Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 222

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

Archive 215

←

Archive 220

Archive 221

Archive 222

Archive 223

Archive 224

Archive 225

From List of Chinese teas article:

Is the following section reliably sourced? There is a main section and two subsections, which I have converted to bold and noted below.

Famous tea (main heading)

There are several opinions of the best Chinese teas, or the title China's Famous Teas (中国名茶) or Ten Great Chinese Teas (中国十大名茶), depending on current trends in Chinese tea, as well as the region and tastes of the person.

Compilation of top ten list (subsection 1)

Different sources cite different teas, but the following table compiles ten different such lists and ranks the teas upon recurrence.^[1]

	Translated English name	Chinese	Pronunciation	Place of origin	Type	Occurrences
1	West Lake Dragon Well	西湖龙井	Xī Hú Lóng Jǐng	Hangzhou, Zhejiang	Green tea	10
2	Dongting Green Snail Spring	洞庭碧螺春	Dòng Tíng Bì Luó Chūn	Suzhou, Jiangsu	Green tea	10
3	Yellow Mountain Fur Peak	黄山毛峰	Huáng shān Máo Fēng	Huang Shan, Anhui	Green tea	10
4	Mount Jun Silver Needle	君山银针	Jūn shān Yín Zhēn	Yueyang, Hunan	Yellow tea	10
5	Qimen Red	祁门红茶	Qí Mén Hóng Chá	Qimen, Anhui	Black tea	10
6	Wuyi Big Red Robe	武夷大紅袍	Wǔ Yí Dà Hóng Páo	Wuyi Mountains, Fujian	Oolong tea	10
7	Lu'an Melon Seed	六安瓜片	Lù ān Guā Piàn	Lu'an, Anhui	Green tea	10
8	Anxi Iron Goddess	安溪铁观音	Ān xī Tiě Guān Yīn	Anxi, Fujian	Oolong tea	10
9	Taiping Houkui	太平猴魁	Tài Píng Hóu Kuí	Huang Shan, Anhui	Green tea	10
10	Xinyang Fur Tip	信阳毛尖	Xìn yáng Máo Jiān	Xinyang, Henan	Green tea	9

Compilation of twenty lists (subsection 2)

The following table compiles twenty different such lists and ranks the teas upon recurrence.^[2]

	Translated English name	Chinese	Pronunciation	Place of origin	Type	Occurrences
1	West Lake Dragon Well	西湖龙井	Xī Hú Lóng Jǐng	Hangzhou, Zhejiang	Green tea	20
2	Dongting Green Snail Spring	洞庭碧螺春	Dòng Tíng Bì Luó Chūn	Suzhou, Jiangsu	Green tea	20
3	Anxi Iron Goddess	安溪铁观音	Ān xī Tiě Guān Yīn	Anxi, Fujian	Oolong tea	18
4	Yellow Mountain Fur Peak	黄山毛峰	Huáng shān Máo Fēng	Huang Shan, Anhui	Green tea	17
5	Mount Jun Silver Needle	君山银针	Jūn shān Yín Zhēn	Yueyang, Hunan	Yellow tea	14
6	Qimen Red	祁门红茶	Qí Mén Hóng Chá	Qimen, Anhui	Black tea	12
7	Wuyi Big Red Robe	武夷大紅袍	Wǔ Yí Dà Hóng Páo	Wuyi Mountains, Fujian	Oolong tea	11
8	Lu'an Melon Seed	六安瓜片	Lù ān Guā Piàn	Lu'an, Anhui	Green tea	11
9	White Fur Silver Needle	白毫银针	Bái Háo Yín Zhēn	Fuding, Fujian	White tea	10
10	Yunnan Pu-erh	云南普洱	Yúnnán Pǔ'ěr Chá	Simao, Yunnan	Post-fermented tea	10

-- Jytdog (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I see from one of the links that there is a China Tea Marketing Association. That would seem to be a better source, although not independent. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:09, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

The first thing to make me suspicious is that in two lists of ten items, there are two items in each list which are not in the other list. Clearly there are enough lists to compile from, and enough differences within those lists, that the ones chosen for the meta-lists have a significant impact on the outcome.

Looking at the sources of these lists, we find a tea-seller's website, and what appears to be a personal website. Neither explain how they found the lists of teas that their meta-lists are compiled from, or how they selected which lists. Neither seem to be experts in the field. One has (at least potentially) an incentive to manipulate the results in order to feature teas that they sell. I'm dubious. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:20, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• yep i posted here as my sense is that this content is not supported by RS. Jytdog (talk) 14:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

The sources here are not useful. One is a vendor and another is a self published website. These "top 10" lists are often individually published by manufacturers or sometimes written in newspapers. But there is no systematic research behind this. I would prefer to simply remove this entire content. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Two sources are being disputed in the article on chiropractic (talk page here). I'm listing them together because they are directly related, and support the same conclusion. One of the sources being disputed is a clinical practice guideline from the Canadian Chiropractic Association on the effectiveness of chiropractic manipulation for treatment of different lower extremity issues here, full-text here. The second source is an update of that review, which further expanded the search database, including additional articles and came to the same conclusion here, full-text here.

The statement the studies are being used to support is

[There is] limited or fair evidence supporting chiropractic management of leg conditions.

To see it in context you can see the diff here.

Jmg873 (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• That whole section makes me think of [1]. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

From our own article: "The Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics is a peer-reviewed medical journal of chiropractic. It is published by Mosby on behalf of the American Chiropractic Association, of which it is an official journal." When it comes to commenting on evidence that directly relates to the efficacy of chiropractic, this journal is not an independent source. Contrast the Chiropractic Association's views with that of independent reviews:

• Ernst E (May 2008). "Chiropractic: a critical evaluation". Journal of pain and symptom management. 35 (5): 544–62. doi:10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2007.07.004. ISSN 0885-3924. PMID 18280103. With the possible exception of back pain, chiropractic spinal manipulation has not been shown to be effective for any medical condition.
• Posadzki P, Ernst E (2011). "Spinal manipulation: an update of a systematic review of systematic reviews". N Z Med J. 124 (1340): 55–71. PMID 21952385. these data fail to demonstrate convincingly that spinal manipulation is an effective intervention for any condition.

In other words, there is no evidence supporting chiropractic management of leg conditions, and this is a simple attempt by a chiropractor with a conflict of interest to use an in-house journal to justify claims of efficacy that are unsupported in the mainstream literature. --RexxS (talk) 17:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Your concern about the article being published in JMPT is legitimate, but your dismissal of the article on that basis is fallacious. These studies were dismissed in the first place by a genetic fallacy rather than the content of the studies themselves.

Ernst's studies are replete with bias; they aren't an appropriate source to combat perceived bias. Ernst has been evidenced to have repeatedly provided poor research on the topic of chiropractic. From a review which details by study the mistakes, omissions, or misrepresentations made by ernst:

"Ernst et al.’s publication on chiropractic include repeated misuse of references, misleading statements, highly selective use of certain published papers, failure to refer to relevant literature, inaccurate reporting of the contents of published work, and errors in citation. Meticulous analysis of some influential negative reviews has been carried out to determine the objectivity of the data reported. The misrepresentation that became evident deserves full debate and raises serious questions about the integrity of the peer-review process and the nature of academic misconduct."[2]full-text

There's also replications of his studies:

"The number of errors or omissions in the 2007 Ernst paper, reduce the validity of the study and the reported conclusions."[3]

"In the April 2006 issue of the Journal of Royal Society of Medicine, Ernst and Canter authored a review of the most recent systematic reviews on the effectiveness of spinal manipulation for any condition. The authors concluded that, except for back pain, spinal manipulation is not an effective intervention for any condition and, because of potential side effects, cannot be recommended for use at all in clinical practice. Based on a critical appraisal of their review, the authors of this commentary seriously challenge the conclusions by Ernst and Canter, who did not adhere to standard systematic review methodology, thus threatening the validity of their conclusions. There was no systematic assessment of the literature pertaining to the hazards of manipulation, including comparison to other therapies. Hence, their claim that the risks of manipulation outweigh the benefits, and thus spinal manipulation cannot be recommended as treatment for any condition, was not supported by the data analyzed. Their conclusions are misleading and not based on evidence that allow discrediting of a large body of professionals using spinal manipulation." [4]

My point is, assess the studies I put up on their information, rather than your perceived merit of the journal. Rather than saying the info is bad simply because of the journal they came from, please provide deficits about the studies themselves. The studies are WP:MEDRS compliant and according to MEDRS, they represent the top-tier of evidence on the topic. Jmg873 (talk) 19:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The journal is an in-house publication by the American Chiropractic Association and is not independent. It fails the very first requirement of a reliable source and is a long way from being a WP:MEDRS source a required. It's about as reliable a source for the effectiveness of chiropractic as this source is for my abilities as a thespian.

This isn't the place to attempt to smear a respected academic and a published exert on CAM. The article you quote "A Case Study of Misrepresentation of the Scientific Literature: Recent Reviews of Chiropractic" was published in The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine - this is an official journal of the Society for Acupuncture Research, and the same journal that published a notorious study claiming that homeopathy was effective. It's on the "nonrecommended periodicals" list from Quackwatch, and has no standing to judge Edzard Ernst's work in assessing the woo-woo pseudoscience you seem determined to promote.

You also quote criticism of Ernst by Peter Tuchin, President of Chiropractic and Osteopathic College of Australia, in the journal Chiropractic & Manual Therapies, the official journal of the Chiropractic & Osteopathic College of Australasia. How do you not see that nobody is going to take seriously such self-serving attacks? Or did you think that nobody would realise just where you're getting your material from?

It's not my place, nor yours, to assess studies. Assessing primary evidence is the job for secondary sources, not amateur Wikipedia editors. That's why we insist on secondary sources for biomedical claims in WP:MEDRS. We already have independent, reliable, secondary sources published in independent, mainstream journals whose conclusions you're trying to challenge with in-house journalism by chiropractors. As Mandy Rice-Davies famously remarked "Well they would, wouldn't they?". The study you're trying to use to promote the delusion that chiropractic could be effective for leg conditions is not independent, nor is it reliable, nor is it MEDRS-compliant, no matter how many times you attempt to claim otherwise. --RexxS (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• Unfortunately Jmg873 is here to Right Great Wrongs in respect of chiropractic. As with most WP:SPAs, he perceives normal Wikipedia approaches as active suppression when they don't serve the interests he is trying to promote. Chiropractic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a representative article on a SCAM topic, in that it is plagued by the constant addition of broad claims of efficacy based on low quality evidence originating within the field itself and published in journals dominated by believers, but not replicated by independent researchers. There is a really good reason why we tend to prefer reviews from Cochrane and other independent groups (and even these are not immune to hijack, as we saw with oscillococcinum and some acupuncture reviews).

There's another common issue in SCAM articles: high level reviews find no evidence of efficacy, and believers then try to add publications by the industry which try to shout down those conclusions. Look at the efforts made by homeopaths to discount the Australian MHRA findings, for example.

Ernst was the world's first professor of complementary and alternative medicine. His opinions are independent. We don't offset those with the views of believers, any more than we offset the IPCC reports on climate change with something originating with the Heartland Institute.

Sadly, I thinkn the most likely long term outcome here is a topic ban. Guy (Help!) 11:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not trying to right great wrongs at all. I'm pushing for NPOV in an article that doesn't have it. With NPOV, the chiropractic article will still have a negative overall tone, because there's plenty wrong with the profession. You say I perceive normal wikipedia approaches as active suppression when they don't serve my interest. Normal wikipedia approaches for medical reliable sources are listed in WP:MEDRS It says There are different ways to rank level of evidence in medicine, but they similarly put high level reviews and practice guidelines at the top. Despite that, here we are discussing whether or not a practice guideline should be considered a reliable source. I don't view these as active suppression, but I also don't consider them normal. I'm not attacking the concept of independent review. You brought up Cochrane. I have a huge amount of respect for Cochrane and other agencies performing similar work. I think Cochrane is conservative in their findings (in general, not solely in regard to chiropratic), but they apply an equal lens to everything they examine. I don't take issue with Ernst merely because I don't like his conclusions, some of Cochrane's conclusions aren't what I want, but that doesn't make them wrong. I take issue with Ernst because his work has too many inconsistencies to be considered reliable (as quoted/cited above). Plenty of research finds no effect for chiropractic for a variety of issues, and there's nothing wrong with that. The practical application of mobilization/manipulation is very limited, but the research that exists supports a statement of "limited or fair evidence for leg conditions". The conditions themselves are outlined in the papers, if you'd rather have each condition explicitly stated with it's corresponding grade of evidence rather than summarized as "leg conditions", I'd be fine with that too.

You accuse me of POV-pushing, but my edits are WP:NPOV. I discuss my edits on the talk pages with citations, bring them to the relevant noticeboards and try to abide all of the policies that I'm aware of. That said, please try to stay on-topic. No aspect of your comment discussed the sources at hand. We are not here to discuss everything that is wrong with chiropractic, or other articles. This noticeboard is for discussing specific sources; let's discuss the two sources I linked in context, rather than the whole of chiropractic sources. Jmg873 (talk) 12:55, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

You misperceive your own biases as neutrality. Your editing history at Wikipedia is almost exclusively boosting chiropractic. The inevitable conclusion is that you are a chiropractor doing what all chiropractors do, which is studiously ignoring the facts in order to maintain belief in something that is comprised of a free mix of mundane physical therapy and obvious bollocks. Guy (Help!) 13:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

This is not the appropriate place for this discussion, if you'd like to talk about me start a thread on my talk page. Subject talk pages are for a discussion of the edits, not the editors; the RS noticeboard is for discussing the reliability of sources, not me. Jmg873 (talk) 13:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

This certainly is not the place for discussing your behaviour. This is the place where you request other users, myself included, to give their opinions on whether the source you provided is reliable in the context you indicated. It is not the place for you to badger other editors who give their opinions. So perhaps you'd like to take the cotton wool out of your ears and put it in your mouth for a while? --RexxS (talk) 21:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

[5] to Sabancı family is being edit-warred into position. There was an RfC back in 2014 which disposed of this, but the sad truth is that the source is not valid for the claim being made.

Some of its assets had been owned by Armenians prior to the Armenian Genocide.

clearly is an edit intended to place culpability for that on this family. The 2014 RfC came down against that claim, and the claim is WP:OR

The source is "Ungor, Ugur; Polatel, Mehmet (2011). Confiscation and Destruction: The Young Turk Seizure of Armenian Property. A&C Black. p. 132." "Sabanci" is not on page 132, nor is "Sabanci" found on any page with the word "genocide" on it, nor is the description of the Sabanci family in that work remotely supportive of the claim made.

The RfC determined that the most that could be added to that article which impacts living persons was "His business grew, in part, due to reduced business competition as a result of the Armenian Genocide."

Opinions on this maluse of a source which does not make the claim made, explicitly nor implicitly? Collect (talk) 18:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Collect seems to forget that it was he who added that wording in this very edit. The current wording, according to Collect in that very edit-summary, "includes the Genocide without any implication of wrong-doing which meet". So this is an attempt by a user to find fault in his own wording. A really bizarre irony. Also, the RfC didn't reject any of that material being added to the article. In fact, it has agreed to the alternative proposal. See:

"There is consensus for the alternative proposal: "Omer Sabanci, the progenitor of the Sabancı family, moved from his native Kayseri to Adana in the early 1920s. His business grew, in part, due to reduced business competition as a result of the Armenian Genocide."

Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes - 'I trusted that the source was accurately cited. Nthep suggested that there was a problem in the source, and so I went back and examined the source. Which is what we are supposed to do when another person questions any edit, as far as I can tell. If a source is not accurately used, we do not keep using it. And no RfC can be used to support using a source which does not support the claim assigned to it. Collect (talk) 19:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

No, Collect. You're the one that made that claim and it is YOUR wording you're attempting to remove. Quite bizarre. You are the one who changed the wording to the one I restored. Your entire argument, at the time, was to remove complicity of Omer Sabanci vis-a-vis the Armenian Genocide. That was your argument then, it is your argument now. You therefore made that edit to solve that matter and the community didn't act upon it since then. I personally didn't mind your wording either. But now you're trying to remove YOUR very own edit then turn around and accuse me of accusing the Sabancis of genocide when I restore it? I'm baffled. Also, Nthep merely removed it because it wasn't sourced, as in it appeared to be WP:OR. So I added the source. It's a rather simple matter. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The wording was based on claims as to what the source supported. I now have better access, and the sad truth is that the claim is not supported by the source, and that the editor who assured me it was in the source appears to have been mistaken. Once it was clear that the reworded claim was not actually supported by the source, the proper course is to remove it, which the other editor did, in fact, do. Collect (talk) 22:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

No, that's not at all what happened. You said the wording was "my addition" here. Those are YOUR words, not mine. You didn't realize that the wording you're trying to remove was the very wording that you yourself added until I pointed that out to you. The whole "I didn't have access to the source" does not make sense at all, especially when entire passages of the book were provided to you. Better yet, you actually quoted these passages in your WP:RSN request here. Nevermind the fact that the link to the entire book was provided at the talk page. So you had more than enough access. You never complained about access then. Better yet, you claimed that the source does not jive with the material being presented. Therefore, that means you read the source. Also, the other editor didn't remove it because it was "not actually supported by the source". For one, there was no source. And two, that's not what he said in his edit-summary. He merely removed it because there was no source for the claim. So he was correct in removing it. I merely added a source to resolve the issue while keeping intact the wording that you added. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

If the source was not proffered by you, then I would indeed be in error. If you did indeed proffer the source, then you are the one who proffered the source. Sources do not become sacrosanct on Wikipedia ever, and I decided to actually look at the source after another editor weighed in. When I did examine the source, I found the claims ascribed to it did not match the source. There is nothing personal about any of my edits - all I did was actually look at the source this time out. Verb Sap - if a source does not back a claim made, it is better to simply remove the source that to assert longevity hallows the source. Collect (talk) 22:32, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I am a bit confused by the claims being made here: examining the book "Confiscation and Destruction: The Young Turk Seizure of Armenian Property" at [6] I can clearly see the word "Sabancı" on line 5 of page 132 (page 149 of the file), together with the word "genocide" on line 10 of the same page. This source may or may not be reliable, and may or may not support the edit in question, but it would be helpful to begin by getting agreement on what the source actually says. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, from my understanding is that this is about the "maluse" of a source and not about the source itself. The source's reliability has never been questioned. There was an agreement at the RfC to add the following alternative proposal: "Omer Sabanci, the progenitor of the Sabancı family, moved from his native Kayseri to Adana in the early 1920s. His business grew, in part, due to reduced business competition as a result of the Armenian Genocide." However, Collect modified it to this. Since Collect's wording, and the wording of the alternative proposal are both correct in and of themselves, I don't mind either or that wording being included in the article. Ungor's source starts off by saying in the first line of that section (page 129) that: "The genocide fundamentally changed the demographic, cultural and economic structure of Adana." Armenians were very much part of the "lucrative cotton trade" while many Turks, prior to the Armenian Genocide, felt "sidetracked" (page 129-130). He then points to the Sabanci family and Omer Sabanci specifically benefiting from the environment of a non-Armenian Adana after the Armenian Genocide and cites this as a contributing factor to his "rags-to-riches success story" in that regard. From the source:

This has also been verifiable through other sources including one from Ayse Bugra, which is more specific and discusses what exactly happened while he was in Adana, and as you shall see later on, this is through Sabanci's own words:

As we can see Collect's wording is more aligned with the second source. That wording is also backed by big named historians on Turkish history such as Andrew Mango in his book on Ataturk. Indeed, it doesn't end there. Turkish historians who write in the Turkish language have also caught on. Historians such as Halil İnalcık:

What's interesting here is that Inalcik points to Sabanci's own words (Sabancı'nın ifadesiyle) when it comes to the running over of Armenian ("Ermenilerin çekilmesiyle iyice sönükleşmiş bulunan ekonomik hayatı") businesses in the Adana region and how it was back by the government (hükümetin başlıca kaygısı idi). See the quotes around the these sentences? Well that's because it was Omer Sabanci's own words and that source is here and it is on page 69. This has been discussed extensively by other Turkish historians including Şafak Altun, Abdullah Satoğlu, and others. It is also interesting to note that the Mosque built by the Sabanci's in Adana belonged to Armenian owned property but was later acquired by Sabanci himself. Indeed this is confirmed by a publication from the International Center for Human Development (ICHD) which states that "Sabanci Mosque was constructed upon Adana Armenian Cemetery." It's an interesting tidbit of information to discover as you dive into this topic. But, I wouldn't want to digress at this point. The real reason why we're here is rather bizarre. Collect claims that he never had access to the book. He says here: "Three years ago I did not have the same access to the source that I now have". Yet, he quoted large passages of it in his RSN request here. More specifically, he quoted the only passages from that book that relates to the Sabanci family. That's pretty much all the access you can get from that source. This is the third time we are at this board discussing the "maluse"(?) of this source. That's a pretty serious accusation and I'd assume it is more aligned with behavioral issues of editors rather than the reliability of this or that source. But there should be no problem in that regard either. Over and over again, we have referred to the talk page when it comes to this. We (I) have opened up RfCs. I've done more than enough to contribute to the consensus building process when it comes to the wording and its alignment to the source. I think you remember that Jonathan A Jones, when we agreed on the alternative proposal which aligned the wording to the source. Here's your comment here. That was what the consensus agreed on. However, we are discussing modified wording Collect himself created. This is fine with me, just as long as we can agree on something. Because Collect is correct in saying that "Some of its assets had been owned by Armenians prior to the Armenian Genocide." So I'm all for it. But if we really want to align wording to the source, we could also respect the proposal the RfC has agreed upon whose entire goal was to do just that: align the wording to the source. It had achieved this so we should be able to use that wording as well. Also, if I may add, since we are discussing WP:OR, which clearly I've been accused of (which is strange because I actually added a source, while Collect deleted sources: here) shouldn't we be heading over to the WP:ORN? I mean, if there's any semblance of a case here, we should be using more appropriate forums and methods to solve the matter. After all, I don't see a case made as to the reliability of these sources at all. Again, that was never questioned. Frankly, I don't even know why we are here. It's rather strange to start up an RSN request and not talk about the reliability of Ungor and Bugra. Is it cause of OR? But I'm pretty sure if there are users being accused of OR, it would be those that override an RfC consensus, add their own preferred wording, and remove sources outright. On the other hand, we have a user that considers the RfC moot when he participated in it. I mean, it's a rather bizarre turn of events because the user who made this RSN request is also complaining about wording he himself formulated bit by bit in an attempt to alleviate issues of culpability that only he himself has raised. Then, this user turns around and accuses other users when they restore that very same wording. This is not a constructive approach. Attempting to resurrect this three year old WP:DEADHORSE over and over again in different times and different forums for the exact same reasons is getting tiresome and counterproductive. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:36, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Note The claim that is mode for the source is not supported directly by that source. The source (page 131 and not page 132) mentions the family as "rags to riches." The "these examples must stand for" is an insufficient hook for Armenian irredentism here. The book casts no claim that the Sabancis in any way acted improperly. Therefore adding "Armenian genocide", per WP:BLP is improper on its face. It is precisely like saying that Ford benefitted from the Holocaust because it now owns property once owned by victims of that genocide. As no source actually states that the Sabancis had any connection with the Armenian Genocide, tacking it into this BLP is improper. And the sentence about the Armenian Genocide is not contiguous to the sentences mentioning Sabanci. What the book argues, apparently, is that all Turks benefitted from the genocide, rather than stating that the Sabancis specifically benefitted. Wikipedia does not promote "conviction by catenation from two separate paragraphs". Collect (talk) 22:06, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Your wording doesn't make such a claim, neither does the wording of the proposal agreed upon by the RfC. There's nothing in both wordings that imply that there's wrongdoings on Omer Sabaci's part. We are adding this to the article because Omer Sabanci went to Adana specifically for this reason. He found a good business opportunity as a result of the departure of Armenians due to the Armenian Genocide. This is backed by his own memoirs wherein which he says that that was his goal and the government started an overt campaign for businessmen to conduct such ventures. And it's silly to say that Sabanci's example is just like everybody elses because very few families made a fortune from such an environment. It's for this reason why Ungor says this is a "famous example". It's famous because of how well it worked out for him. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, are you now withdrawing your opening statement that '"Sabanci" is not on page 132, nor is "Sabanci" found on any page with the word "genocide" on it'? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:10, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Sabanci is found on page 131 per Google, and the claim about Turks in general should not be then ascribed to Sabanci in specific. The part about the "genocide" is not in a sentence with "Sabanci." As I said and iterated. The massive repetition here is silly - the fact is that the source as quoted does not make a specific claim about this family. And as such, using it to make such a claim is a misuse of the source. Collect (talk) 00:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Wait, are we reading the same book? The book specifically refers to Omer Sabanci's story as a "famous example" (page 132) of someone has benefited from a business environment of reduced competition due to deported Armenians as a result of the Armenian Genocide. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

You are catenating claims not made and catenated by the book. [7] [8] (A ->B, B ->C, C ->D, D->E combine to A ->E is OR, and fallacious to boot.) See WP:OR. Collect (talk) 16:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

This is not catenating at all actually. Armenians didn't just voluntarily give up their businesses to Omer Sabanci. They suffered a genocide. Sabanci specifically moved to Adana for this reason. That's actually quoted in his memoirs. The book specifically refers to this episode as a "famous example" of someone who benefited from Armenians forcefully leaving their industry. The book is quite clear on that. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Your post is a perfect example of WP:OR down to the last jot and tittle. Collect (talk) 15:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

A perusal of the talk page reveals Collect has a longstanding pov here, the removal of all mention of the Armenian Genocide from that article. I think his reasoning is that he thinks any mention of it implies a participation by the subject in committing it. Yet many sources have been presented indicating that the foundation of the Sabanci business was the opportunities opened up for its founder by the removal of business rivals as a result of the genocide. That background is legitimate content to add to an article about a business. To remove it would be the equivalent of removing all mention of WW2 from the article on the development of Rolls-Royce airplane engines on the grounds that mentioning the production impetus resulting from WW2-period orders implies Rolls Royce in some way caused WW2 for its benefit. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I've done a bit of pruning in one article, Sultan Murad Division (see notes on talk page). Anyway, the most comprehensive source in that article seems to be this one, which appears to be decently written--but it's a blog, and I can't find names or affiliations, never mind an editorial board, haha. Is this really the quality of the sourcing in that area? There's also this, which I am tempted to dismiss at first glance. Drmies (talk) 02:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

This sort of thing will continue as long as there are editors who think that there must be articles on Wikipedia for everything in existence, regardless of the absence of appropriate sources for the material, or editors who like creating articles for creations sake rather than because RS sources have considered the subject worthy of coverage, or editors who think Wikipedia is a newspaper (and one that should carry their pov). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

From Colin Humphreys:

In a review of Humphreys' book, theologian William R Telford points out that the non-astronomical parts of his argument are based on the assumption that the chronologies described in the New Testament are historical and based on eyewitness testimony, accepting unquestioned statements such as the "three different Passovers in John" and Matthew's statement that Jesus died at the ninth hour. He also notes that Humphreys uses some very dubious sources. In doing so, Telford says, Humphreys has built an argument upon unsound premises which "does violence to the nature of the biblical texts, whose mixture of fact and fiction, tradition and redaction, history and myth all make the rigid application of the scientific tool of astronomy to their putative data a misconstrued enterprise."<ref name="Telford">{{cite journal|last1=Telford|first1=William R.|title=Review of The Mystery of the Last Supper: Reconstructing the Final Days of Jesus|journal=The Journal of Theological Studies|date=2015|volume=66|issue=1|pages=371-376|doi=10.1093/jts/flv005|url=http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2015/02/27/jts.flv005|accessdate=29 April 2016}}</ref>

This is about [9]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I have taken a quick look at Telford's piece (which seems to be based on his cited 1980s book). He provides one argument in support of his thesis that the "Holy Week" events cannot be taken literally: the fig tree story in the Holy Week is in his view extraneous and is simply a later expansion of the shorter version of Mark. I find Telford's fig tree contention fairly convincing at first glance (although I am no Bible expert). But the fig tree is irrelevant to the astronomical calculations of Newton et al, which are based on gospel statements on the Passover meal and the cruxifixion. And not on anything else that the gospels report. So I suggest removing Telford. But I am also comfortable with keeping him as a "fig leaf" (excuse the pun) to represent opposing views until someone finds a better review.94.198.142.113 (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

My point is that Humphreys is not a Bible scholar, so why would his book be a reliable source in matters of Bible scholarship? Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:45, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Aha, I see where the misunderstanding lies. My new section is not about Bible scholarship, but about the relevant ancient calendars in Palestine which form the basis of ANY Jesus Chronology. If you do not explain the ancient chronologies used at the time, the whole chronology article becomes speculative and pointless. That is why I explicitly say that Humphrey's scheme for AD33 is an EXAMPLE, and that the 3 April 33 crucifixion date is HYPOTHESISED. I could use a different example for a different year, but that is the obvious one to present.94.198.142.113 (talk) 15:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Some scholars have argued that we have this difference between the Gospels because different Jews celebrated Passover on different days of the week. This is one of those explanations that sounds plausible until you dig a bit and think a bit more. It is true that some sectarian groups not connected with the Temple in Jerusalem thought that the Temple authorities followed an incorrect calendar. But in both Mark and John, Jesus is not outside Jerusalem with some sectarian group of Jews: he is in Jerusalem, where the lambs are being slaughtered. And in Jerusalem, there was only one day of Passover a year. The Jerusalem priests did not accommodate the calendrical oddities of a few sectarian fringe groups.

— Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus, Interrupted, HarperCollins ebooks, p. 36

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

All sources at Draft:Kristina Pimenova were dismissed as either not independent or unreliable (not sure which). The user declining submission looked at the article for only a few seconds. I'd appreciate some input. Lyrda (talk) 16:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Forum shopping is discouraged because it does not help develop consensus. The OP has already raised the issue of the draft's sources at the AfC help desk. Interested editors are invited to contribute to the discussion there. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I prefer to discuss reliability of the sources here, hoping for expert advice. Lyrda (talk) 18:36, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

If the user was not a normal editor of that page it is possible they didn't understand context. wp:bold suggests that you just revert and call for discussion on that talk page if you want. Both versions get saved anyway. Worse comes to worse you get stuck in a revert loop until someone gives up. Might be kinda fun. Endercase (talk) 14:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

At Al-Dawayima massacre, 3 editors, each citing a different policy, are challenging the use of the only known translation of an article which is paraphrased and alluded in our text. The content is a link to that translation, not a use of it.

Jonathan Ofir, 'Barbarism by an educated and cultured people’ — Dawayima massacre was worse than Deir Yassin,' Mondoweiss February 7, 2016.

• The first policy objection was that of User:Shrike here citing WP:Undue. How can a mere reference in a note to the only translation existing be undue?

• The policy cited by User:Sir Joseph here is WP:RS, which the editor says excludes. Mondoweiss. No. This has been often discussed at RSN, which has never concluded MW is unacceptable at sight. The issue is not an opinion, but the translation of original content which our page mentions.
• User:Jonney2000 here says ‘translation by a musician from Denmark is not reliable for sure’.

I.e. to me this is all WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Ofir, is an Israeli classical musician, musical conductor, resident in Denmark where he conducts the Copenhagen soloists ensemble. He is multilingual, takes an interest in politics, and occasionally writes for Mondoweiss. There is not a jot or skerrick of evidence he tampers with the material he translates.

I'd appreciate neutral third party input.Nishidani (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

So let me get this straight, they are removing the English translation of a letter (printed in Mondoweiss) that was previously printed in (Hebrew or Arabic I assume?) in Haaretz? If the underlying information the letter is sourcing is still in the article, what on earth is the point of removing a translation? Is the translation being used to say something different? Is there any indication the translation is inaccurate? Mondoweiss has not been found previously to be 'not reliable' and you would think they can handle a basic translation job. Frankly this seems to be pointless. You could quote the original in English and not even provide a ready-translated version if you wanted. The only purpose appears to be not to have a link to a full English-language version, which is clearly not in the interest of the encyclopedia. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Where did we determine that Mondoweiss is a reliable source? It is not and should certainly not be used for anything in the IP Conflict area. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

You appear to not understand how RSN works. Feel free to look in the archives where mondoweiss has been brought up before. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:16, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

You can use sources that aren't in English. Normally there should be no problem with the translation. You can make your own translation if necessary, but if it is particularly sensitive, get consensus for the translation among Wikipedians who speak the language. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

This problem not of WP:RS but of WP:UNDUE so this issue for WP:NPOVN board.--Shrike (talk) 10:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Nope. You alone asserted this was undue (nota bene: without explaining why). Others said, Lis and Mondoweiss are not reliable. So I addressed this page. This has nothing to do with NPOV, or Undue. Lis is cited as a source to allow the wiki reader to see the full text, whose context is alluded to in the article. It is frankly inane to argue that merely linking the wiki reader to a translation available online violates WP:Undue. No one has given any evidence for why Jonathan Lis's brief translation of a short and straightforward letter should be considered unreliable. You are bilingual in Hebrew and English. So if you can spot an egregious translation error in the English version, that would be an objection. Otherwise this is just the usual teamwork to exclude with a 'wave whatever policy flag' approach, regardless of the merits of the question.Nishidani (talk) 11:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Again question of WP:UNDUE shouldn't be discussed here as this board for discussing of WP:RS.In my view its doesn't important if the translation is reliable or not as it was printed on WP:SPS.--Shrike (talk) 12:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

If you have no credible argument that the translation is not reliable its neither an RS issue OR an UNDUE issue - since the content is already sourced (in another language). Undue is for inclusion of content/sources that give undue weight. Merely linking to a translation of something that is already included is not a weight issue. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

The justification for removing text must be sound policy. Neither Shrike nor anyone else cited above has been able to justify the policy adduced in their edit summaries when removing this innocuous translation reference. I am now being told, however, that I need their consensus to implement the restoration of the translation. This is crazy. The policy used for removal, according to third parties, was incorrect. Worse still, the removal erased material that has been on that page, stable and unchallenged, for a year. But since those removing it are a majority, I cannot restore the material, unlerss neutral third party advice the contention rules that the removal was not policy-based. I would appreciate more input here. Nishidani (talk) 13:45, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

wp:bold? But, don't get in a revert war. That takes up server time. Also Majority or not doesn't really matter WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Endercase (talk) 15:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Is Games Research Network a reliable source? It is a blog but in on its About page, it claims to be a "multi-disciplinary research group for academics and professionals working on gaming and play". I'm wanting to reference the cite to support the Awards section for the page of Catan. Any feedback is appreciated. Thanks! Meatsgains (talk) 23:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Do you see any evidence of fact-checking or an editorial policy (I don't)? The articles linked at "Our Research" might be reliable, but you would need to have a sense of the specific journals in which those articles were published rather than this website. --Izno (talk) 02:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

What's the exact link you want to use? Is is signed? The About section says it's "Based at Manchester Metropolitan University" and has "academics" and "brings together researchers from across Manchester Metropolitan".. the Research section too, makes me feel that it's not just a couple of drunken louts in a basement somewhere. OK here we see Manchester Metropolitan avowing their association with the group, so we're not relying just an the web sites say-so. They are an official arm of the English Department (!) of that University. But "We welcome members who... enjoy gaming" so maybe a bit of hobby club thing going too.

If the entry is signed by a University professor, that counts for quite a bit in my book. I assume that professors don't like to publish wrong things (even in a blog) because its embarrassing and could tend to impinge on their credibility, which is their stock in trade.

But it looks like these blog posts are not signed. To me, that's probably a deal-killer: can't use it. It's arguable... considering that they're academics and associated with a university, it doesn't seem likely that they would be like "Um I think I heard someone say at the bar last night that Catan won such-and-such award, that's good enough for me, I'll publish it", because that sort of approach to facts would end up potentially embarrassing them.

But with no signature, we don't know who is writing (maybe just a hanger-on who "enjoys gaming") or what the editorial controls are, if any. So... I guess probably not. Herostratus (talk) 16:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any fact-checking taking place however, in response to Herostratus - the article I am wanting to use is here and belive it or not there are signatures by Paul Wake, Tom Brock, Chris Jones. There are also references at the bottom of the article. Meatsgains (talk) 17:55, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

More context please. Also WP:VG/S might be useful. Endercase (talk) 15:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I have been working on improving the sources for the article, as I posted at Talk:Bars and Melody#Reliable sources, but there are some that I don't know about. So I created a list there with some comments based upon some research about Digital Spy, Reveal (which now routes to Digital Spy), TellyMix, IMVdB, J-14, and Irish-charts.

The content from these sources is primarily about their discography, tours, a video release date, or shows that they've appeared on. Do you have any input about whether these are reliable sources or not? Thanks so much.—CaroleHenson (talk) 23:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I am guessing that no response means that there's no significant issue with these sources. Is that a fair assessment, that if there was a huge issue with any of these sources, there would be a response?—CaroleHenson (talk) 14:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Not really. More likely no one thinks the material is of consequence :) Collect (talk) 15:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

That's not really fair, OP thinks it is. OP needs to read WP:Bold. If other editors aren't fighting you just do it. Endercase (talk) 15:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Ricardo canedo (talk · contribs) is adding this as a genealogical source for Henry I Sinclair, Earl of Orkney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I've reverted him twice but each time he replaces it. I've also pointed to WP:RS and WP:VERIFY and asked him to come here and show how Brian Dreadon, who wrote this self-published book and writes on Sinclair blogs, meets our criteria. His first edit summary was "The work is not by the owner of the website, it is by a guest writer Brian Dreadon who has made much research in the Sinclair of Dryden family and their likely descendants the Dryden of Canons Ashby family", his second "Dreadon is reliable, he read at least two important books about the Sinclairs, The Genealogie of the Saintclaires of Rosslyn by Father Hay and Saint-Clairs of the Isles by Roland St.Clair". I'm obviously not going to revert a third time and I obviously can't convince him. Perhaps if he sees that others agree he'll be convinced. It's a bit worrying that someone would use such a justification for using a source. Doug Weller talk 19:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm convinced that Brian Dreadon is reliable and won't change my opinion on the subject but I would like to see other's opinions. Ricardo Canedo.

The whole section superficially appears to be unsourced at the moment? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, well, I read a book about Cryptography, WWII and Southeast Asia, so I guess I can edit those articles and cite myself, now. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Is there a reason "The Genealogie of the Saintclaires of Rosslyn by Father Hay" and "Saint-Clairs of the Isles by Roland St.Clair" cannot be cited directly? Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Because they're self-published. 32.218.152.1 (talk) 04:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Genealogie of the Saintclaires of Rosslyn was published in Edinburgh in 1835 by Thomas G. Stevenson,[10] and Saint-Clairs of the Isles was published in Auckland in 1898 by publisher H. Brett.[11][12] Could you share your evidence that they are WP:SPS, or did you mean that they are questionable sources because they're written by members of the family? --Worldbruce (talk) 06:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Genealogie of the Saintclaires of Rosslyn was compiled ca. 1700 by Richard Augustine Hay, a priest who knew the family. It was later edited and published by James Maidment in 1835, with only 108 copies printed (i.e., a private printing with no editorial oversight).[13] Saint-Clairs of the Isles was printed by a private printer in Auckland, with a small number of copies printed, mainly for those on a subscription list. The subscription list can be found on pp. 557-558.[14] Again, no editorial oversight. 32.218.152.1 (talk) 06:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, books -- published or unpublished -- are usually poor sources, because they're not fact checked. You are entirely relying on the rigor and veracity of the writer. (I just came across a book published by Oxford University Press which had a fact completely wrong.)

You're not going to get a books called "The Genealogie of the Saintclaires of Rosslyn" and "Saint-Clairs of the Isles" published, because there's no market for books like that. If someone somehow convinced Random House that they would be best sellers, it wouldn't make the material in them one bit more reliable. Random House will send over a proofreader (for grammar, spelling, etc.) but not a fact-checker.

But anyway as a practical matter we can't get those books -- they're out of print. But wait. We have someone who did get ahold of those books and gave us a a synopsis which we can get to. Win! And I'm not sure its fair or accurate describe this situation as "a person who read two books now trying to pass himself off as an expert". It's more like "a scholar who has read some source documents says..." type situation. It's not helpful to mischaracterize the situation.

But anyway, now we have two degrees of possible error:

1. "The Genealogie of the Saintclaires of Rosslyn" and "Saint-Clairs of the Isles" may be slipshod and full of errors or speculation -- or even deliberate lies, for all we know.
2. Brian Dreadon's reading of the books may have been slipshod and full of misinterpretations. Or maybe his report has deliberate lies, who knows?

But I dunno. Sure these people could be lying, but then, maybe everyone is lying. Maybe everyone else is robots. I'm not sure how far down that path we want to go. I'd need evidence, or at least assertion, that there's some benefit for them to lie before I much consider that.

More likely though, would be errors. Well, let's see. Brian Dreadon says he "took Law at Auckland University with studies in History and English Literature. After a varied career of [doing stuff where you have to wear a suit] He is now retired" and doing this. He's not some drunk yelling on the subway. He sounds like a serious person who is related to these people and might well care about getting this stuff right and having the acuity of mind to do so.

I don't see why the fact that there's no market for "Dryden Family History" proves that Dreadon's a montebank. I do wish we knew more about him. I wouldn't dismiss his book out of hand. It's not a great source, but when you get down into the weeds of details of obscure things, sometimes you have to either use use non-optimal sources or just give up. Herostratus (talk) 06:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

All of that is irrelevant. Yes, it can be hard to determine the truth, and yes, no source is perfect; but we have the WP:RS policy to help us sort through that. Those two books unambiguously fail it, and Dreadon himself clearly fails to fit the criteria that WP:RSSELF establishes, which seems to be what you're trying to invoke here ("...its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications.") Simply having taken some classes and sounding not-insane is not enough to let us cite random PDFs he wrote. It may be that this topic is so obscure that no reliable sources have covered it; but in that case, that means it's simply too obscure for us to cover it as well. --Aquillion (talk) 08:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

For once a question I asked appear to have got decent responses! I agree with Aquillion given the answers above. Its clear the books themselves are not reliable sources by themselves. Now if they had been referenced/used as source material by an author/scholar who would be considered reliable (published by a third party non-vanity publisher or peer reviewed paper etc, the usual RS applications) we wouldnt care about their origin. I cannot see that Dreadon fits the bill of a useable source for something like this. Given the material he is basing it off is also unreliable to be used without a reliable source interpreting it, I would say no. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, those are cogent points. But my take on WP:RS is that it's a starting point. It's not a shibboleth, and it's not a substitute for detailed analysis and consideration of a particular source, which I've done.

Everything -- everything -- in WP:RS is supposed to be in service of answering one question: "How confident are we that the material is accurate"?. Everything else is just noise. For my part I am reasonably confident that that the material is probably accurate.

IMO My ability to learn something about Brian Dreadon is much more useful than anything I can learn from reading WP:RS. I would much rather have a situation like this, where at least I know that he "took Law at Auckland University with studies in History and English Literature" than I would have situation where the book was published by Random House but we don't know anything at all about the author. My take on the guy is that he's probably a serious amateur researcher. The internal clues of the material lead me to believe that. "He doesn't get paid for this by a University" means very little, to me.

With all due respect, my translation of

if they had been referenced/used as source material by an author... who would be considered reliable (published by a third party non-vanity publisher... we wouldn't care about their origin

is

if [some random thing had happened that has nothing to do with anything] we wouldn't care about their origin

"Non-vanity publishers" (even big and famous ones) do not fact-check their material. Their business model is "will this sell many copies and make us money?" not "is this true?" They can't afford to fact-check their stuff. "Published by a famous publisher" is just a shibboleth that has no actual bearing on the question at hand, which is "how confident are we that this stuff is accurate"? (I learned all this while writing Wikipedia:Reliable sources checklist, which I recommend). Herostratus (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Well WP:IRS makes it clear that we do weight publishers based on their reputation when evaluating reliable sources. Self-published is an indication its weak, published by a known (non-vanity) publisher is an indication its gone through an editorial process, which includes fact-checking. If you want to argue that the publisher is irrelevant in this case, you have to demonstrate that the person (Dreadon) themselves is reliable (one of the consideration criteria for which is 'has this person been published previously by a third party'). And as far as I can see, Dreadon does not cut the mustard to be cited on something like this based on his own reputation. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

No, wrong! It's a very common misconception, so don't feel bad. The editorial process of book publishing does not-not-not include fact checking. There just isn't time or money for it, and it's not worthwhile from a business-model standpoint (People do say "The Times got another fact wrong, I'm cancelling my subscription"; they do not say "This Random House book got another fact wrong, from now I'm checking the publisher and not buying any more Random House books", and book publishers know they don't. (Instead, people say "...not buying any more books by this author").

(and this is why reputable magazines and newspapers do employ fact checkers (and are a lot more reliable than books, as an overall general thing). Business model. Follow the money.)

Book publishers do employ copy editors, but they are looking for spelling and grammar errors, maybe smooth out some rough prose. A copy editor might check an occasional fact, but its not really part of his remit, and he has a deadline. Sometimes authors, who have a reputation to protect, will hire a fact-checker on their own dime. And I assume that some books are fact-checked, such as the Guinness Book of World Records, since they need to not be full of errors as part of their business model. But all that is the exception.

It's a comfortable misconception, because it lets us say "big heavy book, famous publisher -- reliable!". It lets us check off a box and move on with our lives. But "comforting" is not the same as "true". Herostratus (talk) 17:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

(EC) That is not in line with how WP:RS (WP:IRS) indicates publishers are treated. I suggest if you want reliable sources to be judged differently, you need to alter those guidelines. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

That's not how I read WP:IRS. Read it again. WP:IRS is pretty circumspect, discussing the issue but not really wanting to say "Use this. Don't use this". However, in "Some types of sources" section they have two subsections ("Scholarship", which says "Material.... that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable", and "News organizations" which says "News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable") (And the other subsections are about sources that are not reliable). So boiling this down I get:

1. Peer-reviewed journals are assumed (not proven) reliable.
2. Periodicals with good fact-checking departments are assumed (not proven) reliable.
3. Everything else is up for analysis and discussion. Herostratus (talk) 16:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Reputable textbook publishers and academic presses do indeed "fact check" their books (probably not to the extent that students and scholars would always like but that's a different discussion...). ElKevbo (talk) 17:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

OK. I don't know about that. I was talking about regular commercial publishers. I can certainly see how University of X Press would have a operational model "We don't want to publish wrong things, as it reflects poorly on the university; and our business model isn't really to maximize the press by itself as a profit center at any cost; and we also have professional pride." I wish I knew more about university presses. Do you have any sources on that subject? Herostratus (talk) 16:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Pinging @Kittybrewster:, who is my usual go-to for this kind of thing. Guy (Help!) 11:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Pardon my intrusion but it seems me that the reliability question can be sidestepped altogether if this information fails the due weight test which seems likely if this information can only be found in one or two obscure books published a few hundred years ago. ElKevbo (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Do we really have an editor who actually thinks "self-published" in the 19th century is the same as "self-published" in the 2010s? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

list of encountered pages
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
oldid on Jim Al-Khalili; ref 7, 8. oldid on Julian Hibberd; ref 2, 7. oldid on [[Ken Caldeira]; ref 10. oldid on Lisa Riley; ref 1. oldid on Michael Howard Kay, ref 4 (article contains a lot of primary references that do not really support their statements: "Spouse Penelope M. Kay" supported by a company website that does not say that they are married anywhere that I can find - the about page mentioned Penelope, but it could as well be his sister ..) oldid on Ben Garrod, ref 5. oldid on Miles J. Padgett; refs 1, 14 and 15 (article contains a lot of primary references that do not really support their statements: ".. known for .." referenced by own work). oldid on Nicholas Higham; 2, 4, 10, 11, 12, 13. oldid on Nick Talbot; refs 2, 3, 4, 5. oldid on Niko Gkionis; ref 2. oldid on Nigel Scrutton; refs 10,11. oldid on Nigel Shadbolt; ref 18 (17?). oldid on Otis Brawley; ref 1. oldid on Oxford Nanopore Technologies, ref 5. oldid on Peter Wothers, ref 4. oldid on Richard Leese, ref 3. oldid on Robert David Stevens, refs 4, 29. oldid on Roderic D. M. Page, refs 1 and 15 (article contains a lot of primary references that do not really support their statements: ".. known for .." is completely primary referenced. oldid on Roger Highfield, refs 5 & 6. Very strongly primary sourced oldid on Rosi Sexton, ref 1. Intro sentence seems a bit off referenced (references from 2003 and 2008 seem to be used to show she retired in 2014 ..) oldid on Sarah-Jayne Blakemore; refs 5, 8, 9, 10. Very strongly sourced to own publication/works. oldid on Serge Abiteboul, refs 6, 7, 9 oldid on Simon Segars, refs 9 & 10

I run lately a lot into cases like in this version of Nigel Scrutton. The problem I see are in this case references 10 and 11, which are to respectively a Google Scholar search for the subject, and a twitter feed. Here it is only 2, this sometimes amounts to a whole list of 5-6 'professional searches' and 'social networking feeds', which in my opinion do not support in any form what is written there. I have done generally a cleanup of the social networking feeds in those, but on this I also removed the google scholar search, as I feel that also that is inappropriate as a reference (and especially for the statements that they are used on). I will list some more examples here when I encounter them. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

You're right, of course. It seems to be a lazy shortcut. In this case the professor's university must have a webpage that contains most of the useful information. A list of works should be fairly easy to compile. The learned societies' websites probably have the dates he was elected to fellowship. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:02, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure if it is a lazy shortcut, or an attempt to circumvent our external link inclusion standards. In some cases they are mixed in with proper references that (at least at first glance) seem to support the sentence (see [15] on Oxford Nanopore Technologies, ref 5), on others there are mainly these general feeds/search results where I don't think they are supporting the subject.

I get a strong impression this is focused around British academics/academic institutions, and that someone thought this is good practice and that it now gets copied throughout. I think some more serious cleanup than what I am doing is warranted here. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I think that refs 2, 3, 4 and 5 in oldid show a good example. This includes a Scopus search, a Google Scholar search, a Microsoft Academic Search and a Twitter feed. Those 'support' the statement "Nicholas José Talbot FRS FRSB (born 5 September 1965) is a Professor of Molecular Genetics at the University of Exeter.". The Google Scholar is also used to 'support' the statement "Fields: Molecular genetics; Plant pathology; Developmental biology" in the infobox, and similar in the prose for "Talbot's research investigates plant pathology and developmental biology". These are in this way not supporting these statements at all (or may get close to WP:OR - if you extract from the list of papers the general subjects and convey from that what his field of interest is ...). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

This is a reliable source, yes? There is something about the web presence of this group that seems off to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Same question for http://scholar.oxy.edu/scas/vol97/iss2/5/. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

The journal looks ok - has an editorial board, staffed with real academics, etc - but it concerns me that their submissions guidelines ask authors to provide a list of potential reviewers, which is not how peer review is generally supposed to work. I would treat it as a lower-quality academic/open access source: probably reliable, but use with a bit of caution. The writers of both of those pieces have PhDs and are experts in the field so I think in those cases it should be fine. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:07, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

It's the official journal of the Southern California Academy of Sciences, which is based at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County; nothing fishy about that. As for asking for suggested reviewers, that's actually done by a lot of journals (I know most ecology journals do it, up to and including Ecological Modelling). -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

previous discussion from 2011 can be found here. I am very skeptical as to the reliability of the IBT. It seems most of the articles are poorly researched with little editing oversight. Often it is the content of other news sources re-packaged. I came across them while editing Walton_family, where they are used to source the (highly doubtful) claim the family owns 54% of Walmart. Reuters, which is a reliable source, says the ownership is roughly 50%^[1]. This is just an example of course. I would like other editor's opinion, ideally a ruling of sorts. Thank you. --Lommes (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

You didn't provide a link to the source in question. Assuming you meant this IBT article from 2015, it attributes the percentage to this Forbes story, also from 2015, by a Forbes staffer, which says, "Six heirs of Wal-Mart founders ... together own about 54% of the global retailer." The IBT source was added to the Walton family article on 11 January 2016 to support the statement "Collectively, the Waltons own over 50% of the company, and are worth a combined total of around $150 billion." For those purposes, IBT is reliable, although it would be better to attribute the information and make the date clear with phrasing like "According to a July 2015 Forbes article, ..."

Replacing the IBT source with a 2014 figure from Reuters has drawbacks. That article says, "The Walton family ... owned 50.86 percent of Wal-Mart's stock as of Dec. 31 [2014] through an entity called Walton Enterprises, L.L.C." It doesn't account for shares family members owned directly, or through other entities. As of 8 April 2016, Walmart's proxy statement reports that four members of the family, including Steuart Walton, hold 51.24% of Walmart. The total could be somewhat higher if other family members who are neither directors nor named executive officers own less than 5% each, an amount that would not need to be disclosed in the proxy statement. So 54% is not unreasonable. Not every percentage point is notable. What Wikipedia should say, being an encyclopedia, is that the Walton family own over 50% of the company. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Why not just show both sources on the page with attribution and date? The Walton Family is a difficult case because they have enough influence to manipulate sources if they wanted too. Using more sources helps avoid that. Endercase (talk) 15:49, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for all your opinions, but I was giving this article only as an example. I am less interested in the article as to the reliability of the IBTimes in general. Thank you.--Lommes (talk) 19:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Please see the top of this page. This page only for use in determining the reliability of sources in context. Endercase (talk) 22:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for pointing that out. While I did read the top, this one must have slipped past me. Apologies. Is there any way to find a general ruling on matters like this, or to start a discussion to generate such a ruling?--Lommes (talk) 12:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I am developing an article which uses information from some Australia tabloid newspapers (including The Daily Telegraph (Australia), The Courier-Mail and The West Australian. However, after reading a few FA and GA candidates (such as this review), some users said that newspapers which publish in tabloid format can not be used as reliable sources for GA or FA articles. Is it true? Phamthuathienvan (talk) 12:03, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

No, it's not true. Tabloid (newspaper format) is merely a format, whereas tabloid journalism is a style of journalism unconnected to format type. See for instance, The Village Voice and the New York Daily News, both of which are in tabloid format but are Pulitzer Prize–winning newspapers generally regarded as reliable-source publications. Softlavender (talk) 12:16, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

At least in the UK the term tabloid newspapers refers to those that use tabloid journalistic techniques.Slatersteven (talk) 12:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

That wasn't the user's question. Softlavender (talk) 12:48, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Maybe so, but the question shows that he needs to be told that when someone calls a newspaper a "tabloid", they may be referring to its sloppy journalism and not its format, and that when used in discussions about sources, it's the journalistic techniques that matter, and not the format. - Nunh-huh 13:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The OP specifically said "newspapers which publish in tabloid format" (emphasis mine), and he is specifically not talking about UK newspapers, but rather Australian newspapers. Softlavender (talk) 13:30, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Of course it isn't true. All sources must be evaluated in context. Blanket banning of anything for any reason is POV and argument from authority. Endercase (talk) 14:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Sometimes we might want a blanket ban or something very close to one. We don't use Wikipedia mirrors as sources, or sites that are entirely copyvios. There are also many web resources that we don't consider reliable, like genealogy websites. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:20, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Except... even wiki mirrors and copy bio sources are considered reliable in limited situations... such as when quoting in articles about those websites. No source is 100% unreliable. These situations may be extremely rare... but the do exist. So, rather than talking about "bans", we should talk about "limitations. Blueboar (talk) 21:32, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad you (Itsmejudith) disagree with me, your POV is valuable. Please join the discussion here or here it may also be helpful to read this and this and my userpage. Blueboar I think even "limitations" would still require open discussion and a list. Endercase (talk) 21:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

So, can we use the three Australian tabloid newspapers that I mentioned above as reliable sources for GA as well as FA article? Phamthuathienvan (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

That depends on how they are used... what is the context in which they are cited? Blueboar (talk) 23:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I am going to use this one from The Courier-Mail to talk about Adele Tour's contribution to Brisbane's economy. This is the only newspaper in Australia that has published these information. Howerver, I have a little worry because it used to have some controversies in the past. Phamthuathienvan (talk) 12:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

In this GA review, New York Daily News was considered as an unreliable source because it publish in tabloid format so it was replaced. Phamthuathienvan (talk) 23:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Thats basically a crap review. Tabloids are not inherantly unreliable for being Tabloid. Those that engage in excessive 'tabloid journalism' are generally not going to be used for anything serious. On the other end of the scale, objecting to some of the most popular and read newspapers in various countries for 'critical reception' is frankly ridiculous. Even the Daily Mail is reliable for the Daily Mail's theatre critic's opinion. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm in 100% agreement with OiD here. The arguments "NYDN is a tabloid and so should be replaced" are utterly craptastic and not worth considering. I'm a little surprised no-one called them out in that review. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, Barron's (newspaper) is a very reputable US newspaper published in tabloid format. Before it ceased publication, The Christian Science Monitor was published in tabloid format. Felsic2 (talk) 17:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

To be fair, though, the New York Daily News often indulges in a quite breezy and informal headline style. And with a tabloid format, there is usually only the one one headline on the cover. This makes the Daily News look unserious. (The same is true of the Boston Herald, also a tabloid but just as good a source with AFAIK just as good fact-checking as the Boston Globe (probably better on local matters)). So its a matter of perception and appearance -- judging the book by its cover. Wikipedia editors are no more immune to that than anyone else. But yeah, as far as I know the Daily News has a rigorous a fact-checking system as many broadsheets. Herostratus (talk) 17:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Is TheWrap a sufficiently RS to support keeping an assertion about a Trump administration initiative coming "from writers such as Christopher Hooton at Independent commenting that Nazi Germany-era propaganda magazine Der Stürmer, which published crimes ostensibly committed by Jewish individuals." (Note that the source is not The Independent but, rather, a website called indy100.com.) This text is being repeatedly inserted at Office of Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

It looks like people want to add sources that draw comparisons between VOICE and Der Sturmer. My understanding is that indy100 is a clickbait spinoff of The Independent. I wouldn't trust it for real news. TheWrap is alright, but it's mostly media analysis and entertainment industry news. In their article, TheWrap links to better sources, including this article from The Atlantic. From checking Google News, there's also this article from The Washington Post. As far as analysis of the office itself, the other sources would be better to cite than TheWrap. But for analysis of what the media is saying and doing, TheWrap is fine. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore, the source is being used at Office of Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement to support an extraordinary claim, that the Office of Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement will be assembling lists of undocumented aliens who have committed crimes, and, from that claim, to support Nazi-era Germany comparisons. It is an extraordinary claim because it goes against the wording of the Executive Order that announced the Office of Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement establishment. The Executive order clearly says that that the assembling of lists of undocumented aliens who have committed crimes is not going to be done by the Office of Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement. As has been often said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In this case, to support the addition of content that goes against the specifications of a presidential Executive Order, it would be an extraordinary quantity of good sources that give specifics about what it is alleged the Office will actually do, not sources containing trite Reductio ad Hitlerum comparisons. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I have boldly corrected the website name in the original post as the name with 1000 seems to created for Typosquatting or something like that. TheWrap seems alright as a publication (what NinjaRobotPirate said). However, I don't see that the article (this is the article, right?) even mentions Christopher Hooton directly. They are citing some tweet that links to Hooton's tweet. We should use better sources, as has been pointed out here.

indy100 is a clickbait site for people with short attention span, and it is pretty much unusable for facts. I came here because I saw someone using this and "indy100 staff" (or whoever wrote the headline) couldn't even get the headline right. They seem to add editorial commentary to pretty much every article they have. Politrukki (talk) 18:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• The source at issue is Melsky, Michael (2016). The Dark Corners -- Of the Lindbergh Kidnapping Volume 1. Infinity Publishing. p. 317. ISBN 978-1-4958-1042-8.
• Article: Lindbergh kidnapping
• Content citing to source (see [16]): The child's father, Charles Lindbergh, used a "meat skewer" to slice open the child's face to identify the body via the teeth.

Per this discussion [17] on the article's talk page, I removed [18] the above content because the source is self-published [19]. Another editor (who happens to be the author of the book) has twice now restored it. Opinions requested. EEng 03:08, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Big pile of Nope. Not unless its covered elsewhere. Claims like that require more than one self-published book. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Footnote: Kirkham, James S., Mercer County Chief of Detectives. Testimony. In the Matter of Paul Wendel, Mercer County Grand Jury, April 14, 1936., page 53. New Jersey State Police Museum and Learning Center Archives. M. Melsky

A partial list of references which include books/authors who have acknowledged, footnoted and/or deemed Melsky as an Expert in the Lindbergh Kidnapping:

Falzini, Mark. 2008. Their Fifteen Minutes. Biographical Sketches of the Lindbergh Case. iUniverse, Inc.

Falzini, Mark AND Davidson, James. 2012. New Jersey's Lindbergh Kidnapping and Trial. Arcadia Publishing.

Gardner, Lloyd C. 2004. The Case That Never Dies. Rutgers University Press.

Knapp, Robert. 2014. Mystery Man. Gangsters, Oil, and Murder in Michigan. Cliophile Press.

Norris, William. 2005. A Talent to Deceive. Synergebooks.

Reisinger, John. 2006. Master Detective. Citadel Press.

Schrager, Adam. July 2013. The Sixteenth Rail. Fulcrum Publishing.

Also it's important to note that I have (22) contributions on the Richard Hauptmann Wikipedia page and (1) contribution on the Gaston Means Wikipedia page that have remained there unchallenged since 2011. I cannot be "reliable" in one place and "unreliable" in another. Either I am reliable or I am not - it cannot be both. M. Melsky

An article Aaron Ozee now at AFD sourcing a "world record" to the website Record Setter. I looked to see if we has an article on "Record Setter" and found a half-dozen articles [20] using it as a source. Is this a WP:RS for "records"?E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

While investigating that AfD I looked at that site. People submit their own "records" and proof, then the website claims to investigate. There does not appear to be any valid verification.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 14:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

That was the conclusion I arrived at, as well. Their FAQ page states: "RecordSetter is a free-content, openly editable records database. The community collaboratively decides when an attempt should be approved or not." They also claim to evaluate every claim within 48 hours, which means that there can't possibly be any serious verification process at work. I, too, looked into the site for the purposes of that AfD, but I think it needs to be removed from other WP articles as it is not a reliable source. --bonadea contributions talk 15:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, I think that's right. Although this gNews search [21] shows that a few New outlets have been fooled into citing it. Not many, but on the first page of the search is the local paper that Aaron Ozee got his story into.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Here are the news links to prove recordsetter.com's credibility - > nypost.com , Forbes.com , journaltimes.com , cartoonbrew.com , Dailytimes.com ,thenextweb.com , Journaltimes.com. I found many more articles in web to prove the credibility of recordsetter.com , but mentioning only 7 here . Abrahamherews (talk) 05:05, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

You've just listed a bunch of times recordsetter was mentioned, without looking at the context. The first link just mentions record setting in passing, it doesn't talk about whether the site is reliable or even cite it for anything. Your second link is a blog (it's easy to be fooled, Forbes used to be generally reliable, but virtually the entire site is blogs now). As for the rest, it just seems to be uncritical referencing to records hosted there. To me this doesn't pass muster as "a reputation for fact checking and accuracy". Like others here, I just see way too many red flags with this website to consider it reliable. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

This site does not meet WP standards for reliable sources (WP:RS). Our guideline states that a reliable source must have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." That hasn't been shown—the evidence provided above, from their own website, shows a decided lack of fact-checking (their claim that they evaluate every claim within 48 hours). First Light (talk) 07:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Kek, CONTEXT PLEASE. NO STANDARDS ARE IN PLACE FOR OUT OF CONTEXT SOURCES. I AM YELLING. Endercase (talk) 15:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• We have no links to that website. #InnocentFace Guy (Help!) 15:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• 48 hours is for processing and not for evaluation . You are misleading the discussion @First Light 05:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abrahamherews (talk • contribs) 05:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

(I don't know who I'm replying to here, since you didn't sign your comment) The RecordSetter FAQ page states that:

As soon as you submit your record you'll receive an email with a link to your "Under Review" page where you can see your attempt and share it with friends. Our community and moderators will then review the record and it will be marked as approved, failed, or denied. Attempts are generally processed within 48 hours.

"Processed" seems to imply that the record will be "approved, failed, or denied" within 48 hours. But it's certainly open to interpretation. It also says "RecordSetter is a free-content, openly editable records database. The community collaboratively decides when an attempt should be approved or not." In fact, there is no explanation of any fact-checking there, only a wiki-style process that doesn't meet our standards for reliablility. First Light (talk) 07:40, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Maybe it doesn't meet your standards for "reliablility". But, we are a community, don't speak for everyone ("our standards"). Without context, this source can not be evaluated with respect to reliability. Endercase (talk) 15:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@Endercase:I should have been more specific than "our standards." I meant the sourcing policies and guidelines created by Wikipedia users ("our," since I'm part of this community) and accepted by consensus and common practice. These are at WP:RS and WP:V. You'll find some reasons at those two pages that would explain why recordsetter.com is not reliable by Wikipedia standards. Please spend time reading those pages and becoming educated on them. They are central to all of the discussions on this page. First Light (talk) 06:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@First Light:WP:CONTEXTMATTERS you can't just logically say "recordsetter.com is not reliable by Wikipedia standards" See also WP:BIASED. I believe the general "ban everything that I don't like" syndrome here is caused by WP:QUESTIONABLE "Questionable sources are generally unsuitable". However, if you keep reading it continues with "for citing contentious claims". If the cited claims aren't contentious there are no problems. Endercase (talk) 20:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Endercase:If some day there is evidence that it meets the RS standard of having a reputation for fact-checking and reliability, then it could become a reliable source. I don't see that right now. It's more of a wiki type of site, based on community approval of records. But, these things can change over time. I don't even have an opinion on whether I like or "I don't like" recordsetter.com. I never even heard of the website before this discussion, and only came to discuss WP policy on reliable sources, and how it applies to this website. First Light (talk) 01:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

In the Teenage pregnancy article, under the subsection "Age gap in relationships", the Family Research Council is listed as an authoritative source on the issue. Considering their track record of unreliability on LGBT issues (the SPLC say they rely on "junk science"), should they be considered a reliable source at all, and should their research be considered accurate on issues outside of the LGBT community? HelgaStick (talk) 16:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

To me it looks like this discussion belongs on the talk page in the Teenage Pregnancy article. Endercase (talk) 18:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

It is also worth noting that the wording in question says "According to the Family Research Council" which allows readers to make their own value judgments. Endercase (talk) 18:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

There's no need to create a false balance when discussing factual matters. FRC should never be cited for such a claim. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Should never be cited for such a claim - even with in-text attribution. The FRC is a lobbying group; it has no expertise or authority on such matters. Neutrality^talk 21:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• Agree with Neutrality and Someguy1221, with the caveat that the fact that the FRC should never be cited for such claims, even with in-text attribution, has nothing specifically to do with their reliability, so much as citing their (probably false) claims being a WP:DUE problem. Any source is a "reliable" source for a claim attributed to it inline, and the reason FRC should not be cited is kind of tangential to this noticeboard. (Of course, they are almost always unreliable for factual claims not attributed to them inline.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• There's a significant neutrality issue here in that the data being reported are being cited from a FRC article, but they do ultimately come from perfectly good sources. It seems to me that the sourcing rule being applied is "since it comes from the FRC, it must be untrue." Yes, the FRC article is to be avoided because of the editorializing around the data, but we need to look to other use of the same data, and not do essentially what the article would accuse us of doing. Mangoe (talk) 22:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mangoe: By "here", do you mean this thread? We are entitled to our opinions on the FRC and their reliability as a source, and there is no requirement for comments on this noticeboard to conform to NPOV. If the relevant information (which I have not looked at) is accurate and can be found in reliable sources rather than just a rightist lobby-group that the SPLC brands a hate group, then it can perhaps be included, but if that is the case then why was it attributed inline to the FRC? If you think there are other sources that use the same data and don't engage in hateful editorializing, then go ahead and locate those sources and add their analysis to the article.

And I apologize if by "here" you meant "in using the FRC's analysis of the data" and actually were agreeing with the rest of us. I read your comment as a dissenting opinion but I understand it could just as easily be otherwise.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry Mangoe, but no way. I read the FRC page. The specific claim that most children born to unwed teens were fathered by adult males is based on a single study of Californians on this precise issue, and another study of Washingtonians that was addressing a tangential issue. That's it. That's their evidence base. The rest of the sources are about teenage pregnancy and statutory rape, but don't address this statistic at all. Why don't we have data from the other 48 states? How can we be sure FRC didn't cherry pick the two sources that fit their narrative? Maybe those are the only two papers that tried to address this specific issue, but the same reasons we should be hesitant to tie a fact to a single primary source applies to secondary sources with a publisher as partisan as FRC. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

That said, this appears to actually be a well studied question [22][23][24][25][26][27]. Surely there is a good review from someone who actually has a good reputation. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:03, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

This appears to be a potential source we could use. I can't read the full article right now, maybe someone else can take a look. @Kmhkmh, Hijiri88, HelgaStick, and Neutrality:? Someguy1221 (talk) 08:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:RX usually helps out to get full access to such articles.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:51, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

That's really all I'm concerned about re neutrality: that we don't lose the section. A quick look at a couple of these studies shows they are a much better basis, and I agree that we don't really want to be using the FRC as our main authority on this, so I think we're done here. Mangoe (talk) 16:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

That seems reasonable, and I'm sure someone with full access to those articles could do a very good rewrite of the section using better examples and statistics.

My concern was merely regarding the use of the FRC as a source within Wikipedia, as have a reputation for editorialising and manipulating data in order to fit their agenda. Although I have not fully read the source, the comments here suggest that my suspicions were correct. HelgaStick (talk) 17:32, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• Agree mostly with Neutrality and Someguy1221. Also I'd like to note that teenage pregnancy is a somewhat well researched issue with plenty of scholarly literature and reliable statistics, so there is no reason to resort to questionable/problematic sources.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:59, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

https://gizmodo.com/that-viral-story-about-a-japanese-man-crushed-to-death-1792986533 --Guy Macon (talk) 04:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Ha! It is nice to see a list of "newspapers" that took the bait alongside the clear statement that Wikipedia doesn't take the bait. We're moving up in the world. (There's a Paul Freedman lecture on YouTube -- I could locate it if anyone's interested, but it was one of these -- where he refers to come kind of misinformation or widely held but false belief in early medieval Europe as being like something from Wikipedia, before immediately correcting himself as something one might have found on Wikipedia several years earlier.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• 'Paul Dacre crushed beneath unsold copies of the Daily Mail' ...now that's a headline :) — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 06:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

What specific content, source and page are you looking for input on? If you're making the more abstract general point that sources that have ever fallen for a hoax or got things wrong need to be banned, that's not how the RS policy works. If you're just trying to make a silly point, shall we just hat this thread? N-HH talk/edits 10:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@N-HH: Have some levity, will you? RSN was mentioned on an external website; mentioning that is not off-topic. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:21, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Well it's the high moral tone and constant banging on about one, singled-out source that comes even when people attempt levity or humour – which ill behoves most contributors to this site, which is riddled with errors, bias and general sloppiness itself. Plus everyone raising actual, and far more serious, concerns about the Mail ban has been told to stop clogging up this board (which I shall now do). N-HH talk/edits 12:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Umm... "high moral tone"? Are you talking to me? I assumed you responding Guy, but he didn't write any original text, so how you can interpret his "tone" escapes me. "constant banging on about one, singled-out source" is even worse: outside of this thread, the words "Daily Mail" appear on this page in two places, once by someone agreeing with you and once by someone de facto agreeing with you; it doesn't appear once in the most recent (read: unfinished) archive page, and on the most recent "closed" archive page there are a few brief mentions in the second half of the page, but the rest are in a thread that was closed on February 17 (read: one week after the original RFC was closed). Wikipedia doesn't have a single overriding bias: I've come across articles that have spent a half-decade being incredibly pro-Japanese and anti-Chinese, incredibly pro-Korean and anti-Japanese, incredibly pro-Korean and anti-Chinese ... I could go on. We have systemic bias, but there's no editorial conspiracy to enforce it. And most of the grammatical errors are unintentional -- it's not like we (or at least most of us) are being paid to write this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:44, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it appears that the same story was picked up by other "reliable sources". So if we had covered this incident, banning the Mail would have had no effect. We could still refer to other sources for the news. What about the CBS and Sky News? Are we going to ban them next? Maybe we should. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:44, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, which is why Wikipedia is better than those "reliable" sources. We don't include crap sourced to fake news sources, even if some other "non-fake" news sources do. But that doesn't matter; this doesn't appear to have anything to do with Wikipedia having included this particular claim. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Although to be fair: Sky attributed the story to DM, so the ban would have prohibited us from using Sky's regurgitating of the story; CNN says they took the story from the Mirror, and ... well, I'm not a fan of that paper's style of journalism, and I wouldn't be opposed to its reliability being discussed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be of the opinion that the ban has some sort of transitive property: If a story refers to the Daily Mail, then it is unreliable. If that is true, then it should be clarified in policy. However, based on my interpretation of the way things currently stand, it would be acceptable to cite Sky, CNN, CBS, etc., on this. Viral stories like this are a real problem that need to be explicitly dealt with in black-letter policy, not WP:VAGUEWAVE arguments like the transitivity of banning. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

If Sky reports that the Daily Mail reported that something happened, then yes, the Daily Mail ban says that we are not allowed say it happened. Sky is not the source of the information -- they are just saying that it was in the Daily Mail, not that it was factual. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Not so fast. The first sentence of the SkyNews report asserts, in editorial voice, that "A man has died after six tonnes of porn crushed him at his home in Japan." This is not an attributed fact. We would be perfectly justified under current sourcing guidelines to cite that fact to that source, in the unlikely event that this incident were notable enough for coverage on Wikipedia. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

No, that would be a misreading of the source. A careful reading of it makes it pretty clear that its information comes from the Daily Mail. Yes, its wording is clumsy, but if you added the material and I removed it saying you were essentially citing the Daily Mail, and you readded it with the above rationale, I would be justified in demanding a separate source that didn't clearly say it got the information from the Daily Mail. It's kind of moot since the material in question doesn't belong on Wikipedia to begin with, but if something similar happened with a notable event, then reliable sources could be found that contradicted the "reliable" sources that were regurgitating the Daily Mail story. We wouldn't have to say that "sources differ" on whether he was found on top of or underneath the magazines, since it would be blatantly obvious that the latter sources were all getting their information from the Daily Mail. (By the way -- I haven't checked the original Japanese source yet, but if it even approached RS then all the English sources that contradicted their original source could be rejected outright. This actually does come up regularly in relation to Japanese popular culture -- anime and the like -- but I have no interest in ever touching those articles even after I've appealed my TBAN.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

No. When a reliable source writes something in editorial voice, the implication is that it is independently verified. Reliable sources that are not able to verify facts independently will explicitly say so. This needs to be made clear in the RS guideline. Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:51, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

We're going to have to agree to disagree. We all know they took the story straight out of the Daily Mail without independently verifying it. I think it's pretty clear from their article that this is the case, and so there is no need to question the general reliability of Sky's other articles, while you appear to think that they are generally reliable. I think if your reading of the source were more intuitive and common, we might need to expand the ban to cover sources that appear to be getting their information from unreliable sources without independently verifying it, but I don't think that's the case, so... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Viral news is a real thing that is not going away. When a dozen or more sources reprint, in some cases without attribution, a story that appears in the Daily Mail, that is a real problem that needs to be addressed. I think the RS guideline should reflect the fact that hard news is often reliable, while soft news usually is not. It's gotten to that point. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• Reliable source? While there seems to have been a question mark over Gizmodo recently, it cites engadget to support its dubious claim that "Wikipedia recently banned" the DM. Though engadget is supposedly a tech RS, its story looks wrong, surely other sources are generally unreliable. Worse, for a tech site, engadget uses the generic link to this noticeboard, not the archived discussion it's talking about. Poor show. . . dave souza, talk 14:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

It's simple: if an otherwise reliable source publishes something that turns out to be inaccurate or even false, then the clarification that it is false is what prevails. We either detail the whole story (that something was published and then proved wrong), or silently skip it (if the whole thing did not generate much controversy in itself). Reliable does not infallible, all sources may be prone to mistakes. In fact, a reliable source that commits such a mistake would likely add an Erratum in their next issue, to clarify it. Cambalachero (talk) 14:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• Hey, I just noticed this: For the record the Daily Mail banned all its journalists from using Wikipedia as a sole source in 2014 because of its unreliability. ... Apparently up until 2014, DM journalists were not prohibited from using Wikipedia "as a sole source". That's frickin' scary. I mean, as Freedman said in the above-alluded to lecture. By the way, I found it. Cosmolearning doesn't have an excellent transcript like for Martin's New Testament series, but this sufficed; it's on YouTube here but I don't have the minute-and-second loc. The quote is [The best libraries in Europe in the seventh and eighth centuries were not great, but they weren't terrible either.] This is not as if everything were-- well, [as of October 2011] I don't want to say Wikipedia either—if everything were like Wikipedia [in 2006], elementary and often wrong. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:03, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

A new editor is inserting a fairly large volume of unreliably sourced material on the article censorship by Google. The improper text is based mostly to (1) opinion pieces (which are as a rule not citable for contentious characterizations or contested factual assertions); (2) primary and self-published sources that don't meet the requirements for use of such texts; and (3) citations to sources that may be reliable, but don't refer to "censorship" and are clearly out of scope of the article.

More eyeballs at the article — and comments at Talk:Censorship by Google#Unreliable sources / improper self-published sources / WP:SYNTH — would be welcome. --Neutrality^talk 19:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Correcting what the above editor said, he is trying to remove properly sourced content along with improperly sourced content without any consensus whatsoever, and I undid part of what he removed, as I disagreed he came here, take a look at the article and give us your opinion. - Cilinhosan1 (talk) 23:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the fairly large volume he is describing, here is the amount of content he is trying to remove, exactly 14,642 bytes of content, of which 2,863 bytes is of what I inputted, the others 11,779 bytes being content that was already in the article for months that he tried to remove without any discussion, of which I reverted 8,459 bytes of the content that he removed with no discussion at all, which is what is shown on the link that he provided above, it is sad to see an editor resorting to deceiving through data manipulation with the objective to unjustify the action of others. - Cilinhosan1 (talk) 23:54, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

(1) Don't make personal attacks; and (2) your content is not "properly sourced." Neutrality^talk 01:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

(1) I'm not the one campaigning here; (2) you should keep that discussion in the talk page of the article, here we should only notify about the discussion. - Cilinhosan1 (talk) 11:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

This is a noticeboard made for the explicit purpose of letting a large number of editors know about discussions concerning reliable sources. It is not canvassing to post here, but it is highly uncivil to accuse someone of canvassing for posting here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:28, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I didn't do anything uncivil here, what I stated is that he failed to post a notification here in a neutral manner, and I never said that posting here is canvassing, instead I was the one who asked him to post here in case you didn't read the talk page of the article. - Cilinhosan1 (talk) 14:47, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I never said that posting here is canvassing No, but you strongly implied it by linking to WP:CAN. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

From you should keep that discussion in the talk page of the article, here we should only notify about the discussion I would think Cilinhosan1 is under the (incorrect) impression that no content issues should be discussed at RSN. In that case, the link to WP:CAN was misguided but is not an aspersion. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:31, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

is sad to see an editor resorting to deceiving through data manipulation with the objective to unjustify the action of others. A friendly bit of advice. Don’t make accusations like this on a page frequented by admins. WP:AGF Objective3000 (talk) 14:56, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Advice is always welcome - Cilinhosan1 (talk) 15:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

External links search: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?target=*.immihelp.com&title=Special%3ALinkSearch]

Is immihelp.com to be considered a reliable source for immigration law type issues? It has a prominent disclaimer stating that it is not giving legal advice or opinions. There doesn't seem to be a named editorial staff or credentials. Most of it seems to run on anonymous advice given to people in their web forum. It may be an SEO operation. WHOIS ownership records are obscured but other online business ownership directories say Immihelp LLC is owned by two individuals in Texas whose names I do not recognize.

Examples of usage follow. Many of these references were inserted by a single editor or his employee.

• L-1 visa: "The L-1 classification also enables a foreign company which does not yet have an affiliated U.S. office to send an employee to the United States to help establish one, with additional requirements" ([http://www.immihelp.com/l1-visa/opening-new-office.html ref]) (site also linked in ELs)
• Direct Consular Filing: "the Mumbai, Chennai, Kolkata, and Hyderabad consulates cannot [process the form]" ([http://www.immihelp.com/greencard/familybasedimmigration/direct-consular-filing.html ref])
• Form I-129: "Having an approved Form I-129 does not guarantee that one will get the visa." ([http://www.immihelp.com/visas/h1b/visa-stamping-faq.html ref])

Also calling JzG who deleted it:

• Notice of Intent to Revoke here
• Form I-140 here

It doesn't smell like a RS to me. - Bri (talk) 01:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Nope - no indication of reliability. Immigration law information should be cited to legal treatises, handbooks, journal articles, etc. Neutrality^talk 15:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Bri: I would say no, this is not a RS. For one thing, check their [http://www.immihelp.com/misc/disclaimer.html disclaimer page]:"Lot of information presented on this website is based on personal experience of website operators and based on the experience of other visitors..." and "We routinely get inquiries from people that question the authenticity of information posted on this web site and ask us to show the corresponding content on the official government web site. Please note that we are unable to fulfill this request for several obvious reasons..." If they refuse to cite sources (and they don't, anywhere that I've seen) and base it mostly or entirely on their own personal experience and content contributed by people on their discussion boards, they are most assuredly NOT a RS. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Apologies if this is in the wrong place,
I'm currently sourcing Georgina Leonidas and one part states "she has another sister, Helena, who works as a teacher." - Should I use LinkedIn as a source or remove it entirely ?,
It feels wrong to add such a personal page as a cite but at the same time there are no other sources to confirm her being a teacher (or being her sister for that matter) so not sure what to do for the best, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 22:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I think that mentioning the sister is fine, that the sister is a techer is hardly relevant to the subject. Would still be nice to have a ref that She has a sister .. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• I think the mention should be removed, per WP:NPF. (The other sister is fair game since there is a WP page, but the infobox is enough.)

Even without privacy issue, the relevance of that information is highly questionable - unless (e.g.) Georgina discussed it in an interview or something, I do not see how saying she has an unknown sister is any better than "her favorite color is blue"; but I guess opinions can differ. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

We have lots of pages that have such family information. Not seeing how (in and of itself) this is a problem, context and usage maybe. As to LinkedIn, frankly it is not RS as far as I can see, self edited content with no editorial control. I see no reason why her having a sister would be a lie, but I would rather a better source was used for it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for all of your opinions on this, Unfortunately I cannot find a better source or any interview of her mentioning her sister (I doubt there's anything offline either) so I've removed it, IMHO I do agree with Tigraan in that it is like saying her fave colour is blue, Anyway thanks again for all your opinions it's much appreciated, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 15:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: We have lots of pages that have such family information - true, and I think in 90%+ of the cases it should be removed as hardly relevant (and/or NPF violations). But as I said, I understand other people may disagree.

FWIW, I think a primary source such as publically-available profiles (LinkedIn, Facebook, etc.) edited by the page subject would usually be enough for verifiability. But a secondary source, even a passing mention, could objectively demonstrate some encyclopedic value. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Does Linkedin verify user accounts?Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I have recently discovered Studopedia (http://studopedia.su), which has the top-level domain (TLD) .su (Soviet Union). My understanding of Russian is limited, but Wikipedia:Local Embassy lists 11 Russian-speaking editors (User:Abdullais4u, User:Brandmeister, User:Brateevsky, User:Calaf, User:Evgenior, User:Maxim, User:MaxSem, User:Music1201, User:Orthorhombic, User:SkyBon, User:Fenikals). Also, Wikipedia:Translators available lists some of those as well as some others (User:Daniel Case, User:Halibutt, User:Aleksmot, User:Anthony Ivanoff, User:BACbKA, User:Interchange88, User:Smack, User:TMW, User:VKokielov, User:XJaM). Is Studopedia a reliable source for Wikipedia editors?
—Wavelength (talk) 16:03, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Looks dubious to me; seems to be an aggregator-type site mainly set up to sell ad space to students looking for crib sheets. I can't find any information about who runs it or where they get their information from, which alone makes me suspicious, especially when someone has used the .su domain. I also found a link in their info to a site called WikiKak ("WikiHow"), which makes me think, along with the front-page format, these articles were sort of wiki-generated. Daniel Case (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. (I did not understand crib sheet, so I consulted wikt:crib sheet.) Incidentally, in "категория Иностранные языки" ("category Foreign languages"), I found some pages in English.

• http://studopedia.su/17_93767_ACCENTUAL-STRUCTURE-OF-ENGLISH-WORDS.html
• http://studopedia.su/17_101321_Anatomy-of-intonation-patterns-Types-of-pre-heads-heads-and-tails.html
• http://studopedia.su/13_43341_Exercise--Open-the-brackets-using-the-Past-simple-or-the-Past-Continuous-Tense.html
• http://studopedia.su/17_101157_Types-of-allophones-and-the-main-features-of-the-phoneme.html
• http://studopedia.su/17_93785_Publicistic-Style.html
• http://studopedia.su/17_101150_The-connection-of-phonetics-and-phonology-with-non-linguistic-and-linguistic-sciences.html
• http://studopedia.su/13_172278_Types-of-allophones-and-the-main-features-of-the-phoneme.html
• http://studopedia.su/17_93761_Modifications-of-Consonants-in-Connected-Speech.html
• http://studopedia.su/12_76312_EXERCISES-FOR-CLASS-AND-HOMEWORK.html
• http://studopedia.su/6_15200_Lexicography-Types-of-dictionaries.html

Also, there are http://studopedia.ru (with TLD .ru) and http://studopedia.org. (I found http://studopedia.su from a Google search for dom brat most дом брат мост ["house brother bridge" in Polish and Russian].)

—Wavelength (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

See also User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 218#Studopedia (online encyclopedia) (March 2017).

—Wavelength (talk) 15:50, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

After a quick look, it seems unreliable to me because:

• This website offers to ghost-write academic papers.
• It seems to consist of articles that were copy-pasted from elsewhere without editing.
• Overall, it seems to be an unstructured dump of unrelated information that seems to be OCR'd or copied from encyclopedias without any attribution, for the purpose of attracting traffic and earning money with ads.

--Anthony Ivanoff (talk) 16:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for not being more specific. Something along the lines of:

The co-founder of the Toronto Black Lives Matter chapter has (allegedly?) called white people sub human and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau a “white supremacist terrorist,”

Help rewording as appropriate is welcome.

Perhaps this is a discussion for the article talk page, but I just want to make sure that these sources are at least good enough for something before proceeding.

Benjamin (talk) 10:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

As I recall from the last time this came up, many of the sources are unreliable, especially for BLP issues, but that's not the most critical issue here. Even if you got over the RS hurdle, I haven't seen a consensus that this incident is significant enough for the BLM page. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:43, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Is that many sources not enough to establish notability enough for even a single sentence? Benjamin (talk) 10:47, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Without Context we can't say anything about any sources. See above discussion. wp:Bold if someone removes it or brings it up move to the talk page. If no consensus can be reached there move here. That is policy as I understand it. Endercase (talk) 15:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

BLM are a larger national organisation. So the statements of a co-founder of one local chapter may not be relevant to the larger organisation. At least some of the sources above would qualify for 'X said X' but unless they demonstrate any lasting notability or get picked up by wider media coverage, they are going to fall under WP:UNDUE for the BLM article. (If the subject of the article was BLM-Toronto it would likely be different.) Much like how the individual foibles of wikimedia chapter personnel are largely irrelevant to the wider Wikimedia community. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the chapter deserves an article, but is it at least notable enough for a short mention? Benjamin (talk) 03:01, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

First of all, this stems from Talk:Alfredo Beltrán Leyva. My POV is that the removal of "not-approved" sources from articles without specific use case reasoning is a case of Wikipedia:If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I'd like consensus on this if y'all deem it worthy. However, if y'all choose to continue in a blanket manner approve or deny specific sources then, in my POV, we should have a publicly available list that links each source to an open debate about the reliability of said source as well as archived discussions. I hold this POV because I don't believe in Argument from authority or Argumentum ad populum or fixing things that aren't broken. As it currently stands we are using a logical fallacy as policy and are therefore broken. Every use of a source that isn't "approved" is a challenge to consensus because the editor that used it obviously thought that it was reliable enough for use in that specific use case. Therefore, not having an open discussion while also removing sources violates WP:NPV and challenges the use of consensus as an administrative tool.

TLDR: In order to rectify argument from authority I suggest the use of a list of talked about sources that links to open discussion and displays current measured consensus. If this is already semi-officially in place please let me know where so I can move there. Thank you for your time Endercase (talk) 13:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I acknowledge that this is one step up meta and may need to be moved to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution Endercase (talk) 13:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• No, we should not have a list. Reliability always depends on specific context, and must be assessed on a context by context basis. A source may be completely unreliable in one context, and completely reliable in a different context. What is needed is guidance on how to better assess news sources and use them appropriately in different contexts. For example: guidance on whether the source can be used to support an unattributed statement of fact (X is Y) or it be limited to supporting quotes and attributed statements of opinion ("according to source, X is Y" or "on date, source reported that X is Y") Blueboar (talk) 14:11, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
• No - such a list would, perforce, be both incomplete and inaccurate. AFAICT, the only true areas where I trust zero :sources" are in the area of "celebrity gossip" for which even the Grey Lady has been shown deficient. The current strange belief that some newspapers actually still check facts is one of our major problems. Collect (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

To be clear Blueboar and Collect support the idea that source shouldn't ever be banned outright (as they are in practice now) but be evaluated in context each time? Endercase (talk) 17:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Some sources are de-facto 'banned' for use in almost all situations. The exception being as a primary source on themselves. They are considered so unreliable for almost every use that no should sensibly use them without discussion first. Said discussion will usually end up at 'no' but there are exceptions for every source. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Is this really about a general policy question (in which case you should raise this somewhere else, where they actually deal with policy stuff), or are you just fishing for someone to tell you that it's ok to use Brietbart, as you're advocating here? If that's your goal then you would have done better to be upfront about it, rather than sugar-coating the question as a general policy issue. Either way, the answer is no: Breitbart is not a reliable source for facts, and you're going to find very little support for a list of "approved" sources. That way lies madness... Fyddlestix (talk) 17:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

From that discussion: "it (Breitbart) is equal to that of CNN or the New York Times" yeah but no. In relation to that specific page, I would not use a far right publication which has 'issues' (putting it mildly) with people from south of the US border... on articles about crime south of the US border. I trust I dont need to point out the POV issue here? Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

There is no attempt to sugar coat anything, sources are actively being removed without discussion because of previous consensus from unrelated contexts. I have a problem with that as it goes against the very idea of consensus and is a clear logical fallacy. At the top of this page it says: "This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context." Now, that is either true or it isn't. Further, if it isn't then we need a list as described. Endercase (talk) 18:07, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

But there is a consensus that Brietbart is really only reliable for attributed opinions, not for facts. That has been confirmed over and over here in many different discussions. Whether you think it's a "logical fallacy" or not is immaterial. If you want to argue that a specific exception should be made in this particular case, go ahead. But you're not likely to prevail. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:11, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

There is also consensus that sources can't be banned. Endercase (talk) 18:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

If the honorable editors herein wish to push this issue I suggest we move everything above this to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard within 24-48hrsEndercase (talk)

The issue here is reliability of sources, not NPOV, so I don't think it would make sense to move the discussion to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

,The outright banning of sources is POV. The only NPOV stance on this issue is the explicit policy as it is written: "This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context." Meaning sources can not be outright banned as is currently practiced. Endercase (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

What we should be doing from RS/N is to create a white/blacklist as noted above we've done for WP:VG/S that shows how a source can be considered after discussion at RS/N (reliable for fact, reliable for opinion/self-statements, or fully unreliable/unusable). It will not be exhaustive of all sources, but at least it serves as an index from past consensus discussions. We should also link to these project/topic area guidelines (we have that one for medical studies, for example) But that all should be prefaced that reliability is also a function of topic area too: I'd used IGN for anything related to video games and contemporary fiction, but would not use it at all for politics or medical data should they ever present it. --MASEM (t) 17:33, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I love the addition of the WP:VG/S example. How do you handle issues where an author from a "reliable" source is hired by one that is considered "unreliable" and continues to produce verifiable content? For instance the case at Talk:Alfredo Beltrán Leyva. *Any specific discussion on Alfredo Beltrán Leyva should be moved to another heading or to that page. Endercase (talk) 18:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi MASEM, thanks for your answer. I'd like to follow-up on Endercase's response. Ildefonso Ortiz is the drug war reporter for Breitbart. He used to work for The Monitor (Texas) and did a lot of work on the Gulf Cartel/Zetas. Is there a way we can include his Breitbart reports on Wikipedia? He's published some interesting stuff on these two groups and usually works with Mexican reports to before publishing (as you may know, local reporters in Mexico are often intimidated/killed for writing about organized crime, so they rely on Texan reporters or social media to report). ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 14:21, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• No. The fallout from the absurd Daily Mail "ban" continues? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
• No. Jytdog (talk) 03:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I do not understand why y'all are voting. While voting can be a useful tool in forcing the appearance of a consensus "important" points have been brought up in the discussion that should be addressed in order to move forward. In addition, this is not a YES/NO vote; it is (Is Out of Context Banning allowed?: Iff it is then we need a list that links to discussions). This is not something you can logically just respond "No we shouldn't" too. Hopefully y'all choose to participate in this discussion. Endercase (talk) 14:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment It should probably be noted that this thread is also related to the Stealth banning article, where the OP also attempted to cite Breitbart and was challenged. The title of this thread appears to be a fallacious attempt to get users to say indirectly that Breitbart is reliable in certain circumstances (it's not a strawman argument per se but I can't quite put my finger on what the correct term for this type of argument is). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Wow that is low. First, you interrogate me on my talk page where I responded honestly and respectfully and now this. I honestly believe what I have put here. This is not a red herring of any sort. It is meta discussion about the behavior of users on Wikipedia. I noticed a problem due to the interactions at Stealth banning and chose to address it directly. There is nothing fallacious about it at all. Additionally, your comment disrespects all users who have interacted with me here in a clear and honest manner suggesting that they couldn't recognize tomfoolery when they saw it. Endercase (talk) 02:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Wow that is low. What is low? First, you interrogate me on my talk page where I responded honestly and respectfully Okay, that definitely is not what happened. However one interprets our interaction on that page, "honestly and respectfully" is not accurate. You dodged my question and kept going off on tangents about Donald Trump and the like, and you kept accusing me of getting angry. and now this It's pretty clear from the rest of your comment that you don't know what "this" is, so I'm not going to bother asking. I honestly believe what I have put here. I don't care what you put here; my comment was about what you didn't put here. This is not a red herring of any sort. Read my comment again. I didn't say anything about red herrings. It is meta discussion about the behavior of users on Wikipedia. It's considered extremely impolite to talk about other users without notifying or naming them, so if that is what you were doing it is wrong. I noticed a problem due to the interactions at Stealth banning and chose to address it directly. So, you admit that part of your motivation for opening this discussion was related to the Stealth banning article? Because the whole point of my posting the above was to point out that this was apparently your motivation, but for whatever reason you had not mentioned it. "Ctrl+F" the word "stealth" and you will see that you didn't mention it here until after I pointed out that you probably should have. There is nothing fallacious about it at all. If you claim that other editors are trying to prevent you from citing a source that, yes, should never be cited under almost any circumstances anywhere on the encyclopedia, but word it so that your opponents look like the ones violating policy and making up fake rules, that is indeed fallacious. Additionally, your comment disrespects all users who have interacted with me here in a clear and honest manner suggesting that they couldn't recognize tomfoolery when they saw it. No, it would have been disrespecting them if called them all idiots for assuming good faith on your initial comment. I came across this thread because I saw your comments elsewhere on this noticeboard and noticed that they all seemed to be wrong, so I checked your contribs and noticed that your main reason for coming to this noticeboard seemed to be to open this discussion, as well as the fact that this discussion was misrepresented as being about Talk:Alfredo Beltrán Leyva when it seemed to be more relevant to Talk:Stealth banning (a page you have edited four times as often). You also forum-shopped the same dispute to NPOVN, and then apparently started making the same unhelpful comments in numerous threads over there as well (although I am not as familiar with how NPOVN works as here; it's possible comments like making factual lists [of cherry-picked crimes committed by Muslims] is not POV, major edits should only be made by signed in users. You could get them for that probably, from what I've seen we shouldn't do anything. just try not to attack their free speech too [Wikipedia is not a forum for free speech], it could also mean that the user has Autism spectrum disorder, I feel like calling a "disorder" a derogatory term is actually kinda offensive ... only look disruptive to me). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I did not "Doge" your question, you asked "who are you" I responded. You did not initially ask if I had used alt accounts. I didn't "accuse" you of being angry, I asked if I had upset you (looks like I did, despite your assurances to the contrary). If you have a personal issue with me my talk page is a better location for this entire discussion. All of my discussions have been hyper-linked, and no "misrepresentation" has occurred. Additionally, "Forum-shopping" isn't Wp:canvassing and wp:local consensuss must be avoided for policy related discussions. Your cherry picking of my words is ridiculous. The Anti-Defamation League has often used lists of crimes committed by X group as a tool for social manipulation by providing context to counter other lists. Their actions are likely more thought out than your opinions. By allowing such lists to exist here we are able to directly provide context that would definitely not be shown in other closed media sources. Also if they wanted a judgment on NPOV they should have posted in the NPOV forum, my wording was related to apparent "reliability" of the sources. I agree that Wikipedia is not a forum for free speech, however WP:NOTCENSORED and your implication that it should be is frankly offensive. "citing a source that, yes, should never be cited under almost any circumstances" is censure. Now if you do not want to be constructive or address my points please stop. Endercase (talk) 16:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't include outright lies, nor does it include information that can only be found in sources with a reputation for printing outright lies. If you found something on Breitbart.com and you think it is accurate and verifiable, then you should have no trouble whatsoever finding another source for it. I am not saying that we should censor anything. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:49, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri88 You completely dodged the point. Saying other users can't under any circumstance use X source is censorship. Endercase (talk) 21:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

No, you are the one who dodged the point. No one is censoring your content. There is no ban on including uncontroversial information you read on Breitbart. The problem is that you are arguing for being able to cite Breitbart and only Breitbart (and other similar sources like InfoWars) for factual claims that cannot be found in other sources. The reason you are not allowed do this is because, if such claims cannot be found in other sources, odds are overwhelmingly high that the claims are wrong. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:14, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

No, but I think that we should not single out the mail for special attention, the Mirror needs to be banned as well.Slatersteven (talk) 17:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Slatersteven The mail hasn't been singled out. There are several sources that will be removed shortly after using them without any discussion. Endercase (talk) 21:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh my, I posted this in the wrong location. It belongs on the talk page for Reliable sources, not the Noticeboard. As the Noticeboard is for discussions on particular sources and is definitely not for meta. I do not know what to do about this. Endercase (talk) 20:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, that depends on how much and what kind of input you want. If there were a unanimous consensus for your proposal on any one place other than the RS talk page, then it would be inappropriate to implement it without first clearing it there as well, but just because there is unanimous consensus against your proposal here it might just be a coincidence; there are thousands of editors on Wikipedia, and we are only a tiny random sample of RSN junkies. If you want a fair representation of the Wikipedia community, then no one forum is perfect, and the best option is probably to open an RFC. But be very careful about the wording you use in your RFC question, and be sure to include links to where you had brought it up on RSN, NPOVN and Jimbo's talk page. Pinging the users who responded to you here and on those two other fora would also be a good idea. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:49, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Won't I get accused of WP:FORUMSHOP again? Also is there a WP on pinging people. I really do think there should be a list of banned sources if we are banning sources, and we are (in practice). Endercase (talk) 21:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• comment In the short run, no news source should be treated as reliable until the matter has had some time to settle out. Even the best news sources produce initial reports that don't pan out. Mangoe (talk) 22:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

If you've the time, would very much appreciate opinions on this RfC on Napoleon Hill talk. There was an RSN post here a while back but that did not get resolved. The article is not high traffic, so even with the bot notices, which should be going out soon, it might not garner much attention. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm running into a bit of the problem at Modest Mouse discography § Singles. I'm trying to find a source to back up the claim that "Every Penny Fed Car" and "Four Fingered Fishermen" were B-sides to the "Birds vs. Worms" single, but unfortunately, information has been scarce due to the single's rarity, with the overwhelming majority of pages I have visited mentioning the "Birds vs. Worms" single while leaving no mention of the B-sides. The best I've been able to find are the single's entries on Discogs and Rateyourmusic (which I already know are not reliable sources), and photographs of side B of the 7-inch single, as seen on Discogs, eBay, and Amazon (note: B-side label appears rotated 90° counter-clockwise). Could the B-side label of the single be used as a source to verify that "Every Penny Fed Car" and "Four Fingered Fishermen" were the B-sides for this release? While I'm leaning "no," it would be nice to get either confirmation or invalidation of my skepticism; that way, I can know whether or not to remove mention of the B-sides from the Modest Mouse discography here on Wikipedia. --Dylan620 ^{(I'm all ears)} 00:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Dylan620: A photograph of the "Side 2" of the "Birds vs. Worms," even though it is primary is a RS for this statement. But that is not the problem. IMO, the problem is the source of the photograph. All three of the sites you listed are essentially user generated. For example, I could take a picture of "Side 1" of "Birds vs. Worms" and combine it with "Side 2" of a different single from Modest Mouth from the same year. Or I could manipulate the photo. It is obvious that is not what happened here as the design is obviously from "Birds vs. Worms." But that is the bases for why this type of linkage is not solid. To use the picture, I think you need it to be published in a reliable source. Then you can use it even if the RS doesn't outright say "were B-sides to the" single. —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Unless there is evidence or reason to suspect that the photos have been manipulated (e.g., this is a contentious issue, the website or photographers in question have a reputation of manipulating photos) then I think the source is ok on the reliability front. But, as if often the case with questions raised on this noticeboard, even if the source passes muster for reliability that doesn't mean that the information passes the due weight bar for inclusion in an encyclopedia article. If the only place you can find some information is on hard-to-find photos of one specific primary source then it's very doubtful that the information should be included in an encyclopedia article in the first place. ElKevbo (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, in addition to Discogs, the tracklisting of the single has also been mentioned on Rateyourmusic, Last.fm, Piero Scaruffi's website, an auction tracking site (Roots Vinyl Guide) and a few merchant sites (such as eBay, Amazon, and Popsike), so there's more evidence than just the photos that "Every Penny Fed Car" and "Four Fingered Fisherman" were the B-sides of the "Birds vs. Worms" single. The dilemma is that from my understanding, none of those sites qualify as reliable sources. --Dylan620 ^{(I'm all ears)} 00:37, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Surely no sources are automatically not reliable sources? It depends on the content the sources are being used to support. Would a description in a price list, or auction catalogue, produced by a named individual or company, be a reliable source for this sort of content? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:40, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Although previously discussed here (thread started by @The Land, with the only comment from @Someguy1221 which I replied to, no major issues were raised), @Nikkimaria removed the Daily Mail references from Snugburys, either deleting the referenced content or tagging it with citation needed. I've since reverted it (twice) as I don't think the removal of these references is warranted, and some discussion has started on the talk page. Additional viewpoints on this would be appreciated. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 00:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

As I now understand it the DM is not an RS for anything other then it's self. So no it would not be RS for any claims about a third party. As I believe was said in the RFC "if it is worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia other (more reliable) RS would have covered it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• Ditto. The RFC concluded that in usual circumstances DM sourced = not sourced, so anyone can go on a rampage and replace DM sources by a cn tag. Yeah, it would be better to search for a better source and if found add it, if not found remove the material with an edit summary explaining it, but it is still better than nothing - just as drive-by tagging is worse than edition but better than inaction. Restoration of the source is of course possible but the WP:BURDEN to show that the DM is a RS for what it cites is on the one who restores the material. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:47, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
• Generally in a situation where the information sourced is not controversial but can likely be sourced elsewhere, the Daily Mail one should be removed and replaced with citation needed - as that is more likely to get someone to actually look for another citation than if the Mail ref was left in. It looks like other people have actually looked for other sources and nothing has come up, so the usual 'if no reliable source is covering it, we probably dont need to' applies. While I dont *think* the mail is particularly prone to exaggerated claims in the giant straw scupture area, the reason we default to 'not a reliable source absent a really good reason' is that they have been unreliable for practically every use we have for them in the past. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• Wow, that's seriously messed up. So essentially we can no longer use Daily Mail refs at all, even if they are perfectly good, accurate reporting of something? This should really be a matter of judgement by the people working on the articles, definitely not a blanket absolute ban. :-( Mike Peel (talk) 21:46, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Just continue restoring the content with the DM as the source. The "ban" is in the eye of the beholder - those that think their ban is enforceable have rose-tinted eyes to go with their bigoted minds. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• The ship has sailed for now, even though, as you suggest, this rather obviously runs counter to the basic principles of RS policy, which is all about context and judgment. As for the case in question, it's quite likely the Mail took its coverage from reviewing local press reports (cluestick: this is how the media works), where the issue in question also seems to have been covered. Yes, that means the content can still be sourced, if thought worth including, by going straight to local reporting, but there's no reason to trust that over the Mail or for WP to rely on it directly while implicitly excoriating the Mail for doing exactly the same thing. N-HH talk/edits 21:59, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• You are missing the point. This is an encyclopedia. There is no place here for "judgement by the people working on the articles". We only include material that is in reliable secondary sources per WP:V. The Daily Mail is not a reliable source. You do not have some magical ability to tell whether something in TDM is "perfectly good, accurate reporting" or a complete fabrication, other than by confirming it in another source. And if you can do that, you should use that other source rather than TDM. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• Um, article writing relies pretty heavily on the judgement of those doing the writing. What to include, what not to include, what information is trustworthy. If we didn't need to use judgement, then the articles could all be written by bots... Mike Peel (talk) 22:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• Opinion noted. And rejected. The fact that your judgement led you to believe without evidence that The Daily Mail was "perfectly good, accurate reporting of something" is all anyone needs to know to reject your opinion. They have repeatedly fabricated stories, and yet for some strange reason you think you can identify the cases where they didn't fabricate a story. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:01, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

An admin pushing the Daily Mail?! Wow... — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 07:27, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Judgment has "no place" in writing articles and in collating the information used to compose them? Er, okay. I have no further comment. N-HH talk/edits 10:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• Per WP:RSCONTEXT editorial judgement has to be applied to any source, anytime, but to determine if the source is likely to be correct in its reporting, not whether the story itself is credible. However, while the New York Times has a presumption of reliablity (based on a previous reputation for good editorial oversight), randompersonalwebsite.com does not. The DM RFC essentially says that the DM is closer to randompersonalwebsite.com than to the NYT. In particular, when a dispute arises, the burden rests on whoever wishes to establish consensus for a particular use. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:53, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Can we shift this discussion towards the practicalities of cleaning up uses of the DM. I think this is actually a bit better than a couple of years ago when we were discussing the DM, when I did a random check and found inappropriate Mail-sourced gossip on a celebrity BLP. Now when I search for articles containing "mailonline" the first one I find is about a Daily Mail journalist, Laura Topham. I think we can all agree that this use is appropriate? The next one I find is Maddox Gallery, which is tagged for multiple issues including notability. I don't personally have a problem with notability because there are references to huffpost entertainment and CBS. Here, the Mail is used for the artists who have displayed their work, but not to Mail reviewer's opinion might arguably be usable, rather to archetypal celebrity tittle-tattle, an article entitled "Starting her young! Tamara Ecclestone cuts a chic figure in tailored jacket and thigh-high boots as she and daughter Sophia shop for pricey artwork". Itsmejudith (talk) 16:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Source: Popbitch

Article: WER v REW

Content: Mr Hutcheson gained an injunction but it was later partially lifted.^[1]

Submitted by --David Tornheim (talk) 16:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:bold? That is a really small article with low traffic and very few sources. Adding Sources can only help that article. Endercase (talk) 16:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

@Endercase: I agree. I don't think there are any other better sources, except perhaps this. Here's a Google search. If this doesn't pass WP:RS, I will probably submit the article and a bunch of articles like it to WP:AfD. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Looks like we have 2 in favor of keeping and adding sources and 0 against, feel free to move forward. If you would like to talk about that sort of thing more come join me at my talk page I don't want to pollute here. Endercase (talk) 18:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• I just nominated those both for AFD. Non-notable subject, sourcing does not pass muster (Popbitch are actually a primary source here as they were the subject of the orginal injunction) and the other source are a niche specialist, not going to pass GNG. The party involved is non-notable and the case itself is insignificant as far as legal cases go. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:29, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree they should go to WP:AfD contrary to what Endercase said. I did submit a note to WikiProject Law to see if anyone on that project thinks any of those article should survive. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:43, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

There are notable cases RE Superinjunctions, but these are not them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• Notice the WP:AfD on the two article is here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/WER_v_REW --David Tornheim (talk) 18:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

To me I feel like "deleting" this or any non-(Libel, nonsense, and vandalism) article is a waste of effort, time, and hard drive space. The article gets saved anyway (takes up hard-drive space) and can still be found Wikipedia:Viewing and restoring deleted pages. I feel like this is a case of seeing a "problem" {article is really small} and responding with a hammer. But if that is what makes y'all happy I guess use Wikipedia however you want. I personally don't care about this article. Endercase (talk) 18:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I didnt nominate it because it was small, I nominated it because it was sourced inadaquately, is not notable in any way, and concerns a living person who is themselves, not notable. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

POV much? "inadaquately", "Notable". It still takes up hard drive space. No one forced you to read it. Endercase (talk) 19:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

No-one gives a crap about hard drive space here. This article needs to go the way of the dodo because it doesn't pass WP's standards for notability. We're an encyclopedia, not a compendium of all human knowledge. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

So why should we hide this article? BTW encyclopedias are a compendium of human knowledge... Also, it doesn't meet those standards in your POV; the peer who created it obviously thought differently and their POV needs to be represented in any NPOV stance. Endercase (talk) 19:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

@Endercase: I can see you are a new user and are arguing with experienced editors who know the rules. Please read WP:RS and WP:GNG carefully. I have been more of an inclusionist for some of the reasons you gave, but after working at WP:AfD, I started to see how the standards for notability work and should be enforced over letting something like this article stick around. We can't police articles about everyone's favorite pet dog and a list of all their possession on Wikipedia for example. We can't list every single filing at every court. It's not the disk space, it's having articles that don't qualify as "knowledge". With notability requirements, the quality of the articles can be maintained, and the assertions checked via their WP:RS. Spend some time over at WP:AfD and it might become clear how much junk people try to put on Wikipedia that has no reliable sources. There's advertisements and people wanting to have an article because they were in the paper once, and people who were on a sports team think they should have a article, even though there is really nothing written about them. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I can see you begin by demeaning my POV with a logical fallacy (appeal to authority). #ChillingEffects I understand the pet dog case, but that doesn't even remotely apply here and is a very poor metaphor. I agree that things should be deleted. In this case, the article appears to be written by a third disinterested party, unlike every case you have mentioned. Endercase (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn't mean to demean you or your point of view. I'm not trying to chill your speech. I agree the article is probably written or created by a disinterested person. But consider if someone tried to upload every single court case ever filed, every traffic ticket ever issued, etc.--I think that's what we are dealing with all these non-notable motions. I'm just trying to explain why the article will get deleted if more WP:RS is not provided. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Additionally, Wikipedia does not have rules. It has policies based on consensus. Endercase (talk) 21:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I have always thought the policy WP:IGNORE all the rules quite misleading. Just talk a look at WP:AN/I, WP:AE, WP:AN/3RR, WP:COI/N, WP:CCI, WP:SPI, WP:UAA and you will see countless people investigated, admonished, punished, blocked and banned for ignoring, skirting or breaking the many obtuse and arcane rules we have here. I sometimes think new users should be given pro-bono Wiki-counsel if they end up at AN/I. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll go to your talk page don't want to pollute here. Endercase (talk) 22:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

You are free to post your comments at the AFD as a reason for not deleting it. Bear in mind arguments that do not have a basis in policy like 'Its still taking up hard drive space' are likely to get little traction there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Endercase, this is going to be in list form because you've said quite a few problematic things:

1. Encyclopedias summarize knowledge, they do not purport to archive it all.
2. You removed the word "all" when you tried to use my words against me, which is rather disingenuous (and transparent). If you can't use someone's my exact phrase, don't attempt to throw their words back at them.
3. It's not a fallacy to point out that an inexperienced editor disagreeing with experienced editors is likely to be wrong. Nor is it a fallacy to point out that the editors an inexperienced editor is disagreeing with are experienced. In fact, it's a very good argument, as the experienced editors in this case most certainly can cite many occasions from memory where arguments fundamentally identical to your own have been found lacking by the community.
4. "Demeaning [your] argument" is the entire point of arguing with you. It does not reflect poorly on David at all that that is his goal. It is exactly what you are doing in response.
5. Your use of "#ChillingEffects" is extremely disingenuous and may be considered a personal attack or more likely, to be casting aspersions on another editor and could result in sanctions being placed against you.
6. There mere fact that an article lacks POV problems is not a reason for keeping it. AfD runs on arguments about Notability, not bias.
7. Policies are rules. Please do not create false distinctions that everyone can see through. It does not reflect well upon you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsI will address all of these points when I have time. Would you like me to do so here or on your talk page? Endercase (talk)

I would prefer you address them by taking them in and accepting that we're not here to collect every scrap of information on everything every individual editor considers interesting, and that it's not acceptable to try to 'win' an argument by any rhetorical means available to you. If you insist on arguing with me instead of taking my advice and corrections for what they are, then I'd prefer you do it where I don't have to deal with it. I'm not trying to crash down on you, I'm trying to help you figure out how WP works, but that doesn't mean I have any desire to engage in a drawn-out argument about your grand view of what WP is or should be. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:44, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Alright, so I'll leave everything else alone as you don't want to engage in discussion. However, can we agree that Demeaning is not the point of arguing? As that was the most upsetting portion of your list.Endercase (talk) 18:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Endercase, the point of arguing is to show that your opponent's argument is -in a word- worthless. That's demeaning the argument in the most literal sense. We can agree that demeaning your opponent is not the point, but no-one has demeaned you in this thread. If you make an argument and someone comes along and says "that is an incredibly ignorant argument," they're not attacking you, they're attacking your argument. Which is as it should be, assuming they go on to explain why the argument is ignorant. It's perfectly acceptable (even if it's not always good idea) to refer to arguments as ignorant, problematic, stupid, illogical, ridiculous and other adjectives that would be inappropriate to apply to a person, so long as you justify the claim. It is a common rhetorical device, used frequently in formal debates.

With respect to this particular instance, I will say this: "you are arguing with experienced editors" is an incredibly common shorthand for an explanation as to why you're wrong that would take a very long time to type out and would be so long as to make it unlikely that you would read it. It's not unique to Wikipedia by any means, and it's commonly recognized as a very legitimate argument. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

MjolnirPants Ah man, I thought the point of arguing was to come to a mutuality agreeable outcome and to exchange ideas. And not to make the other person look bad by attacking their argument in an ad hominem or otherwise logically irrelevant manner. Thanks for letting me know things are different here on Wikipedia. I guess that's the danger of using populism and voting to manage an information database instead of debate, discussion, sources, and consensus. Endercase (talk) 18:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah man, I thought the point of arguing was to come to a mutuality agreeable outcome and to exchange ideas. Read Argument, then. Or watch the way people argue in real life. Or watch some formal debates (IQ2 is a great series of them). Or get into an argument. Coming to a mutually agreeable outcome is desirable, but saying that's the point of arguing is like saying the point of having kids is to become the parent of a successful, happy person. It's just nonsensical.

And not to make the other person look bad by attacking their argument in an ad hominem... Read Straw man argument while you're at it, because that's what you're doing here. Also read ad hominem because if you think you can attack an argument with an ad hominem, then you don't know what an ad hominem is. Indeed, I've been trying to explain to you how to argue in a way that avoids ad hominems (which are usually fallacies), meanwhile you're presenting me with a situation in which an ad hominem argument would not be fallacious (it would, instead be a statistical syllogism), which is rather ironic and amusing if you think about it.

I guess that's the danger of using populism and voting to manage an information database instead of debate, discussion, sources, and consensus. Remember what I said in my last comment? Well this is one of those ignorant, ridiculous arguments it's acceptable to criticize. The reason it's so ignorant is because it ignores the fundamental definition of an argument, which is a statement that it intended to convince someone of something, which expounds into what I've said earlier, and results in discussion and consensus. It's also ignorant because it's made clear numerous times on WP that consensus is not a vote, that wikipedia runs on consensus, that our policies prohibit the devolvement of arguments into fights (see WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA), and generally prohibit ad hominem arguments except in very specific circumstances. It's ridiculous because it's founded in an ignorance of a number of basic facts, yet it is still asserted with conviction in an obvious display of sarcasm, as if it were obvious that it was true.

I've already had one editor suggest to me that you are badly in need of being removed from this project, and while I'm not quite that far myself, I have to say that your flagrant disrespect for our policies and standards, your flagrant ignorance of basic philosophy combined with your insistence upon appealing to it, and your rather baffling apparent conviction that experienced editors couldn't possibly have anything to teach you is going a long way towards proving them right. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah man, I thought the point of arguing was to come to a mutuality[sic] agreeable outcome

No, you have "arguing" confused with "negotiating". Hard to imagine how. --Calton | Talk 07:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: I agree, my actions in this post most particularly have been out of order. I didn't see these responses until just now. My final argument here was very strawman-esk. I was frustrated and let it out in an improper manner. I'm glad it was at least amusing to you. I was aware of WP:NOTVOTE and WP:CON but felt as if there were several major cases where these were not followed. I recognized the irony and even poor logic in my statement and said my ridiculous statement anyway. This was disruptive. I would like to thank you for your explanation as well as apologize for my uncalled for hostility. Endercase (talk) 07:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

In Ghostbusters (2016), RedLettermedia, a video production organization, is referenced:

RedLetterMedia analyzed the YouTube comments and found that in a random sampling of 1000 comments, only 60 were negative about women and only 2.5% of total viewers voted dislike. RLM and others also reported Sony did delete criticism, while letting grossly sexist, derogatory or "trolling" comments be, leading to "misogynistic" comments misrepresenting overall criticism of the quality of the movie which, however, made it "bomb" in revenues.[122]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ghostbusters_(2016_film)&oldid=769813693

I can't find any other page that uses RedLetterMedia as a source of these sorts of statistical claims, and given the problematic nature of unobservable claims of what constitutes a random sample, it seems worrisome to rely on that source. cshirky (talk) 22:33, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

It may not be an issue of reliability in the sense that Wikipedia defines the concept but without evidence that the author(s) have significant experience with content analysis it's a poor source that probably shouldn't be included in an encyclopedia article. ElKevbo (talk) 23:58, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

As I recall RLM make critical/film review videos, often of a humerous nature (I recommend their 'best of the worst' series) for distribution through social media. I would be unlikely to use them as a source other than the usual places we would use reviews/critical reception etc. But they do perform research etc, as they do a lot of older films. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:29, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

On March 9, 2017, from BuzzFeed News reported here that "BuzzFeed News spoke with more than half a dozen officials involved with the committee’s investigation, both Democrats and Republicans. All the officials requested anonymity to more openly discuss the sensitive investigation." and "Even some Democrats on the Intelligence Committee now quietly admit, after several briefings and preliminary inquiries, they don’t expect to find evidence of active, informed collusion between the Trump campaign and known Russian intelligence operatives, though investigators have only just begun reviewing raw intelligence." Why would this not be considered reliable? Humanengr (talk) 06:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Because Buzzfeed has kind of a terrible reputation for all sorts of reasons, and completely making up a story doesn't seem particularly beyond imagining. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:33, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Interesting that National Review cited Buzzfeed for the above material at http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/445666/sudden-public-skepticism-about-trump-russian-collusion. Also interesting that Business Insider in http://www.businessinsider.com/wikipedia-has-banned-the-daily-mail-as-an-unreliable-source-2017-2 on "Wikipedia has banned the Daily Mail as an 'unreliable source'" cited Buzzfeed as a source for "The decision by Wikipedia comes amid widespread debate over the rise of fake news, which has widened to include concerns about misleading information in traditional publications. A recent BuzzFeed analysis claimed that there was 'little appetite' for completely fabricated 'fake news' in the UK because the country already had a highly partisan press." Humanengr (talk) 06:46, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::Heh. BuzzFeed says "The firm describes itself as a social news and entertainment company", so... it's not only not reliable, my guess is that this particular report probably actually false. Congresscritters (which what people "on the Intelligence Committee" are) don't speak off the record like that to relax; they do it for a reason. There's no good reason that I can think of for Democratic congresscritters to admit off the record at this point that they don't think there's a smoking gun. I don't see any upside. If they want to reassure the (rather nervous) country and help quash the investigation then they'd probably do it on the record where it'd have the desired effect. I also can't think of a reason they'd go to BuzzFeed for something like this; it's not like they have a couple drinks and start talking to whatever reporter is on the next stool. It doesn't work like that, I don't think. Since its about supposed off-the-record conversations it's difficult to disprove, which is probably why BuzzFeed felt OK to write it. 0/5, do not buy. Herostratus (talk) 06:57, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ::I think you have to match this with other sources that are reliable. Right now, as far as I know, there are a number of investigations occurring. The onion is being peeled layer by layer as news reports come in. So, I am not sure this report is in agreement with other RS. Based on this article, it is too early to make a definitive statement in Wikikpedia'a voice, such as these investigations are not expected to pan out.

Also, later in the Buzzfeed article it quotes a 'third' official' : "That take isn’t universally held...there’s a lot of room to find something significant.” So to me, this means this article is pretty much speculation and we should wait until a large portion of the facts have come to light, or the lack thereof. --Steve Quinn (talk) 06:59, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Herostratus and Steve Quinn: Re the author: Per [28]: "BuzzFeed today will announce … additions to its foreign reporting staff, continuing a build-out that started in mid-2013. … Watkins shared a finalist designation in Pulitzer Prize for coverage of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report on CIA torture." Per [29]: "The Huffington Post announced Wednesday that Ali Watkins will join its DC bureau as a political reporter. The 2014 Temple grad’s name may ring as bell. As an intern for McClatchy this past Spring, she was part of the team that broke the story that the CIA spied on computers used by the Senate Intelligence Committee."(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/ali-watkins) Per https://www.buzzfeed.com/alimwatkins: "Ali Watkins is a national security correspondent for BuzzFeed News and is based in Washington, D.C." Humanengr (talk) 14:42, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that these days a lot of Buzzfeed content is as good (or bad) as any other non-tabloid media source, and this looks like a fairly standard piece of political reporting, where officials and/or politicians speak to journalists off the record – whether with a purpose and agenda or just more casually – and the outlet builds a narrative around what it's been told. I don't think you can just conclude that Buzzfeed is making this all up; plus it's reporting the comments fairly straight rather than seeming to be reading things into them that aren't there. So the source is surely reliable, up to a point, but it's more a question of how far removed any of this type of reporting, whether done by the NYT or anyone else, often is from being merely speculation based on gossip and what value it has for encyclopedic content. That said, I'm sure Trump-related pages are full of similar media-sourced content that reflects badly on him. N-HH talk/edits 15:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

This. We as WP editors need much more awareness of how the press operates today and how this type of poor reporting develops; it's more pervasive at sites like Buzzfeed compared to NY Times but it still happens across the board. We should be looking towards permanence of information and most of our current political articles really need more considerations about how the long-term view of the article will be rather than the day-to-day political mudslinging that the press also engage in. --MASEM (t) 15:17, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I tend to agree, but not just with politics, the Istanbul night club shooting page was having to be updates every few minutes, on stuff that could have been left out (such as perp ID) until later. I have argued we need to reexamine the whole use of news media as a source because they are becoming so unreliable. I would prefer a blanket ban on any new reports that are within a few hours of the subject, except for the most basic of information. For BLP's I think it needs to be days.Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Although it's not about unreliability as such, or even poor reporting – as I said, I think this is probably reliable information on its own terms and actually perfectly proper and good political reporting. The question is more whether relying on this sort of political reporting – and equally as noted breaking news reports which by their nature invariably turn out to be false in many respects – and creating a running commentary on the minutiae of events is a good way to build encyclopedia content. And if we're going to nix this one, we need to gut a lot more content in this area besides. N-HH talk/edits 15:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Certain topics do work well with the current approach of adding info as shortly after it happens, but these also tend to be the areas where there's not as much subjective concern from sources: for example, natural disasters, terrorist attacks, sporting events, etc. I found it is nearly anything dealing with breaking political or idealogical topics where if we had a better sense of writing for topic permanence rather than trying to keep up-to-date, we'd avoid tons of issues related to RS, NPOV, and the like that have come up as of late. --MASEM (t) 15:38, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it is clear I do not think it is, and I agree there will be a lot of work involved in stopping Wikipedia becomes (as it increasingly is) Wikenewsfeed. This (I think) far more then many other issues (such a fringe science or unnotabilty) affect the imagine of Wikipedia far more, it is repeating inaccuracies we are largely held in contempt for.Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• Yes... the problem is more with the content (breaking news) than with the reliability of the sources. We need a stronger policy that says (in essence): Don't add breaking news ... perspective is needed... so WAIT for the story to develop before adding it to Wikipedia. Blueboar (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

It is reliable. It employs professional journalists. In this case the question is when their reporters say what unnamed legislators told them, can we be confident they are correctly reporting them. I would say as confident as we could be if it was reported by NBC reporters and in fact NBC is the major owner of BuzzFeed. TFD (talk) 16:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

NBC is also a major investor in SnapChat, and I read that there's a flying cat in Kentucky that's stalking Sen. McConnell's nephew. SPECIFICO talk 16:42, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Except they describe Buzzfeed as news media whereas they do not describe Snapchat that way. NBC is also well known for many popular fiction shows. But reasonable viewers are able to distinguish between news and fiction broadcasting. TFD (talk) 03:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

They also describe MSNBC as a news outlet. What say you? SPECIFICO talk 21:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO, Blueboar, N-HH, Masem, Slatersteven, Steve Quinn, Herostratus, Thucydides411, and JFG: Re reliability: no one here has addressed the author's credentials. Re other issues raised here: 1) It's not 'far removed'; 2) this is not a case of "having … updates every few minutes" -- it's a report on a completed discussion(s); future discussions can be added as they are separate events; 3) it's not WikiNewsFeed -- I added this several days after the article was published. Humanengr (talk) 18:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Buzzfeed has tried to reposition itself as a 'quality' journalism source, and sometimes it does publishing interesting stuff that's similar to RS journalism. But some of their decisions have been problematic. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/04/the-eternal-return-of-buzzfeed/390270/ (search for Poynter) and they did come under fire when they published the Trump dossier w/on verification - and that wasn't because they got to it first, it was because the RSs that had a copy refused to publish it. NPalgan2 (talk) 00:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@User:Humanengr re the individual reporter's credentials... OK, the reporter was in a group of three people who were finalists for the 2015 Pultizer Prize in National Reporting. That's a data point and a good marker. It does not mean "this person is incapable of making a mistake or shading the truth". But it's a good start. It is more or less proof that the person is capable of reporting news properly, and it's a marker which is consistent with (although nowhere near proof of) being a dedicated (and therefore ethical) journalist, and of being a person with a news career that they probably know could be harmed if they play too fast and loose. What we really want to know is a person's actual character and integrity, but we can never know that, so then we want to know their reputation and track record showing character and integrity (and competence). But that's very hard to know for most reporters. We don't really know anything useful about this reporter.

Which is one reason why we tend to place more emphasis on the organization. What's their fact-checking operation like? What's their business model? Who is their news editor and what kind of ship does he run? I don't know anything about that for BuzzFeed so I'll have to defer to others, but they haven't really had time to build a solid reputation yet I guess.

But anyway, for the question at hand, it looks like you want place something like "Several congresspeople have said they don’t expect to find evidence of active, informed collusion between the Trump campaign and known Russian intelligence operatives" in an article... Based on off-the-record conversations... I dunno. I don't know how news sites work, but for a magazine, if it was an on-the-record interview, they would have an independent fact-checker go over the reporter's notes and call up the subject and say "We're about to print that you said such-and-so. Did you?". For anonymous sources.... you can't do that. All you have is the reporters notes... relying 100% on a BuzzFeed reporters's notes... that makes me a little nervous to be honest. Herostratus (talk) 02:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Herostratus: More than one data point re Ali Watkins: 1) breaking the story that the CIA spied on computers used by the Senate Intelligence Committee, 2) HuffPo Washington bureau chief Ryan Grim: “We knew Ali would be a fantastic hire back when she was a college senior and worked on the McClatchy team that broke the news that the CIA was spying on the Senate Intelligence Committee over the panel’s torture report.” On WP, September 11 attacks cites her 9/3/2013 McClatchy "Senate intelligence panel could seek to declassify documents; it just doesn’t”; Fake news website cites her 11/30/2016 BuzzFeed "Intel Officials Believe Russia Spreads Fake News” in 7 places; Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board cites her McClatchy 11/2013 "NSA Cites stop and frisk”. "It does not mean 'this person is incapable of making a mistake or shading the truth" seems out of place. Humanengr (talk) 05:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean out of place? Are you saying that those things you cite prove that she is incapable of error or shading the truth? Herostratus (talk) 06:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

A double negative is impossible to defend. If applied as a standard, that would eliminate all sources. Do you care to respond to the other points in my last post? Humanengr (talk) 10:21, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, it's a single negative, like "I will never eat an apple" -- but the point is that highly trusted news outlets have systems to ensure that even when a journalist makes a mistake, the error does not end up being printed in the publication. Anyway, this content is UNDUE so the RS question is only part of the story. If it were not undue, there'd be many better RS references for it to verify and give proper weight. SPECIFICO talk 14:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

"not … incapable" = double negative; UNDUE on what grounds? Humanengr (talk) 14:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

This is the logical problem of induction, regardless of the predicate. I can just as well state that I cannot prove (positive) that all sturgeons have gills (positive). SPECIFICO talk 19:29, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

?? Did you find Herostratus's statement ("It does not mean 'this person is incapable of making a mistake or shading the truth'") helpful? Humanengr (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

• I think the issue here is not really the reliability of the source... but the appropriateness of the content. The question we need to ask isn't whether Buzzfeed is a reliable source for the information, but whether Wikipedia should mention this information in the first place (or at least should we mention it at this point in time). WP:NOTNEWS. Blueboar (talk) 13:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

The article is replete with accusations, etc., "at this point in time." Humanengr (talk) 13:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

In a year, in 5 years, in a decade, are those comments from Congresspeople going to have any applicability to the topic? Very much likely no, so inclusion now, despite the siurce, makes no sense. --MASEM (t) 13:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

The article (particularly the U.S. Government response section) is replete with comments from Congresspeople. Humanengr (talk) 14:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Which probably means the article needs serious trimming. This is the problem alluded to above, that just because an RS (whether we consider Buzzfeed one or not) reports on some opinion statements in the midst of a controversy or event, if those comments really have long-term value towards encyclopedic nature. Most of the time, no they don't, but editors load up articles with these, which is something that needs to be discouraged. That is the issue in this case: no one seems to take great issue that the material comes from Buzzfeed, but simply that in the larger and long-term picture, even if the statement came from NYTimes, it isn't appropriate for inclusion. --MASEM (t) 14:28, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Re trimming: is there anything you would retain? Humanengr (talk) 14:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

It might be good to move the WP:WEIGHT / UNDUE discussion to the article talk thread at this point? SPECIFICO talk 19:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed Humanengr (talk)

@Someguy1221, Herostratus, Steve Quinn, N-HH, Masem, Slatersteven, Blueboar, The Four Deuces, SPECIFICO, Thucydides411, and NPalgan2: Maybe we should try this again. Ali Watkins reported the story. The 'Nominated work' submitted to Pulitzer included 10 stories, several of which contained verbiage such as "Like all of those who spoke to McClatchy, the federal official requested anonymity because the case is highly sensitive, closely guarded and could potentially involve criminal charges." Ali Watkins was a Pulitzer finalist "For timely coverage of the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on CIA torture, demonstrating initiative and perseverance in overcoming government efforts to hide the details.” On what basis does anyone still care to voice an objection to reverting the revert or, alternatively, delete most if not all of this article (in line with Masem’s suggestion)? Humanengr (talk)

There's basically no reason to remove it due only to the source, being Buzzfeed, per your arguments. It's all on the UNDUE/WEIGHT aspects, and that's a very separate matter. --MASEM (t) 15:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

How UNDUE/WEIGHT? This is one completed event that was reported. Humanengr (talk)

You are looking to include someone's hypothesis , theories, and/or opinion, while well-attributed through a reliable source (with strong weight on the authorship's reputation), should be evaluated via UNDUE, given that we do not yet have resolve on the full situation. RS is met, but UNDUE is not. --MASEM (t) 16:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

What in UNDUE applies here? Re "We do not yet have resolve on the full situation": Wouldn't that apply more readily to the entire article? Humanengr (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Humanengr The due weight fail is what you can continue to discuss on the article talk page if you'd like. SPECIFICO talk 16:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not a fail; it's an assertion that was made in this discussion; UNDUE is described on the same Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight page in discussion here. So best to continue here. Humanengr (talk) 17:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The question is not which sources are reliable to consider their viewpoint appropriate to include within UNDUE - all the sources including this buzzfeed one are "equally" reliable for this argument. The point to make is more about UNDUE appropriate per WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:DEADLINE and that intermediate comments made by authoritative figures in the midst of an unresolve debate are necessarily appropriate even if many many RSes exist to support those points. Which is no longer an issue about reliability but appropriateness, and thus separate from this board. --MASEM (t) 18:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Anyone who cares to advise how WP:NOT#NEWS or WP:DEADLINE applies, kindly post on the article talk page here Humanengr (talk)

Hi, I'm reviewing mafia boss Giosue Gallucci for Good Article and came across GangRule.com. It contains information about organized crime groups (mostly the Italian mafia) in the United States. It has biographies, events, photographs, family charts, etc. It claims to use a list of sources here, but sometimes the articles just state information without letting the reader where exactly where the information was used. It seems to have a lot of information and a huge source of information for some of our Italian mafia articles. Thank you, and let me know if you have any questions. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 01:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Not reliable as it is an anonymous site. In the About tab there is nothing about who compiled the information. You should follow back to the sources it cites. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm helping with the same GA review as ComputerJA and here are my thoughts. Firstly, the site is not anonymous, there's an author listed with each page, usually Jon Black. The biography pages are sparsely written and unsourced (with the exceptions of Giuseppe Morello and Ignazio Lupo). The pages on subject like the Black Hand and the Morello gang are better written. I would like to point out that there is only one page in the article section, The Grocery Conspiracy. It is fully sourced and footnoted and would definitely be a reliable source. I think using GangRule should be on a case by case basis based on the page and what information is being sourced. Libertybison (talk) 21:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

But there's no detail about who Jon Black is or what accreditations or expertise he has, or what the site's editorial processes are. At first glance, it looks reasonably well put together, but that says nothing about veracity and doesn't necessarily stop the site being a glorified blog. Prima facie, although context always matters, it fails as WP:SPS. N-HH talk/edits 12:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi N-HH, Libertybison, Itsmejudith - GangRule seems to be based off two reliable books, The Origin of Organized Crime in America and The First Family. But there is no way to know which pages GangRule is basing its information from. If we can use these two books, that would count as a reliable source. I can access both of these books through by library account with the University of Texas at Austin. I'd be willing to work with DonCalo or anyone else to get this to GA, but that would mean we would need a different reviewer. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 15:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

That seems like a plan. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I still think there should be some exceptions for, say the grocery article mentioned above or instances where the site quotes original documents. Libertybison (talk) 00:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

See for previous discussions on student newspapers here and here. I would like to discuss The Orion, the student newspaper of California State University, Chico. The paper is around since 1975. This web-page gives a long list of awards won, and the paper's mission statement which says that "The Orion’s goal is to build journalistic excellence at Chico State by striving to inspire our readers to think critically, with complete, accurate and unbiased journalism." Still, an opinion piece on the Orion's site was removed as source from an "External views"-section since "student papers are not reliable sources." Was that done correctly? Or could an opinion on a student-newspaper-site be regarded as reliable as an external view? Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 22:34, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I must say that I disagree with Czar's reason for deleting the source. There is no reason that student newspapers should be considered as not reliable sources. I actually already reverted the edit that you brought up above. However, while later reviewing the source, it says that it is filed under the 'opinion' section. Opinion pieces in News sources are generally not considered as reliable sources except for the views of the author and therefore must be attributed (i.e. "Roberto Fonseca of the Orion said..."). However, in this case the person writing the op ed usually needs to be someone who is themselves a notable person (i.e. an opinion that is notable), which in this case the writer does not seem to be. That's why I later removed the source a second time.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  22:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I had also removed the quote before, for pretty much those reasons. The article's topic is mentioned only briefly by the source as part of an open-ended list, and the quote being added was from a later paragraph. Even if the author, Roberto Fonseca (journalist), were recognized as an expert, it would still be debatable. I wouldn't consider the Orion to be blanket unreliable, however. It seems as usable as any other smaller local paper. Grayfell (talk) 23:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• All it takes is a simple search of this page's archives to see how student papers/newspapers are treated. They typically do not even approach the editorial standards of a regional/national paper. There are exceptions, but there are no indications that The Orion has any detailed fact-checking or editorial credibility with the source in question. czar 01:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

For this source I have made my position against it clear by removing it myself, but it is your blanket statement "student papers are not reliable sources" that I disagree with. The reliability of any source always depends on context, so statements like this are both false and unhelpful.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  03:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Student papers are categorically unreliable sources. Burden is on the editor to prove that the source has a reputation for editorial quality, and most student publications have none. czar 06:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

There is a difference between a source that is not reliable, and an unreliable source, at least in WP policy. Unreliable sources have a 'poor reputation for editorial quality' per WP:UNRELIABLE Whereas sources that have unknown reputation (most student papers) simply don't qualify to be a 'reliable source' (no proven reputation for editorial quality) but nor can you call them an 'unreliable source'. In other words they are marginal sources, not categorically unreliable sources.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  06:53, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with CZAR's statement. As it was put by Blueboar on 1 October 2009 : Unfortunately, this isn't something that we can make a blanket statement on... It really depends on the reputation of the specific student-run newspaper in question. Some have high editorial standards and are quite reliable, others are not reliable at all. In this case, the Orion has won lots of awards on their excellence, (and continues to win them this month). Moreover, a first look on their site doesn't look like that they have a reputation on "gratuitous photos of students engaging in nude mud wrestling," as some other student publication have. Thus, I think the Orion is OK.Jeff5102 (talk) 09:37, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• Sources are judged in context. A well-run (in this case the Orion has plenty of awards) student newspaper may be reliable for some things and not others. Its opinion pieces are less likely to, for the aforementioned issue with the writer being likely a completely non-notable person whose opinion has no weight. Even here there may be exceptions, a student newspaper's opinion pieces on issues that primarily affect students (campus rape for example) may be relevant depending on the context. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
• From looking at (what I think) is the usage - on the article Carl Benjamin - no the Orion is not a suitable source here. An Op-ed on a BLP has quite narrow uses, and the Orion does not fall within that scope that I can see. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Disappearance of Dorothy Forstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am not convinced by any of the references in this article, nor by internet searching. I proposed deletion, but someone has objected.

I'd like further opinions on the sourcing.

Here is my PROD reasoning;

This case does not seem notable. Except one small newspaper reference to the missing person, none of the sources are reliable. Blogs, facebook, and 'mystery sites' do not establish notability. I can find no hard information about this in mainstream media; it even says "oddly by the end of October, only one week after being printed in the newspapers, the story had largely died down" - referenced to a facebook group. Even if a person of this name did 'disappear', it doesn't seem worthy of an article, with so little information in RS. It seems possible this is partly, or mostly, an 'urban legend' story.

Thanks. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 15:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Lots of dodgy sources, needs a lot of work.Slatersteven (talk) 16:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

And a user just reverted the tags I placed on blogs, tumblr and youtube.Slatersteven (talk) 09:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Gomolo.com describes itself as "Gomolo is the IMDb for Indian movies". Since IMDb is considered a non RS in most cases, is this any different? Same problems exist: their movie synopses don't seem to have an editorial credit, do we have evidence of a complete and correct compilation here?

An example of its use is this: it is the sole source for Albela (1971 film). - Bri (talk) 16:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)