunning continues to be quoted by news and media as a scientific skeptic and subject matter expert: [10], [11], [12], so yes, he's a
  WP:RS for what he's being used for. As Guy Macon said, someone doesn't become any less of an expert because of a crime unrelated to their field [13]. - LuckyLouie (talk
  ) 13:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Dunning directly admitted he was guilty on numerous public occasions and in official FBI interviews. For example: [18] and ”Dunning pleaded guilty on April 15, 2013, to a Superseding Information charging him with wire fraud. In pleading guilty, Dunning admitted that, between approximately May 2006 and June 2007, he engaged in a scheme to defraud eBay through so-called “cookie stuffing.” According to the plea agreement, commissions paid to Dunning’s company, Kessler’s Flying Circus (KFC), which Dunning owned jointly with his brother, totaled approximately $5.2 million during that period from eBay’s domestic Affiliate Program. The parties stipulated for sentence purposes that between $200,000 and $400,000 of those commissions were the result of the fraudulent scheme.”^[19]

A critical analysis of Dunning’s statement in his own defence can be found here.^[20][21]

And if you are still in any doubt about whose version of events to believe, the court documents are available. For example (a selection):^{[22][23][24][25]}

…and if you are still in any doubt as to Dunning’s or Skeptoid’s character and reliability, please see ^{[26][27][28][29]}

Other references you may find useful: ^{[30][31][32][33][34]}

Hopefully by injecting some facts into the debate, we can forestall all misleading speculative opinion about Dunning and Skeptiod that is being promulgated above. Facts matter. Opinion not supported by reliable references may be dismissed as unfounded (and the old excuse that "Oh, we all knew him as a good guy, the life of the party, a pillar of the community, a stalwart for the cause... was said also about many wife beaters and serial killers ...the neighbors and colleagues are always surprised and many go into denial - a pattern I see repeated above. However, it is not a valid argument on which to base a judgement in any case, let alone this one.

The man is a convicted fraudster who has admitted his guilt. One cannot claim to be fighting fraud on behalf of the public while committing fraud at the same time and expect to be taken seriously as a credible source of information. On all the evidence above the man is utterly unreliable. Thank you. Tesldact Smih (talk) 05:44, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Nice to hear from an obviously neutral and dispassionate observer who clearly has no emotional stake in the matter. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 05:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable with attribution. As per Guy Macon, Guy, Black Kite, and PaleoNeonate above Heiro 06:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable for stuff like grey aliens.
  talk
  ) 06:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• Sorry, just need to add this then I'll shut up again.

Let’s take a closer look at LuckyLouie's referenced links. Dunning says Nostrodamus was unreliable. That is what makes him a reliable source? My 10 yr old could have told you that about Nostrodamus, but I wouldn’t trust him with scientific skepticism. Dunning says the best explanation for the “WOW!” signal is a radio signal from the direction of Saggitarius? That is mere unsupported speculation. But notice something? The WOW! signal was a radio signal and it did come from a particular direction …so in essence Dunning has said nothing at all. Is it that that makes him a reliable source? And Dunning says the US Navy Videos are an optical illusion? So, let me get this straight, all the people involved, including the pilots and the technicians and scientific support staff – that is, the technical expertise, might and resources of the US Navy, could not work out what the objects were, but Dunning breezes in and claims they were an optical illusions? “Oh,” the Navy says, slapping their collective palms to a forehead, “why didn’t we think of that! This Dunning guy must be an absolute genius!” Perhaps Dunning should speak to the pilots and witnesses who were actually involved?^[35][36] Given everyone actually involved is at odds with Dunning, your reference in this regard shows Dunning to be completely unreliable. He speculates an entirely implausible explanation that flies in the face of all the evidence and is not supported by any evidence itself. Just because Dunning claims something, does not make his claim valid. All claims require evidence. Dunning rarely supplies evidence for any of his wild speculations. Is it that that makes him reliable?

And then, what is this? Dunning said about his prison sentence ,“…he likened to life in a college dorm”. Soooo obviously no regrets then …and privileged much? Poor him. And ” Dunning recommends “getting in front” of the story and being completely open about one’s criminal record.”. Oh please, he has obfuscated and has been utterly disingenuous and self-serving about it.^[37][38]

Please. Can we just stick to the facts and apply some critical thought. There is nothing in what Lucky Louie linked to that might indicate Dunning as a reliable source – in fact, quite the opposite.

ETA: Sorry to Guy Macon, but Dunning committed fraud. And that is directly related to his alleged field of expertise. Moreover, if you claim Dunning is well respected, then you will be able to produce the reliable sources that say so. And precisely who are the people who have no respect for Dunning as a person, yet maintain respect for him as a skeptic? This is Wikipedia. I have been lead to believe (in no uncertain terms) that WP requires that all claims are verifiable by reliable sources. What is good for the goose must also be good for the gander, surely? Thank you in advance. Tesldact Smih (talk) 06:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Bullshit. Dunning committed fraud but it is only "directly related to his alleged field of expertise" in your fevered imagination. Why don't you tell us what your real problem is with Brian Dunning. I will be gobsmacked if it doesn't turn out that you strongly believe something that Brian Dunning says isn't true. Could this possible be related? --Guy Macon (talk) 10:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Language, young man. Oh, and apologies for my “fevered imagination”… Dunning was committing fraud while claiming to protect people from fraud. What sort of character does that make him in your eyes? Reliable?

ETA: And yes indeed, my essay, as you so helpfully reference here has quite a lot to do with it actually. Why, is there anything about it that is factually incorrect or unreliably sourced? Tesldact Smih (talk) 10:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Dunning does not claim to protect people from fraud. here is someone who actually protects people from fraud. You miss the point of my referring to your sandbox; even if it is 100% accurate and Dunning is completely wrong I think that your real problem with Dunning is that he disagrees with you, and I think your outrage against cookie stuffing is feigned. I may be wrong -- I can't read your mind -- but it would be very unusual for anyone who isn't involved in affiliate marketing to get so upset about something that only affects affiliate marketers. But aside from all that, cookie stuffing has zero to do with Quackery, Popular cultural misconceptions, Urban legends, or Religion and mythology. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh I don't believe this. I just noticed ...LuckyLouie is lying by ommission. It is actually this statement that Dunning is being relied on to support.

"In 1965, newspaper reports of the Betty and Barney Hill abduction made the archetype famous. The alleged abductees, Betty and Barney Hill, claimed that in 1961, alien beings had abducted them and taken them to a flying saucer. Under hypnosis, Betty Hill produced a "star map" which she claimed located the home planet of her abductors in the Zeta Reticuli star system (allegedly the third planet of one of the stars of the Zeta Reticuli binary system). Betty thereafter began to refer to them as Zeta Reticulans. According to science writer and skeptic Brian Dunning, the Hill's alleged abduction introduced the gray alien into popular culture, although popular use of the term "greys" would follow years later."

I really don't appreciate such tactics and I don't believe Wikipedia should tolerate them either. Particularly in that I trusted Lucky Louie to at least be fair minded. I am sorry this debate seems to have taken such a negative turn, but that is not my doing. Tesldact Smih (talk) 09:32, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

convenience break

Comment. Yesterday I added two mainstream sources here, including The New York Times, to the intro of the Grey alien article that also support the accuracy of the line that uses Dunning as a source. In this instance, then, Dunning was a reliable source. What he said was true and had already been reported years earlier in The New York Times. 5Q5|^✉ 12:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Request for closure and consideration of block. In this thread

• Support closure, Oppose block, for two reasons. First, this is the wrong noticeboard to have such a discussion. Second, the user has not received sufficient warning.
  WP:ANI. --Guy Macon (talk
  ) 17:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Guy Macon. I will take those steps immediately. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

5Q5, I decided to remove the text I originally wrote here. It was somewhat intemperate of me and inaccurate. What I should have stated was that it was false to assert that those references supported Dunning. A subtle difference to be sure, but I do not want to be accused of making false accusations. Apologies for any inconvenience caused.

JoJo Anthrax, you just stated that I accused Lucky Louie of “lying.” I actually stated that Lucky Louie was “lying by omission” – which he was. So even when the text is right in front of everyone’s eyes, for all to see you cannot prevent yourself from committing a lie of omission. IMHO that indicates a zeal to achieve a certain negative outcome for me rather than a passion for doing something to improve an existing WP article that does not conform to WP guidelines.

And yes, I have been conversing with Lucky Louie and many times he has pointed out how and where I fall foul of WP guidelines (whether his intent was to be helpful or not comes down to a value judgement), but I always responded to him in good humour and I believed we had developed a relationship of respect, wherein, even though it was clear that we were on opposing sides of the debate, that at least we would treat each other in a fair minded way. Lucky Louie was also the one who suggested I come to this forum to get Dunning considered an unreliable source. That is what made it so galling for me to see his comments – it was a betrayal of trust.

Perhaps though, we might all take a deep breath, cool our heads, and return to the actual substance of the debate? Ignoring and kicking up a vexatious fuss to distract from the substance of the debate will not make it go away. There is a legitimate debate to be had here. Can we please return to it? Thank you in advance. Tesldact Smih (talk) 21:19, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Accusing someone of "lying by omission" is, by definition, accusing them of lying. You could say "left out crucial context" or "didn't mention" if you wanted to make the same point without calling someone a liar. I would advise that you consider that sort of rhetoric. What you have said here just sounds like doubling down, which is rarely helpful. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:46, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes thank you Dumuzid, you are correct and WP is doing my head in. Ha.

Actually, I support Guy Macon and closure. (...and forgive me Dumuzid, one last "double down")

It is increasingly clear that one cannot use reason to dispel false beliefs that have not been arrived at by reason. Such a situation, where evidence and logic conflicts with fundamentalist beliefs, is a no-win situation for any scientist who is guided by logic and evidence. The outcome can only be negative for me - and I cannot see how that will improve by keeping this debate open any longer.

So let’s close this debate. Let WP keep the convicted fraudster as a reliable source, it hurts WP more than it does me (shrugs). Nevertheless, I admit I have made some mistakes in this debate that will not be repeated and I have learned some valuable lessons that I can carry forward. I can assure you, an exercise such as this unwise little venture will not be repeated in the future without a much deeper consideration. Thank you.

ETA: Ughh… even that sentiment is misguided. What hurts WP, by extension and association, hurts me as a WP editor. Which then makes it even more galling… ha. Ah well, lessons learned. Tesldact Smih (talk) 22:16, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

In my experience, request to close a discussion work best if the person making the request immediately ceases commenting in the discussion. I know it is tempting to get in one last word, but doing so sends the message "I don't really believe that this topic should be closed." No need to respond to this comment. You can reach me on my talk page if needed. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Tesldact Smih: Battleground behavior, aspersions, personal attacks, and more. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:03, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Tesldact Smih (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been topic banned from editing about UFOs. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:13, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Is this the official Rolling Stone Brazil? If so, does it carry the same status as Rolling Stone? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Purely going from the websites (I have no particular prior knowledge), I see that they've got different publishers (Perfil in Brazil, Penske Business Media for the English-language website). The English-language site articles always seem to have bylines, but the Brazilian site has lots of articles without them; those that do have bylines all have Portuguese names, so it's obviously not just a translation of the English-language website. I can't tell whether it's really part of the same organisation in any meaningful way, or if they've sold rights to use the name to another company.

Different publisher, different authors, presumably different editorial team - I think it would have to be assessed separately in terms of reliability. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Portuguese Wikipedia has an article about Rolling Stone Brasil which confirms that rollingstone.uol.com.br is the official website for this magazine. According to a 2006 article from O Globo, there used to be a pirated Brazilian version of Rolling Stone that was created in 1972 without permission from Rolling Stone, but the Rolling Stone Brasil that launched in 2006 is an official international edition of Rolling Stone. O Globo reports, "As a non–United States edition, the Brazilian 'Rolling Stone' will have half of the content translated from its American parent, and half produced by the local newsroom." ("A exemplo das edições fora dos Estados Unidos, a 'Rolling Stone' brasileira terá metade do conteúdo traduzido de sua matriz americana, e metade produzido pela redação local.") This is a standard practice for all international editions of Rolling Stone, which "typically reproduce 50 percent to 80 percent of the American version of the magazine, in their own languages, and supplement the rest with local content".

The publisher of the 2006 version of Rolling Stone Brasil is Spring Communications (Spring Comunicação), a media company also known for its acquisition of the broadcast network of the Brazilian media conglomerate Grupo Abril and for its ownership of the technology-oriented Loading TV channel. According to the Portuguese Wikipedia article (without a cited source), in 2018, Rolling Stone Brasil was sold to Grupo Perfil. (I can't confirm the date of the sale, but the website of Rolling Stone Brasil does state that it is currently owned by Grupo Perfil.) Grupo Perfil owns a number of publications, including the tabloid newspaper Perfil, the women's magazine Caras, the entertainment magazine Contigo!, and the history magazine Adventures in History (Aventuras na História). Rolling Stone Brasil then became online-only and opened a sister site, Rolling Stone Country (rollingstonecountry.uol.com.br). — Newslinger talk 05:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I've little doubt that it's the official Brazilian version of Rolling Stone. It's pretty much as Newslinger says - RS have marketed their brand name to create official versions of the magazine in several countries around the world, which are up to 80% US content... I live in Colombia, and the Colombian version is extremely difficult to find in stores, but it essentially consists of translated versions of the interviews and articles in the US version, plus a few pages of reviews and other local news (unlike the US version, it's very short, usually no more than 30 to 36 pages per issue). I'm sure Victor Lopes will want to say something here, as an active editor of music articles who's from Brazil. Richard3120 (talk) 02:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Richard3120! I don't know if there's much more I could add, though. There's no doubt it's an official publication (i.e. authorized by the parent company). I've been using it as a source both here and on the PT Wikipedia for years and never had the slightest reason to question its reliability. Articles lacking bylines (or signed by "Redação", which is Portuguese for "newsroom") are usually (but not always) reproductions of press releases, so take notice of this when searching for independent information. Victor Lopes ^Fala!•C 16:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• Generally speaking, as long as it's an official connection, they're probably going to be reliable. A publication with the reputation of Rolling Stone isn't going to license their name out to an amateur blogger with no credentials or something. They're not going to risk their reputation on something like that. Sergecross73 msg me 00:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

It's been about 14 months since this script was created, and since its inception it became one of the most imported scripts (currently #54, with 286+ adopters).

Since last year, it's been significantly expanded to cover more bad sources, and is more useful than ever, so I figured it would be a good time to bring up the script up again. This way others who might not know about it can take a look and try it for themselves. I would highly recommend that anyone doing citation work, who writes/expands articles, or does bad-sourcing/BLP cleanup work installs the script.

The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

Details and instructions are available at

Thanks - coincidently just noticed it and imported it yesterday and already finding it highly useful. Thanks for the great work. DeCausa (talk) 13:36, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I've been running it for awhile and find it very helpful. Thanks for creating it, Headbomb! Schazjmd (talk) 15:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, just installed it looks very useful. Hipocrite (talk) 17:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I have been using this script since last year and find it very helpful. Thanks for creating it, Headbomb! Armadillopteryx 19:22, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I did not know about it. This will be quite helpful. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 19:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I've been using unreliable.js for over a year, and it's a very nice script that makes it quick and easy to scan references for potential issues. I'm using it alongside Cite Unseen, which adds icons that indicate the sources' types. These scripts are particularly helpful for reviewing citations that are not formatted properly. — Newslinger talk 15:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I had previously reverted the edit, thus removing the source, with the summary "ce, remove poor-quality source with WP:PROMO quotes (see WP:FORBESCON)". I think I was mostly referring to the Forbes contributor article in that summary, but in my view both sources are poor quality. Art of Manliness appears to me to publish mostly self-help and clickbait articles (a look at the homepage right now shows "The Spartan Way: The Mindset and Tactics of a Battle-Ready Warrior", "How to Ram Through a Vehicular Roadblock", "The Top 8 First Date Ideas", etc.) I could see including McKay's opinion if he is an influential voice in "masculinity and manliness", but have seen no indication that he is.

See further discussion at

well my first question is Who? He is such a notable expert we do not seem to have an article on him.Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• The Art of Manliness is a bottom tier source, unless this somehow falls under WP:ABOUTSELF in some way I am unaware I don’t see it flying in that context. Mr McKay does not appear to have any qualifications not related to the aforementioned The Art of Manliness, which is to say none that matter for our purposes here on wikipedia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:21, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

It strongly appears to me that "The Art of Manliness" is not a reliable source for facts. It has two editors listed on the masthead - Brett and Kate McKay. Neither have any notable academic or journalistic credentials. Searching for other, obviously reliable sources citing "The Art of Manliness" or Mr. McKay, I was unable to find any, except for a puff-piece in the Tulsa World, which describes The Art of Manliness as a blog [27]. Using this source for anything related to a fringe political figure seems wildly inappropriate to me. Hipocrite (talk) 15:24, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

The

WP:FORBESCON article and Brett McKay themselves call The Art of Manliness a blog [28]

:

In the interview McKay talked about why he originally started the blog and how it's evolved [...]

Dan Schawbel: Why did you originally start your blog and how has it evolved since then?
Brett McKay: I started the blog back in 2008 when I was a second year law student.

As a result, I see no reason to treat this podcast any differently than The Needle Drop/Anthony Fantano, which is not considered a reliable source. JBchrch (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@JBchrch: The Needle Drop is now considered a self-published subject-matter expert per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#The Needle Drop. That said, I agree that The Art of Manliness seems like a low quality source that has a strong POV, probably undue. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Ah! Thank you Hemiauchenia, I had not seen the closure. In any case, I would be very surprised if there was any form of consensus that Brett McKay is a subject-matter expert. JBchrch (talk) 16:18, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

It's definitely a blog. The site even describes it as such here. McKay's opinions are only DUE if he meets

WP:EXPERTSOURCE. Like GW, I have not found any evidence that RS are citing McKay as a subject-matter expert. The disputed sentences should be excluded from the article unless someone proves otherwise. Firefangledfeathers (talk

) 16:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I see none of the normal indicia of reliability here. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:23, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

If McKay is a "writer" for that magazine there's an obvious problem. According to [29] he and his wife and one more person are also editors. Maybe his wife and the other person review the articles he writes, maybe not, I see no clear indication of any real independent review. In other words, whether you want to call it a blog or something else, it seems at a minimum content written by McKay is

WP:SPS. Nil Einne (talk

) 14:49, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Dicebreaker is a board game website publishing news, reviews, and features on topics including board games, RPGs, and trading card games. They're listed as an 'editorial website' at

The website has clear editorial and review policies. Authors appear to be a mix of a few full time staff, and a list of contributors. The Editor-in-chief and Staff writer appear to both be long-time journalists. The contributors are less clear, I couldn't find any information about how non-staff authors come to publish material on the website, but the most prolific (e.g. Chase Carter, most others only have 1-4 articles) seem to be credible freelance journalists.

Can the news and reviews on Dicebreaker be considered reliable sources for tabletop topics? The topic is still relatively niche in reliable sources so it would be incredibly valuable to our articles on board games in particular to be able to use it. Sam Walton (talk) 21:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• Appears generally reliable in it's topic area to me. Professional editing staff. Not clear that the review scores themselves are relevant, but for news in the space and descriptions of the games themselves, certainly appears on it's face to be reliable. Has it's use been challenged? If so, why? Hipocrite (talk) 14:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• Like Hipocrite above, I would like to see some conversations where this is being challenged and for what reasons? The site looks decent; as well the material it is likely to cover is low-controversy stuff and I don't see there being lots of contention over what is written there. I need to see the objections in context, however, to see what exactly has been challenged over using this site. --Jayron32 14:17, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks both - no specific challenges yet, I wanted to use it quite extensively in a couple of articles and wasn't completely confident so I wanted to gather some other opinions before going ahead :) Sam Walton (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, like I said, it looks like it is useful for things like reviews (which is not subject to reliability concerns anyways, only establishing that the person whose opinion you are citing is recognized as worthy of listening to their opinion) and rather banal information like the names of game designers, release dates, gameplay mechanics (which can also be sourced to the game itself), etc. I mean, if you were citing something contentious like "so-and-so eats babies for breakfast" then I might want to find a better source for that, but for stuff like "Such and such a game was designed by John Doe, and was funded by a kickstarter campaign; the first orders shipped in May, 2020" or something like that, that's fairly low-contentious stuff, and this website certainly seems like it cares about getting that stuff right. --Jayron32 18:08, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• myspace.com  
• instagram.com  

There are numerous sources been cited as user-generated content, which makes it considered unreliable than other social media websites (e.g. Facebook, Twitter). --Frontman830 (talk) 23:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Be mindful of

WP:CONTEXTMATTERS is also of interest. 92.24.246.11 (talk

) 12:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

But it is also a non-encyclopedic source and it is unacceptable, please avoid using any social media links. --Frontman830 (talk) 10:19, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

No. Please read the links I have given. It is the person or entity behind the post that matters. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 12:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

It would be risk for citing these articles (even for unofficial ones), but there is no consensus, and it's unquestionable. --Frontman830 (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

How is "no consensus" the same as "unquestionable"? Again, there is no issue with, for instance,

deprecation of these two websites and have all references from them stripped out of Wikipedia, you can do that, but you are extremely unlikely to get the answer you seek. 92.24.246.11 (talk

) 22:47, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• This is a silly and pointless attempt at an RFC and I'm not sure the OP is aware of the standards for opening something here. Social media sources can be suitable for sourcing statements about a subject per
  WP:ABOUTSELF but not for generally controversial statements or statements about other people/things and can't be used to establish notability. TAXIDICAE💰
  22:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Praxidicae, my interpretation of OP's complaint is that those websites aren't as verifiable as facebook/Twitter/etc. viz confirming the identity of the profile. I don't know if this is true, but if it is it's reasonable to reassess their use re: ABOUTSELF. JoelleJay (talk) 01:28, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source?--Ymblanter (talk) 15:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

The best I can tell, it's a blog run by

talk

) 17:38, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Multiple references to this site are found in google.scholar: [31].

• Kristen Ghodsee (A Tale of "Two Totalitarianisms": The Crisis of Capitalism and the Historical Memory of Communism, Source: History of the Present, Vol. 4, No. 2 (Fall 2014), pp. 115-142) used the DH article by Monica Lowenberg (“Riga, Capital of European Culture: Waffen SS, Stags and Silence?” DefendingHistory.com, February 4, 2014), and the context she used that article is as follows:

"European debate about the history of communism is not merely an academic skirmish about the past; it serves a wide variety of contemporary political purposes. In this essay, I explore the recent ethnographic history of this debate through three distinct moments: its roots in the late 1980s with the German Historikerstreit [historians’ battle]; Pierre Nora’s defense of the French refusal to publish a translation of Eric Hobsbawm’s TheAge of Extremesin the 1990s; and the broader political context of the Prague Declaration. The current upsurge in East European commemorations for the victims of communism originates from a regional desire for victimhood status. The victims are not simply constructed discursively as the direct heirs of their own totalitarian pasts; the double genocide language produces a historical narrative wherein post-Soviet and postsocialist nations become martyrs—nation-states sacrificed by the West on the red alter of Soviet imperialism. In countries such as Latvia where local populations and Nazi-occupied govern-ments participated in the systematic murder of domestic Jews, the double genocide narrative mitigates their culpability by questioning the uniqueness of the Holocaust."

We can see that Ghodsee is using DH as a source of information, and there is no criticism of its content.

• Per Anders Rudling (a renown scholar who studies EE history) uses the DH article by Bruder (Bruder, F. (2011). “Strasti za Banderoju (‘Bandera Passion’),” Defendinghistory.article) in his The Return of the Ukrainian Far Right The Case of VO Svoboda.

Katchanovski, I. published a paper in DH: Katchanovski, I. (2011). “Owning a Massacre: ‘Ukraine’s Katyn’,” DefendingHistory.com, November 28, http://defendinghistory.com/owning-a-massacre-ukraines-katyn-by-ivan-katchanovski/25761

• Dovid Katz authored the paper in East European Jewish Affairs, 41:3, 207-221, where he cited DH several times.

These facts demonstrate that renown scholars are using this web resource as secondary sources (and, importantly, not for criticism), and even publish articles there. If they are using DH, I see no reason why we cannot do the same.

However, DH is criticized by some EE scholars, but it seems the criticism comes from those authors whose views are a primary target of HD.

AI believe all said above demonstrates DH is generally a reliable source (except for the cases covered by

WP:REDFLAG. However, as far as I know, DH does not publish anything that directly contradicts to multiple high quality RS; obviously, EE sources do not fall into that category).--Paul Siebert (talk

) 18:06, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

This is reasonably considered a "self-published subject matter expert" source, and I think that the guidlines at

WP:SPS cover this pretty clearly

Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.[8] Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources.[9] Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer

. Whether or not its usuable depends entirely what it is being used for, and it should never be used for claims regarding living persons. Hemiauchenia (talk

) 18:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Not exactly. When ONE expert publishes their own views, that is definitely SPS. However, DH publishes articles authored by many scholars, and these articles are being cited by real peer-reviewed publications, and it seems DH is treated by them in the same way as other RS. In connection to that, I am wondering where is a borderline between a true scholarly (online) journal and web sites like DH. The latter seems more reliable and more widely cited that Galukopsis (which has all formal traits of a scholarly peer-reviewed journal). --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable. Edited by expert scholar, with many contributors. cited by other expers.

Free1Soul (talk) 14:12, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable. Not only this is a blog, by their posts sound very much like ru:Кукрыниксы who published in Krokodil. My very best wishes (talk) 02:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

In two recent edits, I added a link to Boston 1775, a blog run by JL Bell. He is a published author and speaker who specializes in Revolutionary-era Boston and New England. Though he is an expert and has been published on the topic in reliable sources before, I wanted to make sure that this source was appropriate. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

JL Bell’s published work is good, but I don't see him setting up his blog with the intent that it be used as a real source... For instance he says "Boston 1775 isn’t meant to be anyone's final source for information. It’s meant to help us all think about interesting historical events in different ways. (Half the time I end up learning something or changing my mind as I write an entry.)” and the masthead makes it clear that in addition to history and analysis the site features "unabashed gossip.” So yes the author is a subject matter expert, but I don’t get the feeling that the author means for this blog to be authoritative. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:46, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back, Given the first two bullet points I'm not sure he didn't mean for it to be a "real source" or isn't reliable, but your concern is fair. I removed the citations in both places. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 03:57, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello,

I seek your guidance.

I would like to know whether the aforementioned website is an acceptable form of source for DOB’s for members of the UK Parliament. The first time I asked this question I did not get a very good response as most of the commentary was on a completely irrelevant subject, but I will let that pass for the moment. On every single page I have looked at, at least 100 of them, they take words verbatim, not just similar, but verbatim transcripts from Wikipedia. I have yet to see a single example of where this is not the case. The policies are clear: Wikipedia is not a source, and the very limited information and credibility of this website makes this very questionable source, indeed. Only one response relevant to my question was given last time I raised this, and they agreed with me that it is a poor and unreliable source. I have therefore marked all MP’s with this poor source indicated with “better source needed” tags, and this is the very least that needs to happen. I don’t think this source has any reliability whatsoever for the reasons set out, and it should be removed quickly.

Hi, I noticed your [

better source needed] tags against MPs' dates of birth and followed you here to understand what you were doing. I'm not sure how reliable Politics.co.uk is and will be interested to hear others' views. I cannot see your earlier discussion about the same issue. I can say though that not all the text for MPs on Politics.co.uk is identical with that on Wikipedia. Stuart Anderson (politician), for instance, whom you have tagged, has a much shorter description on Politics.co.uk than his Wikipedia article, though I guess it is possible that Politics is mirroring an earlier version of the Wiki article. Daisy Cooper, also tagged by you, also has a much longer entry on Wiki than at Politics.co.uk. (And please remember to sign your contributions here with four tildes.) Tacyarg (talk

) 21:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Previous discussions for reference (these are only the ones I am aware of, and there may be more):
  • WP:RSN: here and here
  • WP:BLPN: here
    and
  • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom: here.

JBchrch (talk) 21:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, apologies on the comment signing. I completely agree with your comments, that it will be interesting indeed to see what others think and to have a proper consensus for or against this ghastly source. My charge remains steadfast: almost all (feel free to point out more individual cases where this is not the case) of these articles copy the words of Wikipedia verbatim. I believe any differences reflect what the Wikipedia articles said as the time of the publication of the politics.co.uk source, and I have checked those examples mentioned above which confirmed my suspicions, and they taken parts out of subsections of the respective articles. Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. In those circumstances, I fail to see where this source would even have a leg to stand on.2A02:C7F:B416:3000:C87D:DAA6:F3C9:28 (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I can assure you all I will be raising this issue until a consensus is reached for or against this shabby source. I believe it is an affront to our policies if this source is continued to be used without any legitimacy as to its credibility.2A02:C7F:B416:3000:88A5:9E62:F968:31B9 (talk) 00:14, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Don't personally see a problem with the source. Politics.co.uk is a reputable site. They're in "the thick of it" in terms of British politics and they conduct original research, interviews, write very thorough articles etc. Important to remember that just because you can't see birth years/dates from any other sources on Google, it doesn't mean that others don't have access to this information via avenues like subscriptions (e.g. Debretts, Who's Who etc.) or private spreadsheets and databases (which I can tell you, exist within parliament). You say it is indisputable that they just copy bios from Wikipedia, and yet you don't give any clear cut examples and the user who has responded above has demonstrated in two examples where this clearly isn't the case. Even the BBC structures some bios on the BBC Music site based on their Wiki page, and yet they add plenty of their own information too. There is a big difference between a source which copies irrefutable/already sourced and/or widely available facts (e.g. MP's election date, past professions) from here and one which just blanket copies paragraphs from Wiki pages (unsourced or not). I'm happy with the source and I don't think you've built out your argument enough to really explain just why it's "shabby", "unreliable" as you say etc. Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 00:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Some of their MP profiles do bear a similarity to Wikipedia articles, but not all of them by any means. Tim Farron writes for the site, and the editor has appeared on Any Questions?. I think the above summary by Jkaharper is pretty reasonable. It would be good to have a better source for the DOBs, but I don’t think this website would want to undermine their reputation by publishing unreliable info on MPs. Their profiles aren’t technically brilliant, but if anything, they read like press releases from the MPs.—TrottieTrue (talk) 04:18, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

The source is demonstrably terrible and so many of its examples prove that. I suggest better sources be found to replace this awful source.2A02:C7F:B416:3000:6188:59B4:85BA:26E1 (talk) 23:24, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

You ask for examples? No problem. Here is a list of just some, not even all, but some examples of profiles which are taking words either verbatim or to a degree enough to make the plagiarism obvious to even the dimmest of folk. Believe me, I would be here all night if I were to stick them all here. The fact this one source with around MAX two paragraphs of writing has been used to source so many of these DOB’s in itself raises questions. Almost every single one was retrieved on 25 March by the above user, demonstrating they were just looking for a quick fix and were never really interested in verifiability.

Peter Gibson Gareth Davies James Wild Selaine Saxby Taiwo Owatemi Mary Foy Andrew Griffith Beth Winter James Sunderland Mark Fletcher Jo Gideon Simon Baynes Mark Jenkinson Gareth Bacon Luke Evans Tahir Ali Claire Hanna Nicola Richards Jerome Mayhew Ruth Edwards Lee Anderson Simon Jupp Chris Clarkson (politician) Richard Fuller Dave Doogan Sara Britcliffe Kate Osborne Sally-Ann Hart Anthony Mangnall Alyn Smith Paul Bristow Shaun Bailey Duncan Baker Allan Dorans Lia Nici Sarah Atherton

The explanation you provided, which was pure speculation and not fact, suggests that they are “in the thick of it”. Whatever that means, that answer is simply not good enough. I suggest you take a good look at these examples, though I very much doubt you will, and suggest to me again that this pathetic source has one iota of credibility. Yes, some of them are not verbatim, which I believe at best would account for around a third of the articles, again reflecting changes in Wikipedia’s articles that have not reflected on this shoddy website. All one has to do in any case is take a look back through previous revisions to see the ones which do have slight differences are near enough mirrored.

But what comes to mind is that time when a young ambitious Joe Biden stole some words out of Neil Kinnock’s speech, twisted the words a little and made out it was his. Would you turn around and say Biden wrote that speech? Of course not. The truth of the matter is that this terrible source, probably hastily written by a bunch of first year PPE students who clearly cannot even use a keyboard properly, for I spotted so many grammatical mistakes (such as ‘22th’) when posting that all important DOB.

As far as I am concerned, a source that has at best two to three paragraphs, numerous spelling and grammar errors and takes words, in many cases directly out of Wikipedia articles cannot even begin to be considered as an acceptable source. My charge still stands due to the thoroughly unsatisfactory nature of your defence and because I want to respect what the above user said, I have not removed them and have instead put in place a better source needed tag. That is the very least that needs to happen, as we need better sources for DOB’s than sites like this. I say again that the fact a huge amount of MPs had this added as their DOB source, over a very short period of time on 25 March, is very concerning. I might finally just add how very telling is it that you apparently find the enforcement of policy a nuisance. Clearly, drab sources and suggesting one should be blocked for implementing policy are just your cup of tea. Thankfully, other users have explicitly pointed out that I deserve credit.2A02:C7F:B416:3000:6188:59B4:85BA:26E1 (talk) 00:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

The silence is deafening. I can assure you at once I will never cease raising this issue until I receive a satisfactory response.2A02:C7F:B416:3000:8162:95A:112E:6ED4 (talk) 11:13, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• Looking at your examples, I don’t see a significant issue. As for any similarity in wording between the source and WP, there are only so many ways you can word basic biographical info (and have you considered that if there was any plagiarism, it may actually be the other way around - ie our article copied the source, rather than the source copying WP). Sure, if a better source can be found, I would have no objection replacing it - but I think it is OK until a better source can be found. Blueboar (talk) 13:20, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. The IP editor seems to be unnecessarily denigrating this source. Yes, its biographies of MPs could be better, but it also occurred to me that WP could have plagiarised them originally, not the other way round. Do we have any proof that they copied text directly from WP? It seems typical of the IP editor to attack others, including Politics.co.uk, which is nowhere near as bad as is being suggested. I inserted references from the site because they appeared to be the only readily accessible reliable source with those elusive DOBs. I don’t appreciate the accusation that I just wanted a quick fix and don’t care about verifiability, which isn’t true. This website has been online for a long time and appears to have established itself in British politics. The IP editor seems only too happy to remove dates or question references, without making any effort to find better sources themselves. The Times Guide to the House of Commons is £60, which is why I haven’t purchased it myself. For now, that’s the only other RS for these and other DOBs. It doesn’t even have all of them. Who’s Who will resend their form to MPs again this year. In summary: Politics.co.uk seems fine unless we find a better source - ie. one which actively seeks out DOBs, like those I’ve mentioned. See also this page for more info. Now, I think this discussion is too focused on one section of the Politics.co.uk website. When it comes to the site overall, it has a clear left-liberal bias in its reporting. That should be kept in mind when using it as a source, but The Guardian also has a similar ideological standpoint, and is still considered reliable. Incidentally, Peter Gibson is not the same person as the current MP.—TrottieTrue (talk) 20:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

That is fine. But the tags will certainly remain and any I see removed will be reinstated quite quickly.2A02:C7F:B416:3000:1938:8F91:138:E650 (talk) 10:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

There's been a recent debate on a number of articles on biographical books as to the reliability of Amazon.com as a source of information for publication dates and other information:

• Madonna: An Intimate Biography
• Madonna: Like an Icon
• Rekha: The Untold Story
• Rajesh Khanna: The Untold Story of India's First Superstar
• Sanjay Dutt: The Crazy Untold Story of Bollywood's Bad Boy

A user started removing these sources, calling them spam, which sparked a sort of edit war. I personally see no problem using it per

@Bonadea: This what you means right? OK, I get it. --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 09:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

The issue here is how Amazon.com links have been used in the last four of the articles listed above:

• In Sridevi: The Eternal Screen Goddess, the sentence

  The book was published by Random House on 16 December in the hardcover format.[5] Its Amazon Kindle and audiobook edition were released on 20 December and 12 February 2021, respectively;[6] the latter was publisher by Random House Audio and narrated by Shaayan Bhattacharya.[7]

  has three separate reference links to sales pages at amazon.com.
• In Rekha: The Untold Story, the publication of the two Kindle editions (Hindi and English)in the Publication history table have separate reference links to sales pages at amazon.com.
• In Sanjay Dutt: The Crazy Untold Story of Bollywood's Bad Boy, the sentence

  Sanjay Dutt: The Crazy Untold Story of Bollywood's Bad Boy was published on 13 March 2018 in a hardcover format by Juggernaut Books, marking Usman's second collaboration with the publishing company following Rekha: The Untold Story in 2016.[5]

  and the sentence

  A second hardcover printing was released on 31 March,[8] and its paperback and Amazon Kindle editions followed on 20 September 2019 and 1 June 2020, respectively.[9][10]

  together have four diffrerent reference links to sales pages at amazon.com; these are used in the "Publication history" table as well.
• In Rajesh Khanna: The Untold Story of India's First Superstar, the sentences

  Rajesh Khanna: The Untold Story of India's First Superstar was released by Penguin Books on 5 December 2014 on Amazon Kindle.[6]

  and

  The book was published in a paperback edition on 13 December 2014 in India.[9]

  each has a reference link to sales pages at amazon.com; these are used in the "Publication history" table as well.

The point I have made in the discussions about the matter is that the information that is verifiable through amazon.com is also verifiable through the ISBN templates. I have not looked at the Madonna book articles, but if direct links to Amazon is used to verify basic bibliographic information, that would almost certainly not be appropriate there either. --10:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I tend to accept your stand that the ISBN could be taken to support information re publication dates. So it might be a good idea to remove these souces across the board. That being said, since you are an involved party, let's see what others say. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Bonadea: You want me to use the template {{Cite book}} to replace the Amazon citations, didn't you? I actually don't know what the ISBN templates you mean here... --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 11:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

You are right, "ISBN template" was not a very exact description. What I meant was that having a link to Special:BookSources for the ISBN of the book is enough, because a page such as Special:BookSources/978-81-93284-18-6 (which is the ISBN BookSources page for Rekha: The Untold Story) gives the reader the option of checking the information about the book at Google Books or in a library catalogue – or, indeed, in Amazon. In my opinion, if you want to add a reference to support a statement about a particular edition, {{cite book}} including the "isbn" parameter is very useful. Other contributors might have other suggestions. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 11:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Bonadea: Before I continue, please take a look at Rekha: The Untold Story first. Am I correct? --Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 12:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)