Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 170

This is an archive of past discussions about 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 165

←

Archive 168

Archive 169

Archive 170

Archive 171

Archive 172

→

Archive 175

Can anybody restore this deleted part? Maybe we need a page protection against further vandal attacks.--Pramo97 (talk) 06:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

That isn't what Wikipedia defines as vandalism. See WP:VANDAL. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Isn't it what Wikipedia defines as removal of content in a deliberate attempt? --Pramo97 (talk) 07:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

A deliberate attempt at what ? Editors can remove content for all sorts of legitimate reasons. In this case the IP appears to think that the DNA sample size is too small to support the conclusions being stated in the article. That's the kind of content dispute that should be discussed on the article's talk page. Specific questions about the reliability of the sources cited can be brought here. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Well this is exactly the point, the sample sizes in both studies ([1] | [2], [3] ) were huge enough. Thats the reason why the IP first argued like this. The Ip obviously wants to avoid any East Asian connotations. How to deal with it? --Pramo97 (talk) 09:18, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

How we're going to deal with it, here, on the reliable sources noticeboard, is to advise on the quality of the sources you've presented. I'm examining them right now. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I've looked at the sources and none of them are anywhere near the quality of source required for a section on Genetics. It all seems to be based on the work of Jeannine Davis-Kimball, who although qualified with a PhD, doesn't hold a university post, instead runs her own centre. If any of it is published in peer-reviewed journal articles or books from scholarly presses, that could be possibly be included, so long as our article doesn't stretch the facts in order to present a nationalistic argument. The deleted text is remarkable in how at first reading it seems like sound scholarship but on examination is anything but. Classic WP:SYNTH. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

And what is with this journal? --Pramo97 (talk) 16:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

It is in the Correspondence section of the journal and may not have gone through peer review. It throws doubt on the validity of the paper that it critiques but caution would be needed before using any of its findings as substantive fact. Its main purpose is to call for further research. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:18, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi! I've been told a few different things about the site. I've been told that we can't use anything from the site, but then I've been told in the past that we can use reviews if they were done by staff members and held as the official rating by the site. I never really use them for anything other than reviews for films and the occasional book, but this would be good to know for future researching. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:19, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

About.com generally falls under WP:SPS so reliability would depend on each individual author, but previous consensus seems to be to avoid them in favor of better sources when possible. (See this archived post from this noticeboard which also has links to earlier discussions.) Could you give some examples of the kind of reviews you are talking about? Siawase (talk) 16:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Can Yelp pages like this one be cited for summarized statements like the following one in the Citi Field article: "Overall, reviews of Citi Field from fans and press have mostly been positive." ? My guess is no, because it's user-generated, and because some users may write negative reviews out of a desire for retribution, other personal reasons, or satire, and negative reviews were observed to have risen 20% in 2013. However, I wanted the community's input. I tried looking through the archives, and it appears that no one had a discussion focused on Yelp in particular. The one discussion that mentioned it was this one, in which an editor, A Quest for Knowledge, pointed out four articles citing Yelp. Of those four, Yelp citations are only found in two of them, and in any event, that's a descriptive statement, not a prescriptive one (i.e.: just because there are articles citing it doesn't mean that they're supposed to; it's possible that the editors who did so didn't know about WP:USERG). Thoughts? Nightscream (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I am going to expand the article about Paraceratherium, and am mostly using the 2013 book "Rhinoceros Giants" by palaeontologist Donald Prothero. In this book he makes the novel claim that these animals probably had large, elephant-like ears. However, in a blog post review[4] of this book by the palaeontologist Darren Naish, Naish expresses scepticism of this idea, and elaborates a bit in the comments section. Is it possible to cite that? For example, if I first explain and attribute the large ear hypothesis, but then write something like "Palaeontologist Darren Naish expressed scepticism towards the idea in a review of Prothero's book"? FunkMonk (talk) 14:27, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

It is fine to use, per "Self-published sources (online and paper)": "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." TFD (talk) 16:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, this is an example of a notable self-published source Shii (tock) 20:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 18:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I recently saw Horizon Research Publishing being cited in an article, and wanted to make sure I was correct in assuming that it's not legit.

• It appears on this list of predatory publishers, and even has its own entry. Yes, that site is a blog, but it's backed up by The Council of Editors of Learned Journals.
• They admit they're pay-to-publish, though they try to justify it as "processing charges" to keep the articles open source.

Ian.thomson (talk) 15:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Stay away, stay far, far away. On its website its address is 506 N Garfield Ave #210 Alhambra Ca 91801 - they seem to also prepare taxes. http://tax-preparers.find thebest.com/l/65020/Qiang-Zhu (url split to get it through) - another name at this address[5] is Kuan Bo Tech Inc. At the same address (office 210) is Mr. Gao of YY Capital.[6] This seems to be a registered address for several companies run by people with Chinese names. Now I'm not claiming that this is a reliable source by our criteria, but it does say that last year this publisher was using "the URL http://zj.nkwww.com/, which is registered to Wanlun Guo in Linyi, Shandong, China. " That ties in with the California address evidently being some sort of registered office, not a real headquarters. Dougweller (talk) 16:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Not reliable. They have a long list of legitimate-sounding journal titles but no indication of legitimate peer review. It's completely anonymous and they have no reputation for accuracy. They're happy to include stuff like Artificial and Fake Eggs: Dance of Death and Looking for Mobility of Hypothetical Venusian Fauna. The abstracts for these are telling. I'm sure some good faith academics have submitted potentially clean work, but there's no way of knowing solely based on association with this publisher-for-hire. It would help if you shared where they were being cited (it could still be a claim that might be found in a more reliable source).__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I've been removing a citation of one article from Number of the beast. The editor in question seems to have stopped upon finding out what I learned in my first post. If he resumes, I'm sure y'all's research will be the final nails in the coffin. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Some of their papers are being references on a few Navier-Stokes pages too → Search for links to hrpub.org. At least one of them seems to be being argued about on the talk page. I don't feel experienced enough to get involved, but perhaps there's someone here who's willing?--Otus scops (talk) 21:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Sample treasures from the abstracts: From the evidence of their very slow movement and position of some other similar objects it is concluded that the physical action of the Venusian fauna may be much slower than that of the Earth’ fauna. and Generally the artificial creation of natural things doesn’t blessing for human being.. __ E L A Q U E A T E 16:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

...That makes me want to get an Uncyclopedia account. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:53, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

See [7]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

This website is used on the FA Cry Me a River (Justin Timberlake song) however I'm not sure if it's reliable. At first I thought it was an SPS, however I've seen more than two writers write for it. Can it be used or not? prism^△ 13:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

This might be able to technically squeeze into reliable source criteria, but FAs should be using the highest quality sources possible, so in this case I'd say it's better left out. There also seems to be some possible BLP implications (ie, whether these songs are a reflection of an acrimonious breakup) that makes it even more iffy. Siawase (talk) 09:48, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Without discussing on the Talk page of Catholic politicians, abortion and communion or excommunication, an article created by herself, Roscelese has again deleted information on the teaching of the Catholic Church on the moral obligation of Catholic politicians who participate in what their Church considers the seriously sinful action of promoting liberalization of abortion to refrain from going to Communion. The first time was this. The grounds she earlier adduced were that the text was a "quote farm" (in reality there was only one quotation in the first text she deleted and none whatever in the second) and that the sources were "bad". See the discussion here. Is Roscelese right in claiming that none of the cited source are reliable for the statement for which they are given? Surely not? Esoglou (talk) 19:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• This is a typical bad faith post from Esoglou, who's already had it explained to him that the problem isn't that the statements might not be factually accurate, but that these self-published or low-quality partisan sources don't meet our reliable sourcing standards for purposes of weight and NPOV. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
• I am grateful to Roscelese, whose good faith I do not question, for stating the question clearly: Are the following sources merely "self-published or low-quality partisan" for the statement that, according to the Catholic Church, Catholic legislators who promote legalization of abortion should refrain from Communion? (The question of whether they should be refused if they present themselves for Communion is a separate question.)

1. Pastoral Statement published by Bishop John J. Myers in June 1990;
2. article by David Paul Kuhn published by CBS on 6 April 2004;
3. article by Charles J. Chaput published on Denver Catholic Register, 26 May 2004;
4. memorandum by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, published in July 2004;
5. statement by Bishop Michael Saltarelli in August 2008
6. article by Sandro Magister on L'Espresso, 27 August 2008.

• Esoglou (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

• • The reliable sources in this list weren't the ones being used for the disputed content, so they're kind of irrelevant. Please stay on topic. Do you have anything to say in defense of the sources that were used? If your addition had adhered to our policies on weight, NPOV, and reliable sourcing, you wouldn't have been reverted, so obviously the reliable sources aren't the problem here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:27, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
    • They are the ones that you deleted. More on-topic than that there is nothing. Have you withdrawn your objection? May your deletion be reversed? Esoglou (talk) 19:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Can someone explain why this is considered controversial? The position of the catholic church is unambiguous: any politician taking part in political activity in support of abortion or euthanasia is considered unworthy to present him/herself for communion. The church considers this more serious than capital punishment or waging war. As religious positions go it's much easier to explain and justify than the ban on contraception. What's the problem?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG (talk • contribs) 07:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Is this source ^[1] Suitable to support the sentence "Dr. Geoffrey Davis, a physician who participated in the programme, estimated that the commonly cited figure of 200,000 was probably "very conservative" compared with the real numbers"? It is also supported by Nationbuilding, Gender and War Crimes in South Asia p 120 which says "the widely held estimate is that almost 200,000 women were raped during those nine months. [sic] Yet in an interview with me in Dr Geoffrey Davis , who was working in Bangladesh in 1972 suggested this number was far higher.".

It is reliable to me. For what type of content you are using it? OccultZone (Talk) 08:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

@OccultZone: For Dr. Geoffrey Davis estimates of rape figures during the Bangladesh Liberation War. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:23, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

It is obviously unreliable, for two reasons: first, its level of English is so poor it clearly shows lack of editorial oversight and quality control – if they aren't doing anything to ensure people in that op-ed section write correct English, they can't be doing much to ensure journalistic quality either. Second, and much more importantly, the writer evidently copied much of the content, including the statement in question, directly from the very Wikipedia article for which it is now claimed as a source – a classic case of circular sourcing. If you closely compare the wording, arrangement and selection of claims between that op-ed and our article as it stood in late 2013, when the op-ed was published, the correspondences are obvious. All this was explained to Darkness Shines the other day; the fact that he doesn't even mention these objections here is disappointing, to say the least. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:44, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Poor english is no excuse... Back to the subject, Yes, it is reliable source. Although it can be attributed well only if there is any edit conflict going on concerning the above source, like, "According to...." Thanks. OccultZone (Talk) 12:57, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Right. Yes, you mentioned that opinion of yours earlier. Now, are we going to have the privilege of witnessing you actually addressing the arguments, or do you prefer to just continue standing by here doing useless kibitzing? You know, this board is for getting advice from people who actually understand policy and are willing to have a meaningful discussion about it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:14, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I am done here, now up to you and DS. Thanks OccultZone (Talk) 12:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• Just pointing out, it is being claimed that the article has used content from the wikipedia article, our article does not mention anything at all about Dr Davis`s diary, which is where the author of the piece says he got his information. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:17, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Dude, we are talking about a claim regarding what Davis meant in a certain sentence he spoke to Bina D'Costa in an interview in 2002, a few years before his death. How would Audity Falguni get any information about something that happened in 2002, from a "diary" he wrote about the events in 1972? The sentence in question in Falguni's article is outside the passage dealing with that "diary"; it's part of a paragraph that is obviously parroting your Wikipedia text, sentence by sentence. (Incidentally, I can't confirm a published diary of Davis under the title claimed by Falguni even exists.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

So this is just forum shopping, then? Sounds like the issue has been adequately dealt with and the OP simply doesn't like the answer. Guy (Help!) 07:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm an editor of the Massacre at Hue page. I'm currently engaged in a discussion with an individual who was permanently banned and now has returned under an IP address. He insists on adding sources for communist propaganda that do not concur with the known facts at all. Previously he was aggressively reverting changes, but now he has engaged me on the talk page (which I am thankful for.) My problem is, I'm a fairly new editor, so I'm not certain how this should be handled. The issue I'm referring to is located here on the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Massacre_at_Hu%E1%BA%BF&section=33#dig_.2Bshort_-x_113.190.46.114_dynamic.vdc.vn._has_started_reverting_without_discussion

Based on the discussion we've had, I don't even think this is an appropriate source for the article. It's more related to the North Vietnam land reform. My problem is, I don't know what to do. I guess I'm asking for a ruling from a higher authority. --Txantimedia (talk) 23:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Most of Wikipedia's articles covering the crisis are for a large part based on Ukrainian sources coverage. Since there is no lacking of coverage from 3rd party verifiable English language sources, I find no reason to include Ukrainian sources per WP:NPV and WP:NONENG. Just for example Unian.net is a Kiev based news agency it is used throughout "2 May 2014 Odessa clashes" 15 times, that is more than any other reference. Their coverage is heavily skewed in favour of the current Ukrainian regime. Their website regularly describes anti-Kiev protesters as "terrorists" (Террористы)[8], while the ongoing military operations are described as "anti-terrorist" (антитеррористическую).[9] Similar claims can be made against news.liga.net, unn.com.ua, etc.--Kathovo talk 13:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm surprised at this. Usually with current news stories there are plenty of people adding material from the BBC, CNN etc. News agencies in both Russia and Ukraine are in principle reliable, but where versions diverge, ensure that everything is compatible with what is in the mainstream English-language media. No opinion pieces unless by expert outsiders, and then use only very sparingly. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

No Daily Mail, please. Articles should carry a current events warning. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The user above simply wants to censor Ukrainian media. That UNIAN calls them terrorists is irrelevant since we don't use that terminology, or transfer bias into the article itself. If UNIAN quotes a public official, and we include that quote or report in the article, that's neutral content from a reliable source. A lot of English language sources are used but for obvious reasons local media will have more in depth coverage. If you have a problem with a 'Ukrainian source' please provide the ref and how it is used incorrectly, or suggest a better source to use in its place. You yourself claim there is "no lacking of coverage from 3rd party English sources", so go ahead and help out.--Львівське (говорити) 15:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

That Ukrainian media call them terrorists shows that they are already disposed towards a certain side and should be viewed with extreme caution. If a certain Ukrainian official is quoted then his quote must be included when notable enough to be picked up by mainstream media, even then it should be attributed properly to him and not presented as a fact.

Local media does provide a more in-depth coverage, but let's not forget this is an encyclopaedia (Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS). We shouldn't strife to provide the most in-depth coverage of the current events, but rather to present main events based on the most neutral and verifiable sources possible. so far Ukrainian crisis-related articles fail miserably at this.--Kathovo talk 16:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

That's like saying we can't use American sources which talk about the Boston Marathon bombings because "they call them terrorists which shows they are already disposed towards a certain side". Crazy. —Львівське (говорити) 16:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm a vocal advocate of WP:NOTNEWS, and have made sure our articles are in line with that principle to the highest degree possible. The main article, 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, uses the OSCE monitoring missions as a source to verify information, and uses western sources along with some local Ukrainian ones. We never advocate the point of view of a Ukrainian source. We merely take the facts, and shed the propaganda. If we included a quote, we give context. Everything is attributed. However, many reliable sources, such as the New York Times [10][11], have reported about a 'disinformation campaign' by Russian media. We cannot ignore that sources that are usually considered highly reliable are reporting this, and hence we take Russian sources with a grain of salt, just as we do Ukrainian sources. RGloucester — ☎ 17:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

It is strange that you use the NY Times as a source to put forward the idea that Russian media are engaged in a "disinformation campaign", since the NY Times has been engaging in its own disinformation campaign:

the Times’ prejudice over the Ukraine crisis has reached new levels of extreme as the “newspaper of record” routinely carries water for the neocons and other hawks who still dominate the U.S. State Department. Everything that the Times writes about Ukraine is so polluted with propaganda that it requires a very strong filter, along with additives from more independent news sources, to get anything approaching an accurate understanding of events....

Along with almost the entire U.S. mainstream media, the Times cheered on the violent overthrow of Yanukovych on Feb. 22 and downplayed the crucial role played by well-organized neo-Nazi militias that surged to the front of the Maidan protests in the final violent days. Then, with Yanukovych out and a new coup regime in, led by U.S. hand-picked Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk, the IMF austerity plan was promptly approved.

Since the early days of the coup, the Times has behaved as essentially a propaganda organ for the new regime in Kiev and for the State Department, pushing “themes” blaming Russia and President Vladimir Putin for the crisis.....

In the Times’ haste to perform this function, there have been some notable journalistic embarrassments such as the Times’ front-page story touting photographs that supposedly showed Russian special forces in Russia and then the same soldiers in eastern Ukraine, allegedly proving that the popular resistance to the coup regime was simply clumsily disguised Russian aggression.

Any serious journalist would have recognized the holes in the story – since it wasn’t clear where the photos were taken or whether the blurry images were even the same people – but that didn’t bother the Times, which led with the scoop. However, only two days later, the scoop blew up when it turned out that a key photo – supposedly showing a group of soldiers in Russia who later appeared in eastern Ukraine – was actually taken in Ukraine, destroying the premise of the entire story.

Note that Russian media have never had to retract a story on the Ukraine crisis, but the NY Times has. That alone means that Russian sources are more reliable on events in the Ukraine than the NY Times is. – Herzen (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

That argument is complete nonsense. The New York Times is not perfect, but it is widely considered one of the leading newspapers of record. The fact that it has the journalistic integrity to correct its own mistakes makes it more reliable, not less reliable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

My argument is "complete nonsense"? The Times exhibits a clear pattern of producing disinformation to further US foreign policy goals. Another example, from a former correspondent of the International Herald Tribune:

Misinformation, disinformation, lies: Can the New York Times’ foreign coverage be trusted at all?

That is about Syria using chemical weapons, a claim that the NY Times published which turned out to be false. In the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, the NY Times reported that Iraq was working on germ warfare, a claim which also turned out to be false. The Times consistently publishes stories putting a government that the United States is hostile to at the time in a very bad light, is then forced to retract the stories, but then does the same thing again. If it keeps on publishing false stories, then publishes a retraction saying that it should have done better, but then makes the same mistake again, it is simply not a reliable source when it comes to a country that the US is in a conflict with, as the US currently is with Russia.

And as for Wikipedia treating the Times as a reliable source. The Times published a story detailing how the US government gave the go-ahead for the coup that ousted Morsi. I tried to get that into the Wikipedia article on the coup, but couldn't, because I could find no other source that gave the same account of events as the Times did. – Herzen (talk) 20:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Making mistakes is common to all journalism. There is a great difference between mistakes and intentionally misleading readers. RGloucester — ☎ 20:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Informed readers could instantly tell that the story about the Syrian army using chemical weapons didn't make any sense. So it's very difficult for me to view that article as simply a "mistake". Anyway, this is off topic. Please just keep in mind in the future that although Russian media are going to take the Russian government line on most things, I have never caught them in a lie during this whole Ukrainian crisis. (When the Russian government said that the polite men in green that appeared in Crimea were not Russian troops, Russian media reported that they seemed to be Russian. It did not mechanically follow the official line in that case.) So your bringing up Russian media in this thread was off-topic. The State Department says that RT just presents "Putin's fantasy", but in all the Western news reports I have seen about Russian media engaging in "disinformation", it is the Russian media that turns out to be truthful. And remember that the BBC is in exactly the same position that RT is: it is a state run news outlet. – Herzen (talk) 05:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Almost everything in the articles is verified with western sources, but many of those complaining about Ukrainian sources have also said that the BBC is no good, and so on. If we include anything from a Ukrainian source, it is mentioned who reported it. We never call anyone terrorists, nor do we call anyone fascists. We can use Ukrainian sources for facts, like quote from officials, but we do not give WP:UNDUE weight to Ukrainian POV on 'terrorism'. RGloucester — ☎ 16:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

-Львівське says we should use Ukrainian sources because they have more in-depth coverage. To me that is exactly why we should avoid them. The elements of the story that are significant will be carried in Western media. Local sources are best for local stories that have little or no international significance. Furthermore one of the pluses of Wikipedia articles is that readers can look up the sources. Few readers speak Ukrainian. TFD (talk) 21:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Here's a compilation of lies that have been spread by the Ukrainian press, from the anti-Putin Moscow Times. (The article treats lies published by the Ukrainian media and anti-Maidan rumors as if they were the same thing, for "balance".) This article should be taken as a warning that Ukrainian sources should not be used unless a Western source can back them up.

Don't Drink the Tea and Other Myths From the Ukraine Conflict – Herzen (talk) 06:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Ergo, according to this opinion piece by a (notice the use of the singular) journalist, all Ukrainian reportage is tainted?(!) Of particular interest is his use of colourful language. The title, alone, seems a little less than neutral. I can certainly see how it would appeal to readers who want confirmation that Ukrainian reports are all crazy. It's good to see that this reporter doesn't hold back on patting himself on the back for 'debunking' everything that's just plain propaganda. No flies on him! (EDIT) Just in case I haven't made myself clear, I'm wondering how the Moscow Times qualifies as a reliable source on the basis on it being 'anti-Putin', or how this journalist qualifies as being a reliable source because he has pieces published in the Moscow Times. Ipso facto? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 0:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The consensus of this board is that you should prefer English-language sources such as Associated Press. If a fact is relevant it will be picked up by these sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 05:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

As you would have noted, it appears that Herzen's contention is that because the Associated Press, et al have carried misinformation in the past, while he/she has never caught out the Russian sources he wishes to cite indulging in such spurious activities, the Russian sources are superior to Western sources. But wait, if I start digging through the archives regarding the war on Georgia, the Chechen war, ad infinitum, will Herzen's contention actually hold up? I'm reluctantly prepared to dig around if needs must, but I remember for a fact that I've read seriously tendentious, pro-Russian propaganda articles on such matters printed in his truly 'reliable' sources in the past... The state of near perfection he purports is in the eye of the beholder. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

We should use third party non-partisan sources where possible. In my experience, where there exists such a degree of polemic, we should avoid such polarised sources as RT, Pravda, Kyiv Post or Ukrayinska Pravda if at all possible. National news outlets of Russia and the Ukraine cannot be relied upon to report these events objectively because sentiment is strong and the stakes are high, these organs can become mouthpieces of the respective governments by extension even if they are notionally independently controlled. There is the strong risk that in these sources, even superficially impartial "facts" may be subject to inherent bias or even be propagandised by them. Certainly if we choose to rely on these national sources, should there be any dispute as to factual accuracy or bias, we should defer to foreign media. The exception being where there is the express desire to represent the views or situation seen by that one side; such assertions/views ought to be balanced in some way by sources representing opposing points of view. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 07:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Given that, as you have suggested, there is bound to be self-censorship and agenda based bias, I can see a compromise of 'according to/reports from [insert name of regional source]' where colourful, emotive terminology is substituted, and where 'unbiased' sources can back up the assertions as having their place. Having been following the development of the article, this cautious approach was, and is, in place. I don't see the argument for Russian sources being more reliable than Ukrainian sources as having any merit. I'm already convinced that the right balance has been struck, and this as being a push to introduce POV sources. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with you entirely, Ohconfucius. My main concern is that many of the people calling for the elimination of Ukrainian sources are also calling for the elimination of western sources because they are 'propaganda' and 'lies'. If we cannot even cite the New York Times, we are more or less screwed. Regardless, all the work I've done on the various articles has always verified information with OSCE reports and western sources, and I've made sure to eliminate sole reliance on Ukrainian or Russian sources, or added qualifiers (explaining who reported it). I'd be happy for anyone here to take a look at 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine and see if there are any problem spots in that regard that need work. RGloucester — ☎ 16:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Please don't make straw man arguments. Nobody has called for "the elimination of western sources". I said that when it comes to current events in the Ukraine, Russian sources such as RT are to be considered to be significantly more reliable than the NY Times, specifically. This follows logically from the fact that the Russian government has been more truthful about events in the Ukraine than has the US government. You have explicitly identified yourself as a Marxist, so this should not be hard for you to understand. Proper constitutional procedures were not followed to remove Yanukovich from power; this means that the current Kiev regime is not a legitimate government. USG treats the current regime as legitimate; Russia does not. This means that the Russian line on events in the Ukraine is prima facie more credible than the USG line. It follows from that that a Russian source like RT is prima facie more reliable than the NY Times, which closely follows the current USG line in such situations.

My position is that Western sources are to be preferred, simply because this is English Wikipedia. Thus, one needs to have a special and good reason to use a Russian source, whether it is in English or in Russian. All Ukrainian sources, in contrast, are to be treated as nothing but engines of disonformation, given that they treat the Kiev regime as a legitimate government, when any non-failing PoliSci 101 student can easily explain to you why that is an utterly mendacious position. – Herzen (talk) 05:39, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much for this lovely laden wagonload of WP:POV and WP:Original research. Thank you dearly, for all that. Sadly, your opinion about what is or isn't legitimate has no relevance here. RGloucester — ☎ 05:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

• No sources are unbiased or free from error. But neutrality means we need to give greater weight to the presentation in mainstream sources. The result may be that the articles have a Western bias, but that is what neutrality dictates. TFD (talk) 16:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The preference is for English-language sources whether they be Russian (RT), Ukrainian (KyivPost), American (NYT), or British (BBC). The country of origin or inherent bias of each organization is irrelevant. They are English-language sources and an English-language user can verify their contents. The Russian-language, Ukrainian-language, Estonian-language, Polish-language, etc. sources are unverifiable to me. 173.79.251.253 (talk) 02:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that there too many Ukrainian sources used in the articles to cover what is now a military conflict-many of them seem amateurish and unreliable. Additionally there is a propaganda war going on, and we had claims that for example the Rebels are planning to build a "dirty bomb" by Ukrainian sources, which obviously were scaremongering and unverified.We should use caution and skepticism when using them.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 09:44, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Please provide us with a link to that source, MyMoloboaccount. Rather than providing anecdotal information, it would be useful to see which of the biased Ukrainian sources (Kiev Post, perhaps?) is carrying these stories. Might it have been the same source you used to post the Territorial claims against Poland section on the Svoboda article talk page stating, As far as I understand the leading party members advocate also annexing Przemysl and other territories of Poland. for example? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

"dirty bomb" by Ukrainian sources? See that: http://ukr.pravda.com.ua/rus/news/2014/05/5/7024414/?attempt=1 http://podrobnosti.ua/podrobnosti/2014/05/05/974487.html http://fakty.ua/181133-sbu-izyala-1-5-kg-radioaktivnogo-vecshestva-prednaznachavshegosya-separatistam-dlya-izgotovleniya-gryaznoj-bomby "...She also said that the SBU had seized a "potentially radioactive" substance weighing 1.5 kilograms in Chernivtsi Oblast, speculating that separatists may have been preparing to detonate a "dirty bomb." The SBU arrested 10 people in the operation, including one who is a citizen of the Russian Federation." https://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/anti-terrorist-operation-continues-in-donetsk-oblast-live-updates-346313.html

Looking at these sources, what exactly is supposed to be biased or unreliable about their reporting? An SBU official made a statement. The sources report on that statement being made. And? Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

And is this actually in any article? In a problematic way or something? Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

As per Volunteer Marek, have any of the editors actually used this report, or have they shown good judgement in being selective about the information included? I've been following the article and checking sources. All I've been able to establish is that information has been carefully parsed, weighed and avoided where it is deemed to be unnecessary. That's what's known as responsible editing practices. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

To this point, I'd like to add one more quote, that neutrality is never accessible in practice, so take it easy and believe in yourselves.霎起林野间 (talk) 12:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

This page relies too heavily on individual queries on "GreatFire.org", which doesn't seem like a very verifiable method of citing information, and seems borderline original research. Is there a better alternative to citing this information, so that it meets verifiability requirements? --benlisquare_T•C•E 14:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Please see that: http://hnn.us/article/23641.

Txantimedia refused that is a reliable source (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Massacre_at_Hu%E1%BA%BF#dig_.2Bshort_-x_113.190.46.114_dynamic.vdc.vn._has_started_reverting_without_discussion) with his reason: "Committee of Concerned Asian Scholars is a Marxist organization that was clearly pro-Hanoi...".

So, Is this a reliable source?

• ACTIVE MIG29VN SOCKPUPPETRY INVESTIGATION ROUND 3
• Archives of 2 recent, previous sockpuppetry investigations of MIG29VN

That isn't a useful source for the article because it only mentions the 1968 events in passing. The sourcing is generally poor in the article. Use only recent (post about 1990) scholarly works that have some distance from the arguments at the time. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I have been looking at ways to improve the Italian invasion of France page and have noted the French version uses the following source: Giorgio Rochat, La campagne italienne de juin 1940 dans les Alpes occidentales

From what I can find, the author appears to be an Italian historian. The opening notes that "This article presents an Italian perspective on the campaign by Italy’s forces in the Western Alps in June 1940." The article appears to provide vital information about the state of both sides, in an area scantly covered in the more accessible English-language secondary sources.

At some point, I would considering taking the article towards a GA review (a long way down the road at the moment). Would this source present a problem?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I've cited and seen cited other work at revues.org, seems legit. Off the top of my head, I know that this article was a major source for my article on the Livre des Esperitz. The only objection I could begin to imagine (not have, but imagine) is "it's not completely in English!" which is not policy and a stupidest reason to exclude a source (particularly when the language is in a source that at least a third of us should be able to guess a rough meaning for). I could possibly see the complaint "you're not reading it right," but the only way for an editor to say that without being a dick is to provide a more correct translation. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree that there is no problem with this source. Author is a well-published historian, a specialist in his field. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Glad we have consensus on the matter. I would have hated to have used the much needed figures, only to have them pooh-poohed down the line.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Like I recently stated here and here, I think that some WP:Reliable sources, mainly celebrity sources, are being inappropriately discriminated against, similar to how People magazine was being inappropriately discriminated against (mainly by a lone editor), and that editors failing to distinguish between tabloid newspaper format and tabloid journalism is clearly still a problem for Wikipedia. For those who don't know, or need their memory refreshed on the matter, there was an extensive WP:RfC discussion here at this noticeboard about whether or not People magazine can be used to source WP:BLPs. WP:Consensus from that discussion is that People has good editorial oversight and is generally a WP:Reliable source for WP:BLPs, but that it either should not be used for contentious information or should have an additional source to support its use for contentious information, and that it should never be used to source highly contentious information. When I noted on NeilN's talk page (shown here) that I JethroBT's closure of that discussion can be misinterpreted since what is contentious can be debatable (but that what is highly contentious usually is not debatable), NeilN essentially stated that people should understand what is meant by the closure. In a discussion from my talk page, you can see I JethroBT stating, at 07:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC), that he "would say that unless there are discrepancies between [People] and other reliable sources, something like a celebrity's birthday or their family members could be reasonably sourced to People. I agree that sometimes editors will call something contentious, but there should be a demonstrable reason why that is so (which it may well be in specific cases). Calling it a 'gossip magazine' or saying that birth dates are simply iffy in People alone just aren't going to cut it, for instance. John's arguments were not persuasive during the RfC and they shouldn't be elsewhere if that is the basis for disagreement."

And yet here we are again, with some editors removing or banning sources simply because the sources are celebrity sources or gossip sources (not that I disagree with replacing a celebrity source or a gossip source with a better source). The "gossip magazine" rationale was used to try and keep People out of WP:BLPs, and the Wikipedia community stated that a source simply being a celebrity source or a gossip magazine is not a valid reason for removing such a source from a WP:BLP. Additionally, Wikipedia editors are still failing to distinguish tabloid newspaper format from tabloid journalism, as in the case of The New York Daily News; like I stated before, the Daily News (New York) Wikipedia article has "tabloid" in its lead and in its infobox because it's linking to the Tabloid (newspaper format) article. Read the lead of the Tabloid (newspaper format) article. The Independent and The Times are also in tabloid format. Compact (newspaper) is a tabloid format. So, in conclusion, we need views on these other celebrity sources (as in non-People magazine sources). In addition to The New York Daily News (which has been to this noticeboard before and has never been deemed something that absolutely cannot be used for WP:BLPs or otherwise), some of the sources being discussed, the ones that I consider generally okay for WP:BLPs or a case-by-case matter for them, are Us Weekly (widely used on Wikipedia and similar to People magazine), Hello! , OK! (more of a case-by-case basis) and The Huffington Post (more of a case-by-case basis). Also keep in mind that some of these sources do exclusive interviews with celebrities (The Huffington Post to a less often degree). And for the record (and shown in the aforementioned discussion from my talk page), Herostratus did propose User:Herostratus/Daily Mail et al RfC back in 2013. Flyer22 (talk) 03:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Contentious claims require stronger sources. People is a pretty reliable IMO, because they have a decent history of editorial oversight. For celebrity issues, they are the news equivalent of Time. For anything that is contentious, BLP requires multiple reliable sources. If it is alleged that Jenny Tata had breast augmentation, despite her claims of being real and spectacular, then the NYT alone making this statement would not be enough to satisfy BLP. NYT and People each making the claim independently? That crosses the threshold.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, Two kinds of pork, as noted above, there is WP:Consensus that People is generally WP:Reliable for WP:BLPs. So what I stated above is more so about other celebrity sources, such as Us Weekly, and editors thinking "tabloid format" automatically means "tabloid." There is no blanket ban on using these sources for WP:BLPs, such as Us Weekly, The New York Daily News, etc., and I don't think Wikipedia editors should be acting as though there is, especially for non-contentious material (a sentiment echoed during the People magazine debates, including the People magazine WP:RfC that was had here at this noticeboard). Like I stated during the People magazine debates, stating that celebrity sources cannot be used for celebrity information is similar to stating that sports sources, such as ESPN, cannot be used for sports information or to source something about a sports star (also a celebrity). Flyer22 (talk) 05:01 (UTC)

The reason I believe why things like Us Weekly and People and OK! are often discouraged for celeb use is how much of it is gossip that is fabricated and/or poorly supported (i.e. giving a quote from a "source" without specifying the name of the "source"). Not to mention, there's also bias in many reports given. "Widely used on Wikipedia" seems like a WP:WAX argument, though. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

They are not generally discouraged. It's only a few editors, including you, discouraging their use or outright trying to ban them, with no support from the wider Wikipedia community (except for clear-cut cases such as the Daily Mail). And as for a WP:WAX argument, in reference to Wikipedia:Other stuff exists: Wikipedia:Other stuff exists can be a valid argument, as noted at that page, and it is certainly valid to state that "[So and so source] is generally accepted on Wikipedia, including for WP:BLPs, except for by a few editors trying to impose their personal view of acceptable sources on Wikipedia articles." People magazine is cleared as a WP:Reliable source, after a very big and long WP:RfC discussion here at this noticeboard, so still trying to discourage use of that source is a waste of time. If you have no proof for People, Us Weekly and OK! generally fabricating their material and/or being "poorly supported" and biased, then you are not going to get support from the wider Wikipedia community to ban those sources for WP:BLPs. And like I already told you, many WP:Reliable sources report what an anonymous source has stated without ever revealing who that anonymous source is; your argument that celebrity sources do it more often holds no weight with me. WP:Reliable sources does not base reliability on that matter. WP:Reliable sources bases reliability on editorial oversight and accuracy. Flyer22 (talk) 06:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

"Often" isn't always synonymous with "generally". Also, for examples of poor support I've often seen, have a look here ("A source who has worked with Clooney", does not mention name of "source") and here ("Sources tell PEOPLE", again doesn't say who the "sources" are). It would be more credible if the names of these "sources" were given. I will say that English teachers I've had in the past discouraged such sources in papers. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 06:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

"Generally" is important because the wider Wikipedia community decided that People magazine is generally WP:Reliable for WP:BLPs. Saying that People magazine is not always reliable? No media source is always reliable. Many scholarly sources are not always reliable. The exceptions with regard to People magazine -- that it sometimes should not be used for contentions information and never as the sole source for highly contentious information -- is already noted above. You can continue to go on about People magazine, of course, but, considering that the wider Wikipedia community has already condoned its use for WP:BLPs, I'm pretty much done debating you on that. I started this discussion to focus on other celebrity sources, not a celebrity source that has already passed with nearly flying colors. Flyer22 (talk) 06:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

And as for your idea of "poor support," my "06:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)" post above addresses anonymous sources and what WP:Reliable sources bases reliability on. Flyer22 (talk) 07:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I am basically in agreement with the previous posts here regarding the reliability of these types of outlets, but another thing to consider here is not just plain old WP:V but also WP:NOT/WP:UNDUE. These sources often follow celebrity lives very closely, and even when it comes to non-contentious professional material it's often too much for Wikipedia purposes. And often rather than gossipy, negative things they actually lean too heavily to the promotional side. When editors in good faith use celebrity focused sources to keep articles up to date, they often add the specific date it was announced that they got a part in a film, or that they're recording a new album or going on tour (for bonus include a hype quote from the celeb about how enthusiastic they are about this new project.) And then the exact date of when filming/recording started, the exact date of when it finished, and the specific date of release, bonus for adding in specific date of release for several regions. And in the end you have something that resembles WP:NOTDIARY more than an encyclopedic summary. These sources can be used but there are very often editorial reasons not to, and there is good reason to, whenever possible, build biographic articles predominantly using higher quality sources. My personal rule of thumb is something like, if celebrity focused outlets are the only ones reporting on something, it's likely not WP:WEIGHTy enough to include. (But when, say, a celebrity chooses to give Us Weekly a statement from their side regarding something widely reported in other sources, by all means include it, WP:NPOV and all.) Siawase (talk) 06:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Siawase, especially for echoing my sentiments that some of these sources, such as Us Weekly, do exclusive interviews with celebrities or give exclusive statements. Previous posts here regarding the reliability of these types of outlets have generally accepted People magazine. And The New York Daily News has not done bad at this noticeboard either. Not to mention that it's not a celebrity source; it's simply that one aspect of its reporting is reporting on celebrities. I'm iffy about use of OK! and The Huffington Post for WP:BLPs, as noted above. But I don't see anything wrong with using Us Weekly, unless it's to source something "contentious" (and by "contentious," I mean something not supported by other WP:Reliable sources); and of course, I don't think it should ever be the sole source for highly contentious information. Flyer22 (talk) 06:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

How exactly can we rely on the words of anonymous "sources" when we don't even know who they are, though? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 07:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The kind of material these outlets attribute to unnamed sources is the vast majority of the time things we would never include on WP:NOT/WP:WEIGHT grounds anyway. Most of the time it's fluffy minutiae about the subject's romantic life, as the examples you gave above demonstrate. We don't have to fret over the reliability of whether Clooney had his arm around his fiancee or not, because this is not something we would include in his Wikipedia bio even if the NY Times published it with photographic evidence. Siawase (talk) 08:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. I was thinking: "Uh, we might want to avoid the cases where the sources are going the 'anonymous' route, except perhaps for non-trivial cases where various WP:Reliable sources are also reporting on the 'anonymous source' matter." Flyer22 (talk) 08:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I would not trust the Huffington Post, any gossip blogger, The National Enquirer, or any rag owned by Rupert Murdoch. The New York Daily News is not what I'd call reliable, but I guess it's better than the others. Compared to these paragons of truth and virtue, People and Us Weekly almost do seem like reliable sources. I would say they are OK for facts (not rumors) and interviews. I'd prefer something a bit more reliable, though. It's owned by the same exact company as People, but even Entertainment Weekly would make me feel better. I would oppose any statement cited to an undisclosed source, especially in a BLP, and most especially if it came from some gossip rag like The New York Post. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

After reading all of the above - the idea that "tabloid journalism" has any particular connection to "tabloid format" does not fly. I here offer a possible definition of "contentious" with regard to claims:

A contentious claim is any claim of fact which either may directly harm an individual or is based on anonymous allegations. Where any argument about the claim ensues, the word applies.

For BLPs, the concept of "reliable source" refers to general use of a source for non-contentious claims - meaning we have a panoply of "celebrity sources" to choose from. If the claim is "contentious" it is not the "specific source" which ought to be the issue, but whether other sources verify the claims.

Wikipedia uses "reliable" not to mean "only the truth" but whether the source is known for fact-checking of the type of claim made. It is far more important to keep "opinion columns" (even from :reliable sources) from being used for contentious claims - The New York Times, according to its first Public Editor[12], did not "fact check" opinion columns (in fact stating that one writer still misquoted a claim which had been corrected months earlier), and I doubt many places do that either.

Were I to hold any sway at all, I would rule out all the "political opinion sites" at the outset. I would rule out obvious "political campaign material sites" as well, and every single "we are right and they are wrong" site known to mortal man.

Mixing pure lye and pure sulfuric acid makes for a neutral solution -- after you see a nice explosion first.

To get a neutral solution is far safer when one starts with materials not too far from a pH of 7.

In the same way, using sources which make strong claims which on their face are far from neutral causes more heat than anything else.

Cheers. I have been deemed not conducive to a healthy working atmosphere I fear. Collect (talk) 12:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Collect, thanks for weighing in it. I'm not sure if by "the idea that 'tabloid journalism' has any particular connection to 'tabloid format' does not fly.", you are referring to my claim that editors are confusing the matter or that you are stating they shouldn't be confusing the matter. But I assure you that they are; this is made clear by this discussion I recently linked you to on your talk page. XXSNUGGUMSXX, who is now participating in this noticeboard discussion, was one of the two editors confusing the matter. This confusion was also present during the People magazine debates of last year. Flyer22 (talk) 21:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The confusion has trapped many editors in the past, and is likely to continue to do so. The "fly" reference was, alas, partially in homage to your own posts and name. Sigh. Collect (talk) 22:32, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah, okay, Collect. Thanks again. Sorry about my own confusion on that. Flyer22 (talk) 22:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, Entertainment Weekly is without question infinitely more reliable than People or Us Weekly. As far as ownership goes, writers are separate from publishers. Does the same company publish their pieces? Perhaps, but People definitely has different writers than Entertainment Weekly. Time Inc/Time Warner does the publishing, not the writing. I fully agree with you on Huffington Post and New York Post. If political bias is of concern, than pieces like Huffington Post and FOX News shouldn't be used. The two are notorious for political bias (which often contains fraudulence in favor of said bias). New York Daily News is more reliable than Huffington Post, FOX News, National Enquirer, and New York Post, (all four of which I am all for blacklisting) but I'd avoid using it when possible. If Daily Mail hasn't been officially blacklisted yet, by all means blacklist that as well. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Daily Mail blacklisting? You do know that it has been used as a source for years on Wikipedia in numerous song articles both GA and FA-class? Why the sudden discrimination against celebrity newspapers? Yes they are bad sources when it comes to facts and politics etc, but as a member of WikiProject Songs they are highly valuable for reviews of music videos and live performances. Honestly, every celebrity newspaper is not 110% unreliable in every aspect and topic of life, deeming every tabloid unreliable in turn is generalisation in my opinion.—CoolMarc 20:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Daily Mail has been declared unreliable at WP:RSN repeatedly due to continuous fraudulence, so the idea of blacklisting isn't so sudden. I rarely see it in GA's let alone FA's, seems like WP:WAX. The concern is more about "celebrity gossip" than "celebrity newspapers". As for blacklisting..... what I meant was to make it essentially unusable (i.e. page won't save if it's contained). XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, thanks for weighing in. I appreciate editors weighing the matters the way that you, Collect and most others have done in this discussion and not stating that these sources should be outright banned from WP:BLPs (unless, of course, it's a source like the National Enquirer); you all have instead stated that a few of them should be avoided, and, in some cases, it may be best to replace the good ones with better sources, especially depending on the circumstance. My main issue with regard to celebrity sources (as shown during the People magazine debates of last year) is removing a WP:Reliable celebrity source, let's say Us Weekly, simply because an editor has deemed it unreliable and/or does not like it, and offering no attempt to replace it; that usually leaves articles in a worse state, not a better state, as far I'm concerned, such as in this case at the Janice Dickinson article. Like I stated in this discussion, I don't agree with editors going around deciding what source is reliable or unreliable; that matter is for WP:Reliable sources to decide or, if the WP:Reliability is not clear, for the Wikipedia community to decide at this noticeboard. Therefore, judging by most of the comments in this discussion, I will be restoring the Us Weekly source at the Janice Dickinson article until a so-called better source is found for that material in the interim.

As for the claim that Entertainment Weekly is more reliable than People magazine or Us Weekly, I don't buy that, especially with regard to People magazine. And like Two kinds of pork stated above, "For celebrity issues, [People magazine is] the news equivalent of Time. Entertainment Weekly does not come close to being as valuable to celebrity Wikipedia biographies as People magazine is. As for The Huffington Post, the New York Post and FOX NEWS, which are not technically celebrity sources, there is no blanket ban or blacklist against using them and they are nowhere close to the unreliability state of the National Enquirer. Their uses is a case-by-case matter. Because of the common claims that FOX NEWS is politically biased, one would of course need to be careful when using that source for political matters.

Coolmarc, the general WP:Consensus in this discussion is that celebrity sources are not necessarily bad. It's the circumstances with which they are used that can be bad. And Coolmarc and XXSNUGGUMSXX, as for "celebrity gossip" vs. "celebrity magazine" (I'm not aware of a "celebrity newspaper"), the point is that all celebrity sources engage in celebrity gossip, including People magazine, but removing a source based on the fact that they do engage in that is not a valid reason for removal. Celebrity sources can be used to source matters that are not devoted to celebrity gossip, such as a celebrity's part in a film role, an exclusive interview the celebrity has done with the source, a celebrity's birth date or the fact that a celebrity has one child; People magazine and Us Weekly are often used for such material, especially People magazine, and I have witnessed no dubiousness when they are used for such matters. Flyer22 (talk) 21:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

My issue is that I've noticed that User:XXSNUGGUMSXX edits out any tabloid references on articles and in GA reviews, mentions "remove tabloids". See "Spinning Around", "Diamonds (Rihanna song)", "S&M (song)", "Love the Way You Lie", "Irreplaceable", "4 Minutes (Madonna song)", "Rehab (Rihanna song)" and "Push the Button (Sugababes song)" - all examples of FA-class song articles which use the Daily Mail reasonably as a source. Tabloids are harmless when it comes to reviews. Are all those FA-class song articles Daily Mail sources fraudulent, let alone other tabloids? Is every tabloid source fraudulent? No. Like I said, generalisation not WP:WAX.—CoolMarc 22:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Shall we blacklist National Enquirer? While using People or Us Weekly might not be so bad for giving an age range, they do frequently engage in false gossip (often regarding celeb relationships). I gave a couple examples above, even if you don't feel they are poor support or anything for claims. How is Entertainment Weekly not better for biographies if they have a higher accuracy rate, though, and are more professional in their writing?? Whenever possible, I strongly encourage replacement of People, Us Weekly, New York Post, and others with better sources. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 21:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

CoolMarc, as I said Daily Mail has been repeatedly declared unreliable in previous WP:RSN discussions. It will have to be removed/replaced by better sources, as it is listed under "sources to avoid" in WP:ALBUM/SOURCES. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

You overstate your case -- DM is reliable for many topics, but should not be used for contentious claims about anyone in a BLP. It is generally accurate on many topics outside celebrity gossip, but, frankly, the more titillating the gossip, the less reliable any source becomes. It is due more to the nature of the gossip than to the nature of the publication. Collect (talk) 22:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

XXSNUGGUMSXX, I think that to blacklist the National Enquirer, you are going to have to propose that in a separate section at this noticeboard and/or likely start a WP:RfC about it at this noticeboard. You are also going to have to demonstrate that People magazine and Us Weekly "frequently engage in false gossip (often regarding celeb relationships)" if you want me and many others here at this noticeboard to believe that. If People magazine engaged in that, it would not have been community-approved in that aforementioned big WP:RfC about that source. As for how it is better than Entertainment Weekly for celebrity biographies, not simply biographies, I suggest you read all of the "Yes" comments in the aforementioned big WP:RfC, which make it explicitly clear how valuable People magazine is to celebrity biographies; in short, not only does it have good editorial oversight, it specializes in celebrity information and will often have information that no other source has about a celebrity, often (not always or mostly) because a celebrity trusted People magazine with the material over any other magazine or any newspaper. Celebrities often go to People magazine with their story or for an interview because they trust People magazine. Strongly encouraging replacement of People, Us Weekly, New York Post and other sources with "better sources" is your right; one of my points is that it is no one's right at this site to demand that these sources be replaced. But New York Post? Clearly, it is not on the same trustworthy standing among Wikipedia as People and Us Weekly are. And just look at its Wikipedia article, the Criticism and Controversies sections. Again, however, it's not technically a celebrity source. Also, I already told you above that I am done debating People magazine with you here in this discussion, considering that it has been so well approved here at this noticeboard, so I certainly am now done debating you on that matter here in this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 22:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Collect, there are conversations such as this and this. It has frequently been scrutinized for fraud. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

So Daily Mail are now completely unreliable on every matter as per WP:RSN? As I see User:XXSNUGGUMSXX is now removing them from numerous articles without looking into what each Daily Mail article states, but simply reasoning "Bye bye Daily Mail as per WP:RSN". Is this the same for every tabloid format now? Such as Daily Mirror, Daily Record etc? —CoolMarc 23:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can tell based on previous WP:RSN discussions and other criticisms of Daily Mail, looks like it isn't a reliable source at all. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 23:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

For certain things, no, I would say it's not. The used of the more sensationalistic tabloids should generally be discouraged, as they have a disturbing history of manufacturing stories and controversies. For something innocuous, like a review, I think it would be alright. I personally would never cite one of these rumormongering tabloids as a reliable source under any circumstances, but I recognize some people like to do so. I would discourage them from using such disreputable sources in Good and Featured articles, but I guess there's really no policy-based mandate for that. As far as People and other celebrity magazines go, I'd say that we need to be very careful not to repeat rumors or speculation. I don't like the idea of using celebrity-obsessed tabloids, but Flyer22 has made some compelling arguments that have caused me to soften my stance a bit. I sympathize with XXSNUGGUMSXX's hardline stance on reliable sources, but I think an interview from People would be fine. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Is The Telegraph a reliable newspaper for the statements attributed to the UK science minister in this article? Since I'm from the US, I am not familiar with UK newspapers other than The TImes. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The Daily Telegraph most certainly is reliable. That and The Guardian are among the most reliable newspapers in the area. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 16:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

It is considered equal in stature to The Times: [13]. Betty Logan (talk) 17:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure as to whether this site Renowned for Sound] is reliable? Can I have some input on this please? —CoolMarc 16:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's got an editor listed. That's always a good sign. From randomly reading a few articles, I'd say the site's grammar and spelling seem to be fairly good, which is also a promising sign. I did a few standard Google searches, and I didn't really turn up much when searching for "according to renowned for sound" or "according to renownedforsound.com". I did turn up this mention, though. So, I would accept it for reviews, but news reporting might be a little contentious. Other sites don't seem to trust it, so I'm not sure we should, either. It does seem edited, however. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! —CoolMarc 20:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Because of how little this web magazine is discussed by other media, I think each article should be evaluated on a case by case basis. Founder Brendon Veevers is not well known as a music critic, despite his years of such work. Certainly the 'facts' presented in interviews count as WP:PRIMARY sources because they are not fact-checked; only information presented neutrally by the writer/editor should be counted as WP:SECONDARY sources. Binksternet (talk) 20:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

It looks like they take payment to feature artists, though that material is restricted to a dedicated "Ones to watch" subsection. But anything in that section should, at the very least, be used with the usual WP:PRIMARY cautions, since it comes from the artist directly. I'd also have to wonder how objective they could be in any subsequent coverage of artists who previously paid to be featured. Siawase (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Simon Collins#RfC: Do newspaper sources that are unavailable for free online thereby become unreliable and is the content they are cited to verify, thereby rendered poorly-sourced and/or unverifiable?.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Can Yelp pages like this one be cited for summarized statements like the following one in the Citi Field article: "Overall, reviews of Citi Field from fans and press have mostly been positive." ? My guess is no, because it's user-generated, and because some users may write negative reviews out of a desire for retribution, other personal reasons, or satire, and negative reviews were observed to have risen 20% in 2013. However, I wanted the community's input. I tried looking through the archives, and it appears that no one had a discussion focused on Yelp in particular. The one discussion that mentioned it was this one, in which an editor, A Quest for Knowledge, pointed out four articles citing Yelp. Of those four, Yelp citations are only found in two of them, and in any event, that's a descriptive statement, not a prescriptive one (i.e.: just because there are articles citing it doesn't mean that they're supposed to; it's possible that the editors who did so didn't know about WP:USERG). Thoughts? Nightscream (talk) 03:29, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

No, I would stick to review aggregators that track professional reviews when making statements such as these, but I don't know of any for businesses offhand. As far as I know, Yelp is composed entirely of user-generated content. I personally would not trust anything I found on these sorts of sites. You don't know who is posting these reviews. Could be bitter competitors, could be shills, could even be me. Quoting Yelp would be like quoting user reviews on the IMDB or Amazon.com. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:15, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I oppose the use of Yelp in this context. I own a small business and Yelp reviews are really important to my online image. But they are user-submitted and subject to "gaming" by vindictive cranks and unethical competitors. I have seen cases of extreme harassment on Yelp by people reminiscent of some of the trolls and sockpuppets here on Wikipedia. But I fear that Yelp management is sometimes slow to act. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:25, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I figured as much. Nightscream (talk) 11:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I opened a discussion recently regarding the reliability of this website; no consensus was reached, actually. This website I'm mentioning is called Idolator (can be found here) and is published by Spin Media (to which I have mixed considerations, as they publish some decidedly reputable works and sites, such as Spin, AbsolutePunk and PopMatters however they are also the publishers of Under the Gun Review and other Kardashian websites which are considered unreliable). Relatively to the writers—95% of the Idolator articles used in the article Trouble (Natalia Kills album) are written by their associate editor Sam Lansky which also works for Time and MTV while he has also written for New York magazine and The Atlantic. Two of the sources used in my article are from that website as well but written by Mike Wass (who I believe only works at Idolator however I have no problem with his writing style). Idolator is used in a lot of GAs however people tend to remove those sources when trying to make them FAs.

Well, the problem with my article is that it addresses an album which was not recognized by the general music press (I'm talking about websites like MTV, Rolling Stone, etc.); it also had a weak commercial performance. Basically, the only decisively reputable sources that address the album are (aside from Idolator) AllMusic (review), Digital Spy (vaguely, just an interview with Natalia Kills), Billboard (vague coverage as well) and The New Zealand Herald (review as well). In January, I promoted the article to GA-class and my goal is to have it go FA-class, however I would not be able to further promote its class without the Idolator sources as they would remove a lot of valuable information from the article.

I want to reach consensus here and hopefully include it in FAs from now on (depending on the verifiability of the claim it's going to support). Another argument that people usually use to disregard Idolator is the "fact" that it is a blog, when it isn't, it just follows that style. Thank you for reading and please comment. (going to ping some users so we can talk a bit about this) @XXSNUGGUMSXX, WikiRedactor, (CA)Giacobbe, and Livelikemusic: prism^△ 16:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I do not know much about FA's or GA's, but I would largely consider Idolator a reliable source, as I believe it was already deemed as such in a previous discussion as a project related to music articles. Several musical artists do report to the website, which has proven its reliability in terms of creditability. Therefore, I don't see an issue with it being included as a reliable source. It is highly cited, as well, especially on Google, where it is shown as part of their "News" tab of a match lines up. I would doubt if it didn't have some kind of reliability, it wouldn't be. Also, to Prism, just a word of advice, user's do not own pages, though sandboxes may be another exception, though it isn't encouraged to "own" your sandbox, but Wikipedia doesn't seem to be as hard on those as they are actual articles. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 16:33, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

@Livelikemusic: Thank you for your quick comments, however I do not have a "owning pages" mentality whatsoever. The 'my' I wrote on the above text was just misinterpreted. prism^△ 16:40, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

At first, I didn't have problems with it. However, when I tried to use it in place of Daily Mail for Rihanna's net worth, Tomica reverted me saying Daily Mail was better (which I find absurd since Daily Mail has notoriously been scrutinized for fraud repeatedly). After hearing it was a blog, I began to have my doubts about Idolator. Some of their content seemed like gossip upon first glance. However, a closer look found it wasn't so frivolous. Some of it is quite well written and supported. Perhaps "blog" needs to be taken out of its Wikipedia article so it doesn't give a misleading red flag to readers who have never previously known of it. Some of their content is not quite accurate, though they generally provide an understandable basis even when in error. Overall, I no longer have concerns with using it. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 16:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Could you give an example on where has it posted "not quite accurate" content? Thank you! @JennKR, Tomica, and Calvin999: If you guys could give your two cents on this as well it would be very helpful.prism^△ 16:40, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

We shouldn't remove accurate descriptions of a site from its Wikipedia article just so that Wikipedia editors won't get the wrong idea about the site. It's time that more Wikipedia editors distinguish general blogs from WP:NEWSBLOG ("news blog" covering more than just big-time and/or solely news organizations), and that, per WP:Reliable sources, even initially questionable sources may be reliable depending on the context. Flyer22 (talk) 16:46, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Most of the inaccuracies pertained to things like celeb gossip (but not Perez Hilton-level gossip), though I'm fuzzy on details. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 16:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Thankfully they usually stay away from gossip-y posts and rumors, so that won't be a problem for assuring its place as a reliable source. prism^△ 17:01, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Is this University of Georgia (link here) newspaper reliable and/or reputable enough? I want to use an album review from it on an FAC. prism^△ 10:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

If you have a look at nearly (maybe all) articles about various country passports or visa requirements, for example:

• Visa requirements for Singaporean citizens
• Trinidad and Tobago passport
• Visa requirements for Costa Rican citizens

You will notice that most of them reference the Henley index (which redirects to Freedom of movement.) Upon inspection the Henley index is produced by Henley & Partners, which calls itself the Global Leaders In Residence and Citizenship Planning. Is this the sort of thing that we should be using for a reference? The Henley index doesn't really mean anything (outside of the Henley group), is it something we should be describing as "a thing" in these articles? My opinion is no, and I think it basically equates to spam. Not really sure where this discussion should go, I thought RS/N was a good start as I don't think this residence planning company is really a reliable source.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 12:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Are court judgements considered primary or secondary sources? Background here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I would re-frame your question slightly to read "is it more consistent with Wikipedia's role as a reliable source of encyclopedic knowledge to reference learned, reasoned and independent (by definition) judgments rather than press articles" Justmauritius (talk) 20:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the debate, but if any of the judgments are being used to support claims about living people then public records such as court documents are prohibited per WP:BLPPRIMARY. Betty Logan (talk) 20:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Bingo. Court documents are just about always primary documents, especially for judgments. While the judgement may summarize or quote specific filings / evidence, it ultimately is something produced by the judge(s). They shouldn't even really be used as a source for specific quotes mined from the judgment as it's far too easy to fall into POV quote-mining. We should always be using secondary sources. Ravensfire (talk) 20:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

It would have to depend what the judgment is being used for. An opinion summarizing the state of the law should be perfectly fine to use as a source on the state of the law. If we are talking about the facts of a particular case, would an appellate opinion summarizing the findings of the court below be a secondary source relative to the opinion below? bd2412 T 03:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

No, those are still primary. We can't use court documents of a judicial opinion by themselves as a source for what "the state of the law" is without including every caveat, nuance, and nod to jurisdiction implied or stated in the ruling. If a Wikipedia editor is determining which part of a ruling or judicial opinion is significant, that's original research. Wikipedia editors are not reliable sources for interpreting legal documents.__ E L A Q U E A T E 03:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Legal research and writing does not work that way. A case is a primary source for the case itself (we have many articles on specific cases), but to treat an opinion like a primary source for its discussion of a statute explained in the opinion would make no more sense than considering a legal textbook to be a primary source for its discussion of the same statute. In that case, the Wikipedia editor is still determining which part of the discussion in the textbook is significant; if that was going to be the test, then Wikipedians would be barred from using any sources at all. Of course, most legal textbooks explain the meaning of the law by merely quoting the language of judicial opinions! bd2412 T 13:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

My 2p on this is that discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States v. Article Consisting of 50,000 Cardboard Boxes More or Less, Each Containing One Pair of Clacker Balls might be helpful in determining if they are or not. I have no opinion either way. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:57, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, in a case like that, court documents are primary about the case they present, because they will naturally be generated by the case (otherwise, the argument becomes every legal case could be notable if the court documents were secondary). There may be cases about Case Y that is discussed in the legal findings of Case X to support Case Y's notability as secondary review of Case Y, but those same documents are still primary for Case X. --MASEM (t) 14:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course, most legal textbooks explain the meaning of the law by merely quoting the language of judicial opinions! Newspapers quote people, that doesn't mean that directly quoting a person without a newspaper wouldn't be quoting a primary source. If something is reviewed in law journals or legal textbooks, then it is being vetted as important by people other than Wikipedia editors. Not everything a judge says in an opinion is notable or universally clear as to its technical import to people with no legal background. We don't treat judge's opinions as non-involved, third-party sources for the decisions they make. We don't interpret judgements, we report how others interpret them. We sometimes use primary sources for quotes, but an article shouldn't consist of primary sources, or we would have a Wikipedia article for every decision made (as Masem just said). A judge's opinion is a source for what it said, but is not a source by itself for whether it has legal significance.__ E L A Q U E A T E 14:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

It may be useful for our purposes to distinguish between trial court opinions and appellate opinions. A trial court is generally examining the facts before it, while the appellate court is examining the decision of the trial court, usually to see whether the trial court made a mistake in its application of the law. It is typically the appellate opinions that are quoted in legal texts and cited as authority by other courts. In arcane areas of law, however, the third-party sources most likely to quote or analyse the opinions even of an appellate court are law blogs, which I would think are less reliable than the courts themselves. I would add, as someone who has recently entered the field of legal journalism after having practiced as an attorney, that mass-market news outlets are notorious for misunderstanding the law as presented in judicial opinions. bd2412 T 17:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

In this instance the court case was used as a citation to provide evidence by example to underpin a point concerning a general "state of the Law" edit. The parties to the case are academic and of no relevance. As was observed, if the edit was concerning the parties then it would be a primary source but where the edit is concerning a general point of law it is simply an example being used to illustrate typical circumstances in which the point of law applies. In this instance it serves to illustrate the general point of an "unfair trial" and not concerning a specific unfair trial. I would re-iterate that in my view, in these circumstances, the pleadings themselves are primary source, the independent, reasoned and analysed judgment of the Court (in this instance five judges)relevant to the general article is highly worthy material to post. I welcome further comment? Justmauritius (talk) 14:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

If you were the one "providing evidence" to support a point, that sounds like original research. Is it the judges who say the circumstances are typical, or is that a point you're trying to make by pointing to a single judgement where a judgement happened a certain way?__ E L A Q U E A T E 14:47, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, looking at this, you're attempting to use the existence of a single case to support your own assertion that these cases are significant. The existence of an example is not a reliable source for generalizations or assertions made by an editor. Otherwise, I could include a citation of a few jaywalking cases of completely unknown significance into the Jaywalking article. You need a third-party source that these arrests represent something of significance. (I'm neutral about whether the case is significant, but it's probably more significant to a sub-page about the Commonwealth State of Mauritius than the general principle of law. The judges are making a ruling about a single incident in a single country under a specific law, they are clearly not speaking to how the principle should be interpreted generally.) This is not a reliable source for the content you're trying to insert.__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:07, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

In this instance the court case was used as a citation to provide evidence by example to underpin a point... – This sounds and awful lot like WP:SYNTHESIS to me. We are not permitted to make claims that are not explicitly made by the source attributed to it. Betty Logan (talk) 15:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Court decisions are always primary sources, whether they summarize the facts or provide opinions on the law. When writing articles about legal opinion, one should use law textbooks or legal reports, and generally only quote the case where secondary sources have found it helpful to do so. TFD (talk) 02:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm with TFD: Anything issued by a court is primary until proven otherwise (and also technically self-published, by the way, although that's not important, since the court is "an expert" on what the court said). If the information is DUE, you will be able to find better sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

If a case is printed verbatim (or with minimal editing) in a third-party textbook or collection of selected cases, does that secondary publication count as a secondary source for the case, and the information presented in the case? bd2412 T 18:33, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't see that that that would make a difference, it's still primary. Any commmentary that accompanies it, which there would typically be in a case book, would be secondary though. DeCausa (talk) 20:05, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Quotes are still primary sources. A textbook for example may quote what a madman says, but that does not make his words reliable. Also, frequently there are majority and minority opinions in judgments, or may be reversed on appeal or a new Supreme Court may decide differently. Different states may interpret the same types of laws differently. We can only resolve that by using secondary sources. However judgments could be seen as secondary sources where they outline the history of a law and previous court decisions, although it would be rare that this would be the best source. TFD (talk) 06:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Yup - see Obiter dictum. There's a case that gets mentioned in some of the tax protestor articles about a judge ruling the Sixteenth Amendment was never ratified, or wanting to put the full quote from the case in the article. Except the case itself was about deploying troops to Iraq and the judge is basically talking to himself. So it's a quote from a ruling in a case, but it's textbook obiter dictum. We need those secondary sources to tell us what's really noteworth in a ruling. Ravensfire (talk) 13:04, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

That would be a good reason to distinguish as sources trial court decisions (like the one you mention here) from appellate decisions. Appellate court decisions are a further step removed from the introduction of witness testimony and documentary evidence, are produced by a panel of judges rather than a single judge (and are generally internally reviewed by other chambers of the appellate court before being released), and reflect the higher degree of judicial expertise incumbent on appellate judges. bd2412 T 13:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Melissa Joan Hart#Official WP:PRIMARY source. An anon IP contends that melissajoanhart.ning.com (a defunct website) was merely a fansite and not official, and therefore not reliable for biographical statements in this BLP. I argue that it was certainly an official website; this is borne out by various evidence such as the site's own assertion as "official" as well as its byline "Created by Melissa Joan Hart" at the bottom of this page which links to her own user profile. She was creator and administrator of the site from its inception until its demise. It is also worth pointing out that the website, and its redirect, www.mellyjhart.com, were both linked from the BLP article for years purporting to be her official website. There has been no rational dispute of this fact for for over four years. It would be nice to settle definitively here. Elizium23 (talk) 02:44, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The IP editor raises very good points. Anyone can put up a web site and claim to be a celebrity. I've had friends who did that sort of thing. I found a blog post where "Melissa Joan Hart" talks about how you can vote for her on Dancing with the Stars. Throughout the post, she speaks in first person ("I", "me", "my"). That doesn't prove anything, but it does lend some credence to the claim that this is at least supposed to be her official website and not a fan-run site. I don't see any evidence that this is her official web site, but it does claim to be. Eh, it's probably OK for trivial claims consistent with WP:BLPSOURCES. If the IP editor still objects, then either back down or open an RfC. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I object. We're talking about a BLP issue. If anything is sacrosanct on Wikipedia, it's BLP. Wikipedia has run into serious problems with biographies of living people; there are very good reasons the policies are so strict. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Here is a Tweet from Melissa's verified Twitter account that links to a blog post she made on the Ning.com website. There are also many Tweets from her linking to mellyjhart.com, which was registered as a redirect link to melissajoanhart.ning.com. Elizium23 (talk) 09:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

If anyone is interested in a discussion about whether a celebrity fan page should be considered a reliable source: Talk:Melissa Joan Hart#Official WP:PRIMARY source. Thanks. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 14:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

For some things a fan site might be reliable but it will depend on the age of the site and its reputation possibly noted by others. However, I would almost say with certainty that a fan site of a living celebrity will never be reliable under the limitations/sourcing requirements of WP:BLP. Unless we're talking an interview by that celebrity with that site where the site has clearly shown its editorial control and reliability, anything these types of sites publish are going to fail the higher WP:V requirements and/or will be reported by other more reliable sites. --MASEM (t) 14:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope you'll look at the discussion linked above and, if you think it's appropriate, make your comments there. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 14:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Your first link is a dead link. And we are talking about melissajoanhart.ning.com, not mellyjhart.com. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 16:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

My first link is not a dead link. It links to a single Tweet on twitter.com, in which there is embedded a shortened link to ning.it. This link expands to http://melissajoanhart.ning.com/profiles/blogs/summer-premiere-tonight?xg_source=shorten_twitter so clearly Hart has directly Tweeted about the website she owned and operated. Elizium23 (talk) 16:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Click the link. It takes you to the message "404: Not Found". Again, do you make this stuff up as you go along? 75.177.156.78 (talk) 17:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you? The link works perfectly well for me. I assume you are referring to the link within the link. That is, if you click the link, then click to the ning.com site within it you get "404". Yes you do. We all know that. Elizium knows that. That's quite separate from your claim that a "fan site" is being used. She's just stopped using that site now. The link is merely proof that it was indeed her own site when it was up. Paul B (talk) 17:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

What the IP fails to mention is that this was not just a fan-made site, it was an official fan site, that is, it was created, administered and maintained by the subject of the biography, Melissa Joan Hart. Therefore it is a valid WP:SELFPUB and WP:PRIMARY and reliable for the biographical information that is cited in the article. Elizium23 (talk) 16:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

WHOIS lookup on the domain mellyjhart.com (which still to this day redirects to melissajoanhart.ning.com) shows that the domain is registered to one Melissa Wilkerson with an address at Grand Central Station, NYC. Elizium23 (talk) 16:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Uh . . . Melissa Wilkerson??? That's an utterly meaningless comment. And mellyjhart.com is a dead link; do you make this stuff up as you go along? 75.177.156.78 (talk) 16:27, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The ning.com site is up, but the one for MJH is down. But going through archive.org does show a site that claims to be written by MJH herself. The problem is that given BLP, connecting the message of a verified twitter account to make the claim she made the site is really really really on the cusp - I would completely avoid it still if at all possible. --MASEM (t) 17:15, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

It seems much more straightforward than that. Her verified account on twitter repeatedly links to the old website which she refers to as her website. The domain is registered to Melissa Wilkerson (her married name) and her current website links to the old one. I see no grounds for any real doubt about this except some kind of hyper-scepticism without any evidence to support it. All I see from the IP by way of argument is sneering and taunting. Paul B (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

But then this begs the question - why did she take down or let that ning site expire? In terms of BLP, it's a ten-foot pole situation that I would stay far away, that the material that might likely appear that can only be sourced to that website is going to be a BLP problem in the first place. --MASEM (t) 18:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't follow you. There may be many reasons why a person takes down a website, or moves to a new one. It doesn't alter the fact that it was her website. There is nothing to suggest that there has been any controversy - or that the website contained something problematic. If it's her website it's her website. If you publish a book, and then move on to a new one it's still your book. Paul B (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I can tell you a likely reason: the ning site was overrun by spammers and scammers. It became too much work for her to maintain in a useful state. Also, she found it much more expedient to use Facebook and Twitter as they were designed to reach many more fans than ever wanted to create an account on a second-rate site like ning. What I can't explain is why she didn't try to lock or freeze the site so that the useful information and media could be preserved. But that is how the cookie crumbles. Elizium23 (talk) 18:29, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

And here's an even more likely reason: MJH has nothing to do with the ning.com site. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 18:31, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, 75.*, there's enough evidence to suggest she did. However with the site down, it does beg what information is essential for her bio article that has to be taken from there, and thus why I would avoid using anything from that site. A question to be asked is what information is so important from the site that has to be included? --MASEM (t) 18:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment I have several observations:

1. We must not assume websites that claim to be "official" or written in the first person are indeed authored by the claimed person. Celebrities are easy targets and official sites need to be substantiated.
2. The problem with substantiating a site such as http://melissajoanhart.ning.com/ is that because it is hosted on a host platform (ning.com) we are unable to check the domain registration against the WHOIS database.
3. However http://www.mellyjhart.com forwards to the dead site http://melissajoanhart.ning.com/. Mellyjhart.com is registered to a Melissa Wilkerson (Melissa Joan Hart is married to Mark Wilkerson).
4. Elizium is also correct about Melissa Joan Hart (or rather a verified Twitter account) linking to the website in a tweet.
5. The address she links to is http://melissajoanhart.ning.com/profiles/blogs/summer-premiere-tonight
6. The website is no longer in operation, but it can be accessed through the Wayback machine: http://web.archive.org/web/20130604211823/http://melissajoanhart.ning.com/profiles/blogs/summer-premiere-tonight
7. The disputed biography link can also be accessed in much the same way: http://web.archive.org/web/20130604210304/http://melissajoanhart.ning.com/page/biography-2

I would say that odds strongly indicate that the site was hers or was at the least authorized by her. However, I think the IP was correct to question it because it isn't obvious at first look. My suggestion would be to add the twitter link to the citation so it is obvious that the website isn't just a fansite. Betty Logan (talk) 18:36, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Would someone please confirm that this link at the Twitter page here (allegedly from MJH) is a dead link? It is when I click it. If it isn't a dead link, please tell me what you see. Thanks. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 20:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The Twitter link works. The ning.com link is dead to me (and with an error report from ning.com, so it's not ning.com being down, but the MJH pages being removed.) I can see what that page was at archive.org: [14], but if the information is about when this show premieres, there are better sites to confirm this (eg [15]. --MASEM (t) 20:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we know that. See my message further up the page (timed at 17:28). We all know it's dead. That's one of the premisses of the debate. Hence Elizium's comment in his/her first message in the thread: "She was creator and administrator of the site from its inception until its demise." Paul B (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Is www.albumlinernotes.com considered a WP:RS? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:50, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it would be necessary to link to the website itself. If you're looking for a particular booklet or liner notes there, just type them down and when in the Wikipedia article, just support the content added with Template:Cite AV album notes. prism^△ 16:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

But, if the website is not a RS, then it should not be used to support any material in any Wikipedia article. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:58, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

But if it just contains scans of album booklets (and after verifiying that they are the real booklets) they can be used. For example I could do what I advised you to do in the last comment by scanning a booklet and uploading its photos to some image-hosting website, like Tinypic. But I wouldn't be using Tinypic, if you understand me... prism^△ 17:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay; I think I see what you mean, but the liner notes that I am trying to source (Pet Sounds 1993 CD version) are not scanned at the website, they have been transcribed, and the website must be a WP:RS in order for me to cite to its transcriptions. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:17, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Gotcha... I've tried to find the booklet on Discogs however there are no scans of it (the 1993 version, both Japanese and American), just a scan of the CD which says where it was remastered. If that helps, though, click this. (Discogs is considered an RS, as it is used on the FA 4 (Beyoncé album). prism^△ 17:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

What? Discogs is certainly not a reliable source. It's user-generated. From their "about us" page: The heart of Discogs is a user-built database of music. More than 191,000 people have contributed some piece of knowledge, to build up a catalog of more than 4,900,000 recordings and 3,300,000 artists. We're far from done and you can contribute too! Discogs also offers the ability to catalog your music collection, wantlist, and share your ratings and reviews. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

So, is it acceptable to cite www.albumlinernotes.com? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks like it's just some guy's self-published website. I've got no reason to doubt the website's veracity, but I don't think it would count as reliable. I guess I'd treat it like any other user-generated database: a good place to start research but not a resource that I would cite as a reference. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:33, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

It appears to be a large collection of copyrighted material. Therefore, linking in any way to this site would fall under WP:LINKVIO policy. I would say this cannot be used or linked under any circumstance. Elizium23 (talk) 17:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I thought about that, but my research (which consists of a few lazy Google searches) does not indicate that this is an actual concern. Basically, liner notes are credits, and the RIAA has been pushing for more visibility of liner notes. I found a few stories (which I am too lazy to link; ask and I'll find them again) that the RIAA was trying to find a way to link MP3 files and liner notes together. This relieved my fears that liner notes are something to be hidden away and protected. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I want someone to edit the page 2002 Gujarat riots backed by these references : [16] [17] [18] [19] , [20] and these [21], [22] [23] [24][25]from reliable reputed Indian Media websites India Today The Times of India The Indian Express Hindustan Times Deccan Herald

These references are not part of this article right now.

The section Criminal Prosecution and Attack on Hindus needs overhaul 112.79.39.94 (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment; This editor has clearly got some axe to grind. The IP appeared out of nowhere to report myself and another editor to ANI, thus indicating that it is an old user who does not wish to disclose their identity. At ANI they were told this was a content dispute, and asked to come here. What they neglect to mention is that the information they wish to put in is already in the article, sourced to excellent academic sources. The IP continues to insist that "reputed Indian media" are better sources than academia, which is directly contradictory to RS policy. If somebody will explain that to them, I would be eternally grateful. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The references i have presented are from reliable sources and related to the topic. Only because they are not mentioned in a book written by someone from USA doesn't make them unreliable. I hope everyone understands that Acid–base reaction and September 11 attacks are not the same type of topic. In order to write the pages like Acid–base reaction and X-ray astronomy academic sources are more than enough (no media source necessary) : but articles like September 11 attacks , 2004 Madrid train bombings , 2010 Jos riots , 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami and Syrian Civil War requires media sources also as everyone can check the list of references from these pages.

Exclusive use of academic resources are okay for historical events like French Revolution  : but not for modern events like Arab Spring which requires Media sources also. I hope you get the idea.

Even the current version of the page 2002 Gujarat riots have references from the same souces that I have presented above like Timesofindia, india today. So you are saying that only those references should be used which supports a biased viewpoint112.79.36.24 (talk) 02:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Diora Baird (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Regarding the article for Diora Baird, a couple editors (Dan1025 and Spanneraol) have changed "Partner" to "Spouse" in the infobox and changed "boyfriend" to "husband" in the article prose. The latest editor stated in their edit summary that she has said that Jonathan Togo is her husband on her Facebook page but did not know how to cite that. I searched on Facebook to see if I could find her profile and found several. Once Spanneraol gave me the link to her actual profile page, I couldn't verify the information since it appears that she only shares her relationship status with friends. So, is this source considered reliable? I would think so considering it's her own profile but the fact that you have to be friends with her on Facebook to verify it makes me question that. Note: I've looked elsewhere on the net and couldn't find a reliable source that says that they married. Just a bunch of fan pages and such. I would have thought People magazine would pick up something like this. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 05:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

She probably isnt a big enough celebrity for mainstream mags to pick up on her marriage. I'm actually surprised at how hard it has been to verify her marriage outside of so-called self-published sources.. but I would think her listing herself as married counts as a reliable source. Spanneraol (talk) 15:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Just found a posting by Jonathan on his Instagram account [26] that confirms they are married, that one isnt private. Spanneraol (talk) 15:38, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The spamming of alternative internet archives seems to be a growing problem that is easily overlooked. It certainly took me some time to figure out what was going with articlescache.org. We've two recent reports of similar problems (onreference.com and another with multiple domains) and in the latter I wondered if we should cover this in a guideline or essay. The term "archive" is so common that I'm having trouble finding past discussions... Thoughts? --Ronz (talk) 18:34, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you worried that these archives might not be honestly representing what they've archived? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm worried that editors are confused by them, rather than immediately deleting them and warning the persons adding them. --Ronz (talk) 23:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

So, I'm thinking that we either recommend specific archives, or just that we only use archives with a history and reputation for accurately archiving internet pages. --Ronz (talk) 16:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Article: List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ref: Steven Newton (2012-04-30). "Voices: Defending science: The link between creationism and climate change". EARTH Magazine. Retrieved 2014-04-20.

Article content: "Interest in such scientists has been increased by attempts to compile lists of dissenting scientists, including a minority report to the US Senate by Marc Morano, another by Arthur B. Robinson, which is often known as the Oregon Petition, and another by the Heartland Institute, all three of which have been criticized on a number of grounds."

Discussion: Here, consisting of a few comments beginning at 18:16, 25 April 2014

The reference is a proposed addition to the end of the content quoted above, specifically criticism of the Oregon Petition. The relevant info from the reference is:

"Having failed to convince the scientific community of the credibility of their views, both creationists and climate change deniers have taken their case to the public in a way that distorts and misrepresents the nature of science."

"Take petitions, for example. Creationists maintain a “Dissent from Darwin” list of several hundred Ph.D.s who have signed a statement encouraging “careful examination of the evidence” for what is vaguely termed “Darwinian theory”; climate change deniers have the so-called Oregon Petition, with more than 31,000 signers endorsing a statement denying that there is any “convincing evidence” that the human release of greenhouse gases will cause “catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”"

"Such petitions convey the misleading impression that science is a popularity contest. Whether evolution and climate change are good science is, ultimately, a matter of evidence, not of who can amass more signatures. But that’s not the way deniers portray it."

The author is Steve Newton of NCSE(NCSE profile)

The concern is that the reference is an op-ed, and may fail WP:NEWSBLOG or otherwise not be reliable in this context. --Ronz (talk) 16:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Nope, the concern is that the reference simply isn't needed, and that you haven't made an argument as to why it should be used. There are already references for the sentence that you reference above in the article, and there is consensus that it shouldn't be used. Another concern is that you simply want it in the article because you want to couple "climate scepticism" with "evolution denial", which is a WP:BLP concern - not a reliable source one. --Kim D. Petersen 01:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree, RS is not the crux of the issue. Only one editor in a very, very extended conversation has brought up this op-ed as a Reliable Source issue. This is not the proper forum for this content discussion. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:19, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I was planning on taking this to NPOVN next. As I pointed out, I want to be sure we have this resolved first. --Ronz (talk) 02:59, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

It's moot. There are already six refs for that section's language. There is no apparent support and considerable resistance to this proposed edit, regardless of RS issues. What could be seen as forum shopping isn't a solution. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:21, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Please leave this discussion to those who want to address the concerns here. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 00:38, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

This ref is titled "comment" on the site. It is an opinion piece or column. It is reliable for the opinion of the author. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:49, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Ordinarily, one should be wary of using opinion pieces in BLP articles. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, those are the concerns. Any thoughts on the specific publication, the author, the author's affiliations, or the reliability of the quoted information? --Ronz (talk) 15:23, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

My take: The publication itself is generally a reliable for such information. While it is an op-ed, the author is speaking directly for NCSE, which is generally a reliable source for such information. Overall, I can't imagine how this couldn't be considered reliable. --Ronz (talk) 16:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Since there is no description (byline etc) of him speaking directly for the NSCE your take is incorrect. The piece is signed "Steven Newton" and does not in any way describe who Steven Newton is or why he would speak directly for the NSCE, thus it is entirely an inferrence on your part. Had it been an NSCE piece, then it would be signed with NCSE or had Newtons credentials attached to show that he was speaking in this aspect. --Kim D. Petersen 07:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Given that NSCE highlighted the article (as already pointed out on the talk page), and he is clearly speaking for NSCE:

What do creationists and climate change deniers have in common? Over the past few years, this riddle has been on our minds a lot at the National Center for Science Education, a nonprofit that has fought for more than a quarter-century to defend the teaching of evolution in the public schools. Now, we’re expanding to defend the teaching of climate change — and with it, science in general.

I think we're safe. --Ronz (talk) 18:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Given that he says he is, that he works for NCSE, and that NCSE highlighted the article in question, I'd say that he is indeed speaking for NCSE rather than just himself. --Ronz (talk) 16:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Connecticut Public Television did a video article on Slater Memorial Museum. Their official website links to the article on their official YouTube channel (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcNQZtp2rSk). YouTube is not normally considered a reliable source so I am unsure if I can use it for stating how part of the museum's collection was acquired by Slater on his "Grand Tour" around the world via ship. If I cannot use it as a reliable source, is it permissible to use the YouTube link in the external links section? 71.234.215.133 (talk) 12:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

The usual problems are not an issue here since being a official channel removes the usual copyright concerns (the main issue with most Youtube videos). The only real issue I can see would be whether or not Connecticut Public Television is a reliable source for this fact and that is something I have no idea about.--67.70.140.89 (talk) 02:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

It is unlikely that anything of note seen on YouTube could not be found on a reliable source, this would avoid using possibly unreliable videos as a source it just means a little more digging around for the facts. MilborneOne (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

YouTube is "not normally considered a reliable source" because most of its videos are independently user-generated and/or copyright violations. YouTube is a publication method so the reliability of the videos therein depend on the reputation of the publishers. In this case, a video professionally produced by CPT is as reliable on YouTube as it would be seen on-air in a broadcast. There is no difference made by the media or method of broadcast on its reliability. Elizium23 (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments welcome here. SPECIFICO talk 00:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello all,

SOURCE: Woroniecki Family in Times Square

ARTICLE: Michael Peter Woroniecki .

CONTENT:

In November 2010, according to the article Woroniecki Family in Times Square on Associated Content.com, the Woroniecki family ministered in Times Square, New York City, handing out free music CDs and promoting their website ‘ifanyoneisthirsty.com’. The author writes that the thrust of their message “was that Jesus is alive and that we need to actively seek him out”, adding that despite any controversy, the family seemed to him to be genuine in their efforts to “go all over the world and celebrate life and the living Jesus.”

I was recently told by a Wiki contributor, also editing that article, that blogs or self published articles are never to be used as sources, especially in BLPs, unless they are written by the subject of the BLP. And, having read the appropriate Wikipedia guidelines, I see that is how they lean. However, I also read that "some sources are reliable for statement "X" but unreliable for statement "Y".

IMHO, this source is reliable for the content it was supporting in that it was being used to simply verify that Woroniecki was in New York in 2010 and the author's take on Woroniecki's family and message after his encounter with them. Since the content is under "Current" and the source is not being used to prove/disprove or verify/dispute any controversial or negative/positive statements, beliefs or suppositions and does not contradict any previous statements or sources or make any other claims about Woroniecki that have not been previously stated and sourced, I believe this is a case in which Yahoo Voices may be used as a source. I think, since this is a BLP, this paragraph is helpful in keeping the article from being outdated and irrelevant.

I would appreciate clarification on this issue from any Wikipedia Administrators, especially those experienced in the writing and editing of BLPs.

Thank you!

JesHelpin (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Per our policy on biographies of living persons: "Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person." Anyone can go to Yahoo Voices (as they could have gone to Associated Content and given their "take on Woroniecki's family and message", whatever their "take" may be. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I concur. Yahoo Voices probably falls in with other contributor sites such as About.com which is not regarded as RS. Betty Logan (talk) 01:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_158#Yahoo_Contributor.27s_Network Not a RS in my book. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, sometimes I'm unsure when it comes to using About.com as a source on Wikipedia, which is why I use it occasionally on Wikipedia and only on a case-by-case basis. If you look at past Wikipedia:Reliable sources noticeboard discussions about it, you will see that the general reception to it is that it's not a reliable source, except for in the case of some of its experts. For example, in this 2012 discussion, WhatamIdoing stated, "To be more precise, About.com itself is not reliable, but the individual authors fairly often qualify for expert status (see WP:SPS) and are thus reliable sources no matter where they publish. That's why we say that 'source' has three meanings on Wikipedia (author, publication, and publisher). Only one of the three needs to be acceptable. In this case, the overall publication (About.com's website) is unreliable, but some of the authors are." And in this 2013 discussion, David Eppstein stated, "Past discussions of about.com have been mixed, and (from my reading) seem to indicate that the result depends strongly on whether there is some other reason for viewing the author of an article there as an expert on the subject (much like WP:SPS). See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 16#Huffington Post, Gawker and About.com, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 22#About.com, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 27#About.com. (I looked these up for a discussion in Talk:Tartine that also involves reliability of an about.com source.)"

So maybe the same can be stated of Yahoo! Voices? I stay away from using Yahoo! Voices as a source on Wikipedia, however, and I know that when it was going by the name "Associated Content," it was routinely removed from Wikipedia articles as unreliable. And, as indicated by SummerPhD above, Wikipedia takes WP:BLPs (biographies of living persons) very seriously. Flyer22 (talk) 02:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback and discussion. But my reason for posting was not to debate Yahoo! Voices as a whole being a RS. I am specifically asking about it being a credible source for the content listed above. I agree that Voices would not and should not be used to find and source medical, scientific, historical or legal issues and content. But Wiki guidelines clearly state that some sources, that might not be acceptable for certain content, are viable for other content WP:RS. Since the material that Voices was being used as a source for is social/religious/location in content and is being used to verify Woroniecki's appearance in New York in 2010, and the author of the Yahoo article is a New York resident, who has contributed for seven years on a wide variety of topics and won numerous Yahoo awards, I believe that it's use conforms to Wiki guidelines. We are not talking about needing an "expert" opinion here, just a reliable, third party, to say that he saw Woroniecki a certain place at a certain time and what Woroniecki was preaching at that time. Looking at the authors bulk of work, views and variety of topics, he is qualified to do that, and only that. It is not "contentious", "libel" or "damaging" to the subject of the BLP WP:BLPs and does serve a purpose in keeping the article current. Yahoo! Voices is no longer a "self-published source" since articles must be submitted for publication and can neither be self-serving advertisements or targeted rants. I have a feeling that, with a media world that is being driven more and more towards all online, freelance publishing, this won't be the last time we have to address Yahoo! Voices and define it's uses. I would appreciate it if any Admins who have written/edited BLPs could weigh in on this. JesHelpin (talk) 16:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing to indicate that this author is a "reliable, third party". It is someone with no editorial oversight publishing on a site that does not have a "reputation for fact checking and accuracy" WP:RS. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

If any random person can write on Yahoo Voices, then it's not a reliable source. Sairp (talk) 13:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Is Academic Questions, a publication of the right-wing think tank National Association of Scholars, a reliable source? Its Wikipedia article claims it's peer-reviewed, but I don't see even the journal itself claiming to be peer-reviewed, let alone an independent source confirming it; even if it does make that claim, it comes from an obviously agenda-based source rather than a scholarly or professional organization with a respect and reputation for accuracy, and has been described as an opinion journal rather than a scholarly one.

The WP article in question is Academic bias, where several citations to AQ are being used to claim liberal bias in academia. A similar problem exists with Issues in Law and Medicine, which is harder to find data on but which also appears to come from an opinion-based think tank. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The sources in Academic Questions and Issues in Law and Medicine have been cited in peer review journals. The Huffington Post, The Nation and the Weekly Standard all have their own agendas, and yet are cited as reliable sources in Wikipedia. The description given by Rocelese reflects her own bias.--TMD (talk) 21:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The use of the term "Right-wing" is pejorative and not really descriptive of the National Association of Scholars. The admit to be politically conservative but this is no tea party group. That seems to speak to the bias of Roscelese. The real question is that is this a reliable source and regardless of whether it is peer-reviewed or not, there is no evidence that it is a unreliable source. Since Roscelese is making the claim that it is, it seems to me that Roscelese has the responsibility of showing why it is more unreliable than many of the other sources used in Wikipedia. CaptainCS (talk) 22:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The last time I checked, HuffPo etc. weren't lobbying groups. Having a bias and still having a basic reputation for accuracy isn't the same thing as existing to promote a particular bias and having no such reputation for accuracy. FYI, we don't operate to the standard of "it's reliable unless you can prove otherwise"; otherwise, every other personal website and blog out there would be considered reliable. Make the case for its reliability, without resorting to personal attacks, strawmen, and other fallacies. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Huff post may not do any lobbying but what about A. Huffington herself? She runs the organization behind Huff post. Are you saying that she does no lobbying whatsoever? Is this the standard you want to set up? I am not even sure if National Association of Scholars does any lobbying but we are talking about Academic Questions not the organization behind the journal. Heck, even academic organizations like American Sociological Association do some lobbying from time to time but that does not stop us from using American Sociological Review articles. Sorry but this logic does not hold up unless we are going to apply this lobbying rule to everybody and not simply the journals and organizations you do not seem to like. CaptainCS (talk) 01:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

"What about X?" is not really a very compelling argument. But, no, I don't consider the Huffington Post to be a reliable source, as it reports on Bigfoot sightings, and its other stories are not much different from the Daily Mail. See the above debate on tabloids for further discussion. I don't see what any of that has to do with this journal, however. As far as agendas go, that's essentially a non-issue; biased sources are explicitly allowed. I don't know that it's due to highlight the opinions of this group if the journal is not peer-reviewed, but that can be solved via an RfC. Bickering about each others' biases certainly isn't going to help anything. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Note: [27] lists the journal in question as "peer-reviewed". [28] ditto. And a host of other lists of peer-reviewed journals. Springer is generally considered an RS publisher of such journals. It is not up to us to question what reliable source clearly state - in this case that the journal is, indeed, refereed and peer-reviewed. Collect (talk) 12:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• I do find it intriguing that the journal webpage doesn't contain the assertion that the journal is peer-reviewed. It's also instructive to look at an actual article: this doesn't strike me as the sort of thing that would be the result of peer review. At best, these things are probably best considered equivalent to op-eds -- thus perhaps useful for noting the opinions of the authors, but not for statements of fact. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

You are correct in that bickering gets us nowhere. I made the comparison to Huff Post to show how unrealistic the new criteria was. But to provide positive evidence of AQ here are a few links to academic citations of articles written in AQ. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=12779448875812919896&as_sdt=5,44&sciodt=0,44&hl=en, http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=10722867667352071428&as_sdt=5,44&sciodt=0,44&hl=en, and http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=5036649046675304332&as_sdt=5,44&sciodt=0,44&hl=en. I know from my readings that many of the citations are treated as studies within literature reviews. Whether AQ is officially peer reviewed or not it appears that academics take the work in it seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainCS (talk • contribs)

I've tried to check some of these - the first I found only cited the AQ article to severly criticise it [29], the second actually was not even citing AQ, but an article by Jürgen Habermas with the same title [30]. That does not give me much faith in the power of these links to support the quality of AQ. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:47, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

But whether it's peer reviewed does make a big difference in how *we* can use it. It's obvious to me that their articles are extended opinion pieces. If that's wrong -- if it can be shown that there is in fact a process of peer review -- then we wouldn't to treat it as a source that merely offers people a platform for expressing opinions. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and it's definitely being used as though it were a real source and not an op-ed. Check out the article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

If you want to get Academic Questions disqualified, then you will need to show that it is less reliable than the sources that get cited, such as Huffington Post. If HuffPo is legitimate, how much more so with this one?--TMD (talk) 16:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

It always depends on what a source is used for. The HuffPo is ok for attributed opinions and movie reviews, not for science articles. I'd tend to go with Nomoskedasticity to not use AQ for questions of fact, but only for attributed opinion (and then only if the opinion is notable). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

There are some opinion pieces in AQ and some research in it. The research has been treated by scholars, as I have shown above, as viable work worthy of attention by scholars. Researchers have tested the results of some of this research in attempts to support or refute this work. I have more confidence in AQ than in Huff Post and some of the other sources used in Wikipedia. Unless there is evidence to the contrary we should treat it as a source and each article should be evaluated for whether it is an opinion piece or new research to be treated accordingly. CaptainCS (talk) 17:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

So far, the only people responding above (apart from me) are already involved with the article. I'd like to invite other uninvolved views in this section. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Um -- last I checked, I have been uninvolved here - or else I am chopped liver <g>. The source is peer reviewed pre RS sources stating that it is peer-reviewed, and any further argumentation is of nil value here. Collect (talk) 23:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)b

Uninvolved editor here... We can't answer the generic question "Is X a reliable source". There is no such thing as a 100% unreliable source... and no such thing as a 100% reliable source. Reliability depends on the specific context in which the source is being cited. What we can answer is the more specific question: "Is X a reliable source when used in context Y"... so, please reformulate the question to give us that context. Blueboar (talk) 18:05, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Just in case that's not clear enough, what you need to do is to say, "Here is the exact statement that I want to put in this exact section of this exact article, and here is the exact source (specific article, not just the journal in general) that I want to cite". WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me? I'm not an involved editor. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:01, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

If used (and we do need to know what specific purpose we are talking about to decide the 'if') I agree that it should only be used to state the opinions of specific named authors and not for statements of fact. Dougweller (talk) 10:21, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

It's used for a number of claims of fact, attributed to an author as though a research study. "George Yancey’s research is particularly notable since he finds that academics in a variety of disciplines are open to discriminating against fundamentalists, evangelicals and to a lesser extent Republicans." "However, social conservative academics were found to work in lower status academic institutions relative to their professional achievements. Yancey also argues that the label of Republican or Christian may not be enough to trigger bias but those seen as strongly conservative in their political ideology or religious theology may garner discrimination and prejudice.[17] Furthermore, evidence of academic bias appears to be stronger in the social sciences and humanities than in the natural sciences.[6][14] Such findings indicate that if academic bias exists then it does so within a given cultural context." "On the other hand, the willingness of academics to discriminate against colleagues indicate little appetite for such discrimination unless the target is religiously or politically conservative." (this last in particular is obvious original synthesis aimed at discrediting a source which talks about bias based on race, sex.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• This is a partisan journal from a partisan think-tank. It may perhaps be useful to illustrate a partisan viewpoint on a topic, with proper attribution (per WP:RSOPINION). It is a not suitable source for statements of fact presented in Wikipedia's voice. And the excerpts cited by Roscelese immediately above are clearly inappropriate, as they are evidently editorial attempts to persuade rather than neutral encyclopedic writing. MastCell ^Talk 23:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Well... to play devil's advocate, being partisan does not necessarily make a source unreliable... after all, highly respected science journals tend to be fairly "partisan" when it comes to the topic of, say, creationism. However, I would agree that material taken from this source should probably be phrased as opinion and attributed. Blueboar (talk) 00:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, reputable science journals are generally silent on creationism, for the simple reason that it's not science. Insofar as science journals speak to the political topic of teaching creationism in public schools, they do so in the setting of editorial/opinion pieces and should be clearly attributed as such. Academic Questions is not a scientific journal; it deals with political topics and does so from a clear partisan standpoint. I didn't say it was categorically "unreliable". I agree with you that it is potentially useable in limited circumstances when properly attributed as opinion, per WP:RSOPINION. MastCell ^Talk 03:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

It seems troublesome to me that there is a painting of a broad brush. As I pointed out above there is a mix of opinion pieces and research in Academic Questions. The links I pointed to above indicate that many scholars take the research in it seriously enough to interact with AQ in their work. It seems to me that we should be more careful to look at particular articles than to make this attempt to throw the baby out with the bathwater. In fact in a haste to judge I notice in Roscelese's comment a conflation of an article in AQ with a citation of a book from an academic press. These are the type of mistakes that are made when we paint with too broad a brush. CaptainCS (talk) 14:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Is this article Nuland's cookies as illustration of West's 'policy of non-interference' in Ukraine reliable for the following statement?

In December 2013, Russian Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev criticised her(Nuland's) support for Ukraine's Euromaidan anti-government protests as interference in the affairs of a sovereign state.

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, although since I don't know what article you are talking about, it's harder to say whether the information is relevant. Voice of Russia should be taken with caution as a source, but it is going to be reliable for attributed comments like this. Formerip (talk) 17:34, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Section blanking[31][32] at the Victoria Nuland article. This revert claimed that "VoR is not reliable" as part of its basis for removing the aforementioned text.

There are related threads

1. Talk:Victoria_Nuland#BLP_restart
2. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Victoria_Nuland_and_Robert_Kagan
   --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Surely there would be a better source for this than a probably-biased state broadcasting agency. Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Conversely, if they are closely associated with the state, maybe that is the reason they are the main news agency that Medvedev talks to, making them the only news media source to publish the quoted statements.

Here is another source, for example, that reports a broader criticism of a similar nature related to Russia and US funding of NGO's vis-a-vis interference in the internal affairs (of a sovereign state). The article only refers to a post on the Russian Foreign Ministry website, however.

The Russian Foreign Ministry on Saturday posted a statement on its website slamming the US State Department’s stated intent to continue funding non-governmental organizations in Russia as “interfering.”
“We view the declaration made by the official representative of the State Department, Victoria Nuland, that the United States will continue financing individual NGOs within Russia via intermediaries in third countries, bypassing Russian law, as open interference in our internal affairs” the statement reads.[33]

but no direct quote of Medvedev. For article purposes, that would suffice, but the dismissal of VoR for the Medvedev quote seems inappropriate vis-a-vis policy.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 10:32, 20 May 2014, 07:28, 21 May 2014‎ (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Ubikwit, I'm a little concerned that you've posted to two noticeboards regarding this matter. It reads as if you're trying to hedge your bets. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy, I suggest you re-read the threads then, as this regards the dismissal of a single source and the attribution of a statement by a prime minister. The other thread is encompasses a much broader scope, and does not even address this issue.

If you have any input regarding the assertion specific assertion made in an edit summary that "VoR", that would be welcome and productive. The matters addressed on the other thread Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Victoria_Nuland_and_Robert_Kagan have pretty much already been resolved. This thread is still alive with respect to the possibility of restoring the quote (or an approximation thereof) to the Nuland article.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 08:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

As always, use of the source is what is important -- the use in a BLP makes an implicit claim about Nuland for which Voice of Russia is ill-suited. It states as a "fact" that she "supported anti-government protests" and ascribes this as a fact stated by a person. This is a stretch - it might work in an article about the Ukraine protests (not ascribing any impropriety to Nuland as a living person), but it is a weak source for that claim in a BLP. The most we could do is say "Medvedev said 'she supported anti-government protests'" but the wording presented goes a step too far in assertions about the living person. Collect (talk) 11:51, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Collect, for expressing my concerns so succinctly. I am fully aware of the overall issues at stake here, and am seeing this as an endgame. That which can be considered to be acceptable in a particular article does not automatically establish some form of carte blanche for use in other articles/contexts (particularly when we are dealing with a BLP). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

While I don't necessarily mind your bringing up BLP i this context, the original dismissal of the text was no made with recourse to BLP. As stated by FormerIP above, the source is deemed reliable for the attributed statement.

I don't really get the allusions to an "end game" here, but this is of course related to the Ukraine crisis, just from another angle not involving the interception phone conversation. This relates to Nuland's actual presence on the scene supporting activists, etc.

If the basis for dismissing VoR because it has close ties to the state were valid, that would mean that Wikipedia doesn't quote any statements by Russian officials, including the PM, in this case. That obviously is not a desirable scenario, and that is why this problems relating to this specific source were brought here. Note that there is no OR related assertions or anything else, just that "VoR isn't reliable".

@Collect:Your pronouncements about the actual text are somewhat vague and not much help, "the wording presented goes a step too far in assertions about the living person". The source fully attributes Mededev's comment criticizing her support of the anti-government protests as interence in the affairs of a sovereign state. It is an attributed quote.

Do you disagree with the facticity of the attributed statement? Medvedev makes clear assertions, and I don't think that anyone rejects the validity of the assertions. Or do You? Do you reject that "Nuland supported anti-government protesters" and handed out cookies to protesters? That is easily corroborated, with video to boot, I believe.

In December 2013, Russian Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev criticised her(Nuland's) support for Ukraine's Euromaidan anti-government protests as interference in the affairs of a sovereign state.

It seems like a very straightforward and brief statement of a widely held view in Russia, but coming from the prime minister affords it much more weight than normal, I would think. And again, you address the source as being VoR, but this is a statement entirely atributed to the Russian Prime Minister Medvedev. You state

the use in a BLP makes an implicit claim about Nuland for which Voice of Russia is ill-suited

but don't give any rationale as to why VoR is ill suited. And then there are the phone conversations, which have been stabilized on the article by removing OP-problematized points. There is nothing in the article that would vaguely challenge or undermine Medvedev's assertions, so it only seems to me that some people object to Medvedev's characterization of her activities as "interference in the affairs of a sovereign state". That is the official US line (that the USA was not interfering in the internal affairs of another state), of course, but Medvedev and Putin obviously don't agree with that, and I've read many analysis and opinion pieces in American publications that also say the same thing. So the attempt to exclude the published statements of the Russian PM would seem to lie in the fact that some people find them to represent a politically inconvenient truth, while making recourse to a specious claim that VoR is not reliable.

Accordingly, I can't see any justification for not using the text as is, but would like to discuss this further and look forward to you responses.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 02:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

This board is for answering questions -- when one gets an answer one does not like, it is a waste of time using this board -- it is like saying "I want your opinion if and only if it is exactly the same as my own" which does not work. The wording you seek states as a fact in Wikipedia's voice that she "supported anti-government protests" and we can not do that on the basis of a Voice of Russia article. As for your ad hom that this is a specious claim that VoR is not reliable I would note that ArbCom has noted your specific battleground use of Wikipedia in the past. I would urgently suggest that using a noticeboard such as WP:RS/N for such behaviour is not impressing anyone at all. Again -- if you only accept agreement with your position, then you will end up with no one on your side in any issue. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I do not think that you answered the question in terms of policy, just offered some unclear ruminations based on your unclear interpretation. And just now you asserted that the material "states as a fact in Wikipedia's voice that she supported anti-government protests", which of course is not case, because the comment is fully attributed to the Russian PM Medvedev by the source. An attributed statement does not "state as fact in Wikipedia's voice", but you should know that.

Second, you seem to have overlooked the first response on this thread here, which maintained the exact opposite position that you have been insisting on without convincing argument. In counties where there is only state controlled media, for example, the statements included in such publication represent some of the only material available. So, as per FormerIP,

Voice of Russia should be taken with caution as a source, but it is going to be reliable for attributed comments like this

The blanket dismissal of it on the basis of its being closely associated with the state is disputed, and you are making assertions without grounds rather than attempting to support a position in discussion, which is pointy, and detracts from the discussion rather than promote it. In other words, above you seem to assert that your own arbitrary pronouncements constititute an authoritative answer to the question posed by this posting, when that is patently false, not to mention tendentious.

Thirdly, regarding the overall content dispute that you continually introduce here, I have posted several sources below that maintain Nuland "supported anti-government protesters", but that is not the issue for this notice board, the issue is whether a the VoR article in question is reliable for the statement attributed to a public figure, the prime minister of Russia. Aside from Nuland, who is also a public figure, Angela Merkel and Herman Van Rompuy--also public figures. Why would we want to exclude the comments attributed to yet another high-ranking state official, a prime minister, in relation to the issues addressed in the article? --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 10:59, 12:36, 21:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Neat -- you appear not to have read what I wrote, or at least not noticed that your form of argumentation here is ill-suited to this noticeboard. I would note that the wording of any claim about a living person is absolutely pertinent as to how any source is used -- you can not claim (effectively) "the part of the claim which is sourced is only the part about the Russian official" when the use of any claim about a living person in Wikipedia's voice must conform to WP:BLP. This is not my edict or personal opinion - it is policy. The statement by a Russian official can be given in quotes (as I noted in the other discussion), but the claim about the living person can not be used in Wikipedia's voice. Quotes != Wikipedia's voice. Cheers. Now I gently suggest you consider the possibility of a WP:BOOMERANG heading your way for ad homs on a noticeboard where such attacks are banned. Collect (talk) 12:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

He's also ranting about this at an unrelated AN/I request [34], basically trying to free ride on somebody else's request in order to get his kicks in. I'm getting really sick of this WP:FORUMSHOPPING.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Corroborating sources:

1. She made clear the United States supported the protesters’ fight
   "The insinuation that the United States incited the people of Ukraine to riot or rebel is patently false," said Nicole Thompson, a State Department spokeswoman.
2. Western Diplomats Are Going to Disappoint Ukraine’s Protesters, Time Magazine, Deceber 13, 2013

   The hand of U.S. diplomacy swept down over Ukraine this week with an odd bit of American largesse — a plastic bag of bread. Victoria Nuland, the assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, bore the bag on Wednesday into the crowd of protesters camped out in the middle of the capital, Kiev. As her circle of bodyguards parted, Nuland held it out to an elderly demonstrator in a big blue parka. “Good to see you!” the diplomat chirped. “We’re here from America. Would you like some bread?” Smiling politely, the woman demurred, took a step backward and waved the generosity away.

3. [35]
4. video
5. first encounter with this site--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 03:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of the reliability of the source (it's not reliable), this is the kind of inane stuff that does not belong in a BLP.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

1. Source: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/ a project of http://www.christopherchantrill.com/ (and Chantrill may be User:ChrisChantrill; a note re the RSN will be posted to Chantrill's talk page). 2. Articles & Content (footnotes are generally for the dollar figures):

• [36] Chart –used in Government spending
• 2011 Oklahoma state budget – footnote 18
• Comparison of Canadian and American economies – footnotes 10 & 11
• Jon Huntsman, Jr. – footnote 34
• Kansas state budget (2008–09) – footnote 12 (multiref for a table)
• Reaganomics#Fiscal consequences – footnote 54
• Federal Involvement in US Education#Initial Federal Action – footnote 4
• List of government budgets by country#Estimating budgets – footnote 3

Seems to me that usgovernmentspending is a blog and not RS. Input requested. – S. Rich (talk) Note: strike out indicates the reference has been removed from the articles. – S. Rich (talk) 17:01, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks to me like it's SELFPUB. I'ld say it's like Wikipedia, a place to start looking for for reliable sources, but it is itself not RS. LK (talk) 05:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

The various usages for the website have been removed from the articles and some were tagged as cn. The articles are now on my watchlist, so I shall discuss if there is a desire to use the website on any of them. As the usages are removed, I've stricken the footnote numbers. I shall await archiving of this page. – S. Rich (talk) 03:08, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Is Bleacher Report, a website full of self-published content, reliable? RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 15:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Is Goal.com, a football rumour site, a reliable source? RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 15:17, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Specifically which kind of rumors? Transfer rumors? LRD NO (talk) 16:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted this edit: diff as per my judgement the sources didn't qualify RS criteria.

I also reverted a previous, similar edit of the same User:SumerianPrince: diff, where he used a different random website, which I challenged at the talkpage regarding RS.see Discussion

Apparently the user is of the opinion that a site must be listed at the spamlist to be disqualified as a reliable source, which is quite nonsensical: diff

It would be great if someone clears the scene and identifies the provided sources correctly. --ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 17:20, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm currently working on "Bounce (Iggy Azalea song)" and I have found quite a bunch of reliable sources for the music video's positive reviews. However, the video which was shot in Mumbai, has been noted to be controversial and accused of cultural appropriation - a fact I can't really portray in the article without the following sources:

• Auto Straddle
• One Point Four
• Zimbio
• The Aerogram
• Schema Magazine

I'm quite unfamiliar with these sources and am unsure if they are reliable enough to make use of? Some seem to be from outlets/websites in India. Which of these sources are reliable enough to use? Which come across as bias? I don't think I'm experienced enough to make the call, lol. Like I said, the sources will be of high value to the article.—CoolMarc 17:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Schema Magazine looks reliable and like a serious-minded outlet, with what looks like some academic aspirations, established for 10 years[37] and what looks like a solid editorial team:[38] The other outlets all seem less solid, for different reasons, but might be acceptable depending on usage. As for your question of bias, these are all opinion pieces/analyses from a particular point of view, and should be clearly attributed as opinions in the prose. Opinions with a point of view can be included, as long as WP:NPOV is followed, and no WP:UNDUE weight is given to any particular point of view. You may also want to keep WP:CSECTION in mind here. Siawase (talk) 21:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

An interview[39] says:

Rob Wright: You released The Orange Box for both the PC and the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 consoles. Were you happy with the business the console versions did, and how did it compare to the game's PC sales?

Doug Lombari: We were very happy with both the Xbox 360 and PS3 sales. I think the Xbox 360 version did just over a million, while the PS3 [released later in December] version did a few hundred thousand copies.

Can "I think the Xbox 360 version did just over a million" be taken as fact? Also a bit worried they spelt his name completely wrong, it's Doug Lombardi.--Vaypertrail (talk) 19:23, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

The only discussion I know about this is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 2#Tom's Games--70.49.80.26 (talk) 20:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Is this source reliable for including information in the BLP article on Touré about what he said about Holocaust survivors having "white privilege"? Nightscream (talk) 20:55, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Erm, jeez. The tweet's right there, at Touré's twitter feed. So it's true I guess. I guess the question is notability. People tweet a lot. Looking for discussion of that tweet, I'm not finding any mainstream sources. If Time or NBC News picks up on it, you've got a source which is both reliable and shows notability and Bob's your uncle. I'd recommend waiting for a better source, or not including it if one doesn't show up.

If it was just a question of reliability, you could point to the actual tweet, which would be 100% reliable. You can't because we don't use primary sources like that, and an important reason for that is precisely because then it's you, the Wikipedia editor, deciding that it's notable enough to mention.

Looking a bit more, @hope_and_chains appears to devolve to an entity called "Yo, Dat's Racis'!!" (datsracis.com), which I guess is intended to be making fun of supposed African-American dialect, which is pretty obnoxious. So this kind of looks like a low-notability pissing contest between a couple of pretty provocative actors.

Google shows some activity around the tweet, but really pretty much in the right-leaning blogosphere (according to my quick check). IJR Review doesn't have a Wikipedia article (a quick-and-dirty notability check) although they look slick and are more than just one guy blogging. They're certainly a conservative site, so I see them more as part of a partisan echo chamber here which is maybe trying to get this tweet into the realm of general notability but hasn't succeeded yet.

So again, for a contentious passage in a BLP (and even granting that Touré is a provocative person so there's gonna be some contentious passages there), I'd wait for a fairly neutral and highly notable AA or AAA-level source such as the New York Times or something like that. Herostratus (talk) 23:26, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing, but wanted others' thoughts. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 04:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Is the comics reviews and interview website What'cha Reading? reliable for information like that found in these two articles here and here? This is the bio page for its contributors. Nightscream (talk) 02:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Not generally reliable, no. There is no indication of fact-checking or editorial oversight, nor that the contributors qualify as subject experts per WP:SPS. However, there has been some previous discussion regarding similar enthusiast/fan-sites that it might be possible to use the words of interview subjects, with WP:PRIMARY, WP:SPS and WP:BLPSPS caveats. Though in this case I'm not sure the site is established enough to trust them to render the words of interview subjects accurately. Siawase (talk) 16:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Would it be accepted to include in the External links section? Nightscream (talk) 01:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Might be acceptable, per WP:ELMAYBE #4, but may fail WP:ELNO #1 and #11. Perhaps better to ask at WP:EL/N. If you could find any sort of external validation, that could be helpful in bolstering reliability, ideally established reliable sources referencing the site, but interview subjects linking to the site (from social media/official site/blog) would also help. Siawase (talk) 11:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

1. http://www.vox.com/2014/5/14/5717036/should-we-cover-all-our-roads-with-solar-panels 2. Solar Roadways 3. [40]

• The guy states in the article that he has no information about their newer hexagon panels, but then calculates how ridiculously overpriced it'd be to use their product, based on something he claims they said about an earlier prototype four years before. A single purpose account who is trying to have the article deleted, keeps adding in this information. Should some random guy posting something on an internet only news site, be considered a reliable source for this sort of information? What possible reason is there to include this in the article? Dream Focus 05:10, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with using the Vox article or how it is used in the Solar Roadways' article. Vox is a reliable site, and it is reasonably clear how the Vox author came to a price conclusion inclusing using the cost based on numbers that the Solar Roadway proponents provided in 2010. --MASEM (t) 05:32, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Brad Plumer of Vox is critical about the feasibility of the technology because of the cost. He contends that back in 2010, the company assumed that a 12' by 12' glass panel would cost around $10,000. Using this figure, he estimated that covering the approximately 30,000 square miles (~836 billion square feet) of roads in the U.S. would cost $56 trillion - nearly 20 times the annual Federal budget. [5] As of 2014, Solar Roadways has a new design and they are recalculating costs.

• He doesn't know what the cost will be, so how can he be critical about it? Those numbers provided in 2010 were about a previous older version of the technology, not relevant to what has been developed since then. I doubt they'd get multiple government grants if they weren't developing the technology to be more reasonably priced. Dream Focus 05:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  • For one , there is no new updated cost of the technology (the Solar Roadways group states its trying to work that out), so using the last best reported number is reasonable. Yes, via the SBIR, they are likely trying to figure how they could be made cheaper, but I can tell you, having been involved with SBIRs, you are going to start with a figure that you think is your best initial guess of cost of the item at full-scale, volume production as opposed to the one-offs they likely will be making during the SBIR process, as to be able to win the award. As they go through the SBIR they will be able to identify where they can use cheaper but effective materials, and improved production methods, and cheaper photovoltiacs, as well as updated 2014 pricing, and that number will come down, but I doubt it is going to come down by an order of magnitude, knowing what the average pricing of solar (+ all auxiliary equipment) baselines as, given that there are numerous, numerous studies on the cost of solar. (Going from rough metrics : roof-mounted panels are ~$200 a shot covering 4 ft square (with all mounting), so 12'x12' here would need 9 of them, or $1800 alone, and that's just 1/3rd of the cost after considering inverters, etc. So a traditional system this size could be $5000-ish, hence why $10,000 is not a far off number).
  • Even if the company puts out a different number later, Plumer's analysis is still valid in that it simply taking road area, dividing it by the area per panel, multiplying it by the cost per panel, to ocme out with a rough order of magnitude value to say how much this costs, and compares it to the average budgetary numbers for roads, to give an impression of size and cost to the average reader. The calculation is linear on the cost of the panels, so even if the company can say it will take $5000 per 12x12 panel, the end number as calculated by Plumer still ends up in the billions. So no, there's no issue here, really. It is a completely valid criticism of the technology based on all best possible data reported at the present. --MASEM (t) 13:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

• • This case seems to case of editorial discretion. Plumer's analysis seems to qualify (formally) as reliable source, however that doesn't necessarily imply that you have to use it. If the editors agree that the information is outdated/problematic for various reasons, they may simply not use it/drop it from the article. However if some editors want to use to use it and there is no consensus for dropping it, they can use it of course s it qualifies as a reliable source. In doubt the whole thing can be case of WP:NPOV where the article simply has to describe (several) differing opinions. But note if you want include any explite criticism of Plumer's analysis, that would need to be sourced as well. Without any such source you simply have to live with his analysis and the best you might do is mentioning the new/modified priced in a footnote and making sure Plumer's analysis comes with a date. Such technology analysis should always be described with an explicite date anyhow, as in general they tend to outdate quickly and their actual predictive value is rather low.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

The wikipedia article on HMS Adamant is incorrect in stating this ship left Australia in 1950.

She was in fact in reserve at Portsmouth and was mainly used as accommodation for ratings who

maintenance crews on various other ships on reserve certainly in 1948 and 1949 when I was berthed

on her as part of the maintenance crew on K644 HMS Cawsand Bay.

She was certainly employed in this role when I took discharge in November 1949.

Mike Carroll ex Stoker Mech. PKX/830572

I've passed this issue along to Wikipedia:Wikiproject Ships as I could not verify the material in the article. Mangoe (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Because Hirolovesswords (talk) is pushing a POV, and started an edit war trying to delete content, masters track.com has come under attack by this user as a reliable source. Stealing my own message to this individual at Talk:April Jace: Masterstrack.com is the premiere news aggregation site for the sport of Masters athletics. It has been providing that service since February 1996, initially via AOL and now onto its own domain. The editor of the site, Ken Stone is a professional journalist working for the San Diego Union-Tribune, and its on line service Sign On San Diego, Patch Media and timesofsandiego.com. Just as every major newspaper has a blog to disseminate aggregated news items (which wikipedia accepts as reliable sources every day), the editor of this site has chosen the blog format. He gets news, which he documents well, from a wide variety of sources and tips from thousands of users, which would include myself. I have used masterstrack.com as a source for edits on the subject since my earliest days writing articles about the subject, more than 5 years ago, without challenge. Looking back through the history of the site, it looks like there have been close to 30,000 postings since the site moved to the domain and blog format in January 2003. The vast majority of them are pure news, sans commentary. With this very public history available, I don't see any reason why this site should not be treated as a reliable source on the subject it specializes in.Trackinfo (talk) 00:23, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• It should be noted that the dispute in question involves an article about a recently deceased person and the rules regarding self-published sources differ on these pages. I am not disputing Masterstrack's reliability as a source, just as a source for biographies of living/recently deceased persons - Hirolovesswords (talk) 01:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
  • This guideline is about contentious material. Finishing position in an international sports tournament (which is what this website's article is supporting) is clearly not something that could be classed as contentious. This is a non-issue and I'm sure all of us could make better use of our time elsewhere. SFB 17:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Sillyfolkboy (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)

The policy is different for biographies of living/recently deceased people and applies to ALL material, not just contentious material. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 17:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

The sourced content is not contentious and does not present a problem for the article or subject in terms of WP:NPOV, WP:Verifiability or WP:No original research (Please see Wikipedia:Wikilawyering #2). I also don't appreciate being labelled a canvassee when I've clearly made the effort to contribute to the discussion and improve the article (improvements in line with the comments of most people in that discussion). SFB 19:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

In the end any newspaper is privately published ;-) In this particular case it is one of the very few possible sources for news about a particular field. Besides that it is not really a one person site because any mistake is very rapidly seen by the community of readers and corrected. Weia (talk) 21:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Is Boston Poetry Magazine a reliable source for use in the Jim Dunlap article to establish notability?

• Boston Poetry Magazine is hosted at wordpress http://bostonpoetry.wordpress.com/about/
• The article on Jim Dunlap is here

--Bejnar (talk) 03:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• So, does everyone think this is a fine source? --Bejnar (talk) 02:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't see that it's has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I don't think Boston Poetry Magazine has a notable reputation at all at this point, among poets, academics, or other people. It doesn't look like it's an actual magazine. It has a staff of one and other than that it looks like it's just a blog. For notability. I would look to other achievements. __ E L A Q U E A T E 02:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm unsure whether or not this review from Forbes ([41]) is usable as far as notability goes. Normally I know that stuff from the site can be used, but this gives off the impression that it's user generated content akin to iCNN and isn't given any sort of editorial oversight. Other stuff on the author Stan Hieronymus makes it seem like he's a journalist, but the way the article is set up on Forbes just gives off the impression of a blog. Anyone have any input on this? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

It looks like user-generated content. You fill in a form and become a "Contributor", not a Forbes Magazine contributor, but part of a large blog network, populated under the "http://www.forbes.com/sites/" banner. Some of the contributors in this network are practicing blatantly non-journalistic self-promotion, such as this one and this one (picked at random), It's broken down here but it looks like it's trying to have a thousand self-regulating, unpaid or paid when they achieve page hits, blog contributors or "content creators". It looks like a clone of the Huffington Post model at best, iCNN at worst. They say some of the "Contributors" are professional journalists, but there's no sense they're in the majority, or that there's any editorial oversight of the blogs. There are some "Forbes staff" contributions from 50 actual staff reporters mixed in, but they're clearly marked separately as staff contributions. Their policies are behind a sign-up sheet at blogs.forbes.com, and it looks like people probably manage their own blog content once approved, as shown by the non-journalistic stories. It doesn't mean all contributors are bad, but having a blog parked here doesn't look like a strong endorsement that anyone's following a journalistic practice.__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Having said all that, I think the specific contributor you're asking about may have some notability in the topic and may be treated as an expert in the field, as shown here, here, and here.__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Just wondering if Blam1.com is a reliable source in these instances Article= Star Trek: The Motion Picture Questionable diff's [42] and the following edit [43] doesn't seem to be and added by new editor. Thank you, Mlpearc (open channel) 04:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I've made an edit to Super-spreader regarding what a researcher has said about her study, see second paragraph here.

The WP:MEDRS says this about using a primary source: "The rare edits that rely on primary sources should have minimal WP:Weight, should only describe the conclusions of the source, and should describe these findings clearly so the edit can be checked by editors with no specialist knowledge. In the rare cases when they are used, primary sources should not be cited in support of a conclusion that is not clearly made by the authors. . .see WP:No original research."

You'll see by the sources, that I also added the New York Times and Los Angeles Times articles about the researcher's comments about her study. I believe I've met the requirement WP:Weight, and also the edit does only describe the conclusions of the primary source. I don't base the article on the primary source and I've identified the primary source straight up in the article.

I'd like input from other editors. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

As far as reliability goes... Yes, when you are verifying the fact that "X says Y", a source where X actually does say Y will always be reliable. A quote or close paraphrase is one of the rare situations in which a primary source is actually more reliable than a secondary one. HOWEVER... reliability is not the be all and end all of inclusion. There are other policies and guidelines we have to take into account... especially WP:DUE WEIGHT. That policy provision (part of our WP:Neutral point of view policy) determines whether we should mention the fact that "X says Y" in the first place. I note that this seems to be the key question that has been raised on the article talk page. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about the topic in question to answer a DUE WEIGHT question (and this isn't really the right venue in which to do so.) Blueboar (talk) 02:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Blueboar, on the talk page the reference to the "DUE" is to the value of another source that references an historical event. Not this one. The argument with this source is that it is a primary source. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I remember Wikipedia's judgement about Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 115#Genealogies on Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 115#Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley which seems to conclude that it is a unreliable source. I wonder what the Wikipedia community consider about The Kekoolani site. It is written by the descendants of a chief Solomon Peleioholani. It is used extensively on articles about Hawaiian history. And many things asserted in it are not found in any other academic sources at all which I have noted on Talk:Kamehameha I/Archive 1#Parentage. Is it a reliable source according to Wikipedia:HISTRS or other policies? Please help. Thank you. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello.

This inquiry is in reference to this edit HERE by User:Hammersbach in the article Fuerzas Armadas de Liberación Nacional Puertorriqueña.

I maintain that Hammersbach's source, the personal (hosted in his own off-University server) website HERE, and therefore its contents (including Hammersbach's cited document HERE), is all SPS. The author and owner of the website is the gentleman HERE, named Antonio de la Cova, a University professor. I presented my reasoning for why that source is an WP:SPS (and therefore not an WP:RS) at the article's Talk Page HERE.

In the article's talk page HERE fellow Wikipedian User:Hammersbach continues to argue that the website in question is "sound". By the way, the other editor who has been in the discussion is User:Jmundo. He also maintains that Hammersbach's source is not a Reliable Source (see it HERE).

WP:SPS provides that the only information from Self-published sites that can be (with limitations) considered reliable are claims about the person (De la Cova, in this case) made by the person himself (by De la Cova). Not any other non-autobiographical content such as documents posted in such sites.

So, my question to the community is this: Is that website a Reliable Source or is it Self-Published?. Thanks, Mercy11 (talk) 02:10, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Before I comment on the specific case... I have to note that a source can be both Self-Published and Reliable. The two are not mutually exclusive. Yes, self-published sources have limited use, but they can be reliable within those limitations. As for the specific case... the question I would ask is: does this author qualify for the "Expert Exemption"? Blueboar (talk) 02:26, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Jmundo does not correctly describe Wikipedia policy; primary sources may be used with care. Also, sources that are not independent may be used for certain claims. User:Mercy11 omits a critical part of the self-published source guidance: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so." Omitting this provision in a situation where, superficially, it appears relevant, makes me not want to bother looking into Mercy11's concerns any further. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Primary sources are not to be used when the material is questionable. The website is not a reliable third party publication and doesn't pass the test of reliability. WP:SOURCE states that "Editors may also use electronic media, subject to the same criteria." The professor's past experience as convicted felon shows that he has personal interest in the topic. A quick search in Google Scholar will demonstrate that he doesn't meet the "expert exemption". --Jmundo (talk) 03:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

"Primary sources are not to be used when the material is questionable." I don't believe any policy or guideline says that. Yes, WP:EXCEPTIONAL does say to use extra caution when a claim supported by a primary or self-published source is challenged, but it doesn't flat-out say primary sources are not to be used when the claim is questioned.

As for the website not being a third-party publication, it is not required that all the sources in an article be third-party publications. It is only necessary that a sufficient number of reliable third-party publications exist to justify having an article on the topic.

Your statement of Wikipedia's policy on sources was "Wikipedia requires secondary/independent sources." That isn't a correct statement of the policy and guidelines. Whether the professor in question has published material that would qualify him as an expert under WP:SPS is a different question. Jc3s5h (talk) 03:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

This is not a primary/secondary issue. The issue is whether the document is a reliable source. First note that the text was not written by Prof. Antonio de la Cova himself - it is a photocopy of an old document written on a typewriter with no author shown. If it appeared on de la Cova's page without comment we would have to rule it out since then there would be no evidence of genuineness. However, on the page it is presented as the "political position" of FALN. If we are confident that de la Cova wrote (for at least vouches for) that page, we have his word for the genuineness of the document. So then it comes down to whether Antonio de la Cova is himself reliable. I looked him up on Google Scholar as Jmundo suggested, but instead of seeing evidence of unreliability I see a book published by an academic press and several articles in peer-reviewed journals. I even found a peer reviewed article praising his web site. That suggests to me that he is reliable. Zero^talk 14:03, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

An interview from Style-ology Magazine is being offered in two AfD discussions as an indication of notability for an actor and for a movie in which he appeared. I had not heard of this magazine before: it describes itself as "A fashion feast for the eyes of fashion art and articles, with compelling content and exclusive interviews for sophisticated culturally aware readers; a showcase of artistic fashion at its best." [44] I have not yet found any substantial independent information about the magazine. The interview is available online here [45]. The AfDs are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zachary Laoutides and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adios Vaya Con Dios. Opinions would be appreciated as to whether this magazine (and specifically this interview) qualifies as an independent reliable source. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:10, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• Well, the magazine seems to meet the reliable and independent criteria under WP:RS, though as their topic concentration is centered around fashion, it is unlikely they would ever be consiered a "hard news" source. That said, in relationship to the articles considered for deletion, the one source would fail the requirement under WP:N for "multiple". Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

[46] This anonymously written article with the POV headline "Israeli Colonists Attempts to Open a Road" is being utilized for the claim that Israelis are up to no good. I dispute the reliability of the source but its proponent does not agree. Input requested. Thanks. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:51, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Nothing anonymously about it. Written by an organisation that usually publishes very reliable information. --Wickey-nl (talk) 14:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Not a reliable source IMO. Self-published material, and a collaboration by two organisations with no obvious credibility. If whoever included it can present some evidence that LRC and ARIJ are at least percieved as credible by other sources, such the UN, that would help. But as it stands, it's just self-published material and hence fails as RS.Mark Marathon (talk) 02:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Would the European Union fund it if it were an unreliable organisation that spreads wrong information? What is your opinion based on? Evidence for unreliability? --Wickey-nl (talk) 16:02, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Does any RS dispute the claims in the article? Complaining a Web site is self-published makes no sense. The entire Web is self-published. Howunusual (talk) 18:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

It is funded by the EU, and functions on behalf of the EU. This complaint seems frivolous.Howunusual (talk) 19:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

It is funded by the EU, but it no way functions on behalf of the EU. There's an explicit disclaimer (which you obviously saw but chose to ignore) right below the mention of Eu funding, which says "The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of ARIJ & LRC and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union." Brad Dyer (talk) 17:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

That's semantics, and making personal remarks detracts from the conversation. It functions on behalf of the EU in the sense that it provides services to the EU, for which the EU contracts or pays in some way. That's how jobs work. If you hire people, they act on your behalf, but their views don't express yours (unless you hire them to be spokespersons). Howunusual (talk) 20:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

"it's just self-published material and hence fails as RS" is not a valid argument in my view. It's not the kind of source referred to by the WP:SELFPUBLISH policy. The NGO is however one of perhaps hundreds of NGOs that publish content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. I suppose people can argue that any of them are reliable for the claims as long as the claims are attributed, but in practice, in my experience in the WP:ARBPIA topic area, people only do that for the NGOs whose views they agree with. I'm not sure the question "Does any RS dispute the claims in the article?" is useful because the absence of information doesn't tell you anything about reliability. It can tell you something about notability though and I think that is a more useful criteria in cases like this given that there are so many NGOs making so many claims. Do independent secondary sources care enough about the NGO and its claims to report it ? For almost all cases in the Arab-Israeli conflict the answer is no. Only a handful of NGOs get regular coverage by independent secondary sources, NGOs like Human Rights Watch, Amnesty, B'Tselem, Peace Now spring to mind and a few others on and off. I think asking about reliability in this context is a bit of a red herring if there is no evidence in the form of secondary source coverage that the NGO and its claims are notable. There needs to be something, something reliable and independent, and that isn't us, to demonstrate that the information has WP:WEIGHT > 0 regardless of opinions about or evidence of reliability. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

From the source in question:

The project, funded by the European Union, aims at inspecting and scrutinizing Israeli colonizing activities in their different forms in the Palestinian West Bank and Gaza, and to disseminate the related information to policy makers in the European countries and to the general public....This website has been produced with the assistance of the European Union.

Howunusual (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's part of the EU Partnership for Peace Programme (EUPfP). See here

• Project: Addressing Israeli Actions and its Land Policies in the oPt
• Summary: The project monitors, analyses and documents all Israel’s actions and land policies in Palestine, with the aim to disseminate the collected information to key stakeholders, and advocate for a better environment for peace.

Sean.hoyland - talk 07:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that notability (being noteworthy) is a relevant criterium. To be honest, POICA/ARIJ is never my first choice of source, but often it is the sole source on some subject. If common sources fail to report, or fail to report balanced, we have to fall back on less common ones. Neutral sources are virtually non-existent in the IP-conflict. --Wickey-nl (talk) 11:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't really know how best to deal with the all too common case of specialist NGOs like this one being the sole source on a subject, especially given that the information they produce is often not at all controversial from a mainstream, non-partisan perspective, and only appears controversial to the tiny minority of people on the planet who support the presence and building of Israeli settlements and the associated infrastructure in Palestine. But we need a practical method to decide whether something should be included or excluded for sources like this and whether something is noteworthy is the only thing I can think of. I don't buy Brewcrewer's "utilized only for the anti-Israel perspective" argument on the talk page. Neutrally reporting the facts is an "anti-Israel perspective" nowadays to many Israel supporters. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The first basic requirement of a reliable source is that it have some sort of modicum of objectivity. Their headline "Israeli Colonists Attempts to Open a Road" says it all. This anonymous POV written unsupported claim has zero creditability. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:02, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so. I think the first basic requirement is that someone that matters cares. I'm not sure there is such a thing as objectivity in this context and even if there were, I don't think it's our concern most of the time (excluding overtly unreliable sources, attack pieces etc). Many people say the media, sources in general, are biased against Israel. They might be right in a sense, but even if it were the case, the way Wikipedia defines neutrality means that it doesn't matter to us. If there is systemic bias, it becomes our neutral. Regarding the language, I know what you mean, it seems biased to our ears, but they're not wrong. Settlements are colonies, settlers are colonists and the processes associated with building the settlements is a kind of colonization. It's just that those terms aren't used as much or as self-confidently as they were before 1948 by the people who wanted to settle in Palestine. I'm not sure it matters very much. It should be the boring facts rather than the colorful language that makes it into the encyclopedia, if someone that matters cares. I don't really see the language as any more problematic that the language of the Israeli mainstream media that tends to routinely ignore Palestinian identity (unless something bad happens) and understandably takes sides in the conflict when it talks about people who use weapons/violence to achieve their objectives. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:42, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

brewcrewer, please give some links to the actual proposed use of the source. In general, the source is fine, and the particular news report you're complaining about has no obvious POV. Howunusual (talk) 16:44, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Sure no problem, but first tell me what your prior user name was and how you wound up at this thread. Thanks. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

This reaction suggests that brewcrewer for some reason choose not to tell that it is about Worshippers Way. --Wickey-nl (talk) 10:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Are henrygeorge.org etc. a reliable source per WP:RS for the claim

Compulsory [[land value tax|location value fees]], [[severance tax|severance fees]], and [[pollution tax|pollution fines]] are the most common georgist policies, but some geoists, particularly geo-mutualists and geo-anarchists, prefer voluntary [[value capture]] systems that rely on methods such as non-compulsory or self-assessed location value fees, [[Community land trust|community land trusts]]<ref>{{cite web|last=Curtis|first=Mike|title=The Arden Land Trust|url=http://www.henrygeorge.org/mikerent.htm|accessdate=30 May 2014}}</ref>, and purchasing [[Covenant (law)|land value covenants]].<ref>{{cite web|last=Adams|first=Martin|title=Sharing the Value of Land: The Promise of Location Value Covenants|url=https://medium.com/@martin_unitism/sharing-the-value-of-land-18066c10ac50|accessdate=30 May 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=Kent|first=Deirdre|title=Land and Money Reform Synergy in New Zealand|url=http://smarttaxes.org/2012/07/24/land-and-money-reform-synergy-in-new-zealand/|publisher=Smart Taxes|accessdate=30 May 2014}}</ref><ref>http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/wrigley-adrian_location-value-covenants-2010-06.pdf </ref><ref>http://www.systemicfiscalreform.org/Home/location-value-covenants</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=Foldvery|first=Fred|title=Geoanarchism A short summary of geoism and its relation to libertarianism.|url=http://www.anti-state.com/geo/foldvary1.html|accessdate=29 May 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=Coats|first=Jock|title=Geo-mutualism: the explanation|url=http://jockcoats.me/geo_mutualism_explanation|accessdate=29 May 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Geo-Mutualism|url=http://geo-mutualism.evolutionofconsent.com/|accessdate=29 May 2014}}</ref>

Comprising henrygeorge.org, medium.com, smarttaxes.org, cooperativeindividualism.org, systemicfiscalreform.org, anti-state.org, jockcoats.me and geo-mutualism.evolutionofconsent.com as the sites in question.

None appear at first glance to be independent reliable sources for defining the movement at all, as far as I can tell, but other opinions about whether they meet WP:RS are welcomed. Thanks. Collect (talk) 22:06, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Is http://InfoQ.com a reliable source for Wikipedia? It is a prominent online news site covering professional software development. The organisation behind InfoQ is explained in http://www.infoq.com/aboutus with specifics about InfoQ.com itself sketched in http://www.infoq.com/aboutus#infoq. The editorial process is explained in http://www.infoq.com/contribute with editorial core values in http://www.infoq.com/contribute#core_values. There, under "Content you can trust":

Our content will be free from bias, either personal or vendor-driven, unless clearly marked as "opinion." Users can expect InfoQ content to be educational, accurate and without marketing agendas. This is our brand promise and the reason our readers trust us. We strive to adhere to the principles of journalistic integrity in our news writing activities, while recognizing that we are not practitioners, not journalists, trying to do the right thing.

This question arises in connection with two references in the draft article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:ThreadSafe which are used to support multiple statements, where the editor is questioning reliability of InfoQ.com itself. (I am the author, and I think InfoQ.com is reliable, but the editor suggested that I ask for opinions here.) Here is a concrete example: the first sentence

ThreadSafe is a source code analysis tool that identifies application risks and security vulnerabilities associated with concurrency in Java code bases, using whole-program interprocedural analysis.

is supported by both references:

Grazi, Victor. ThreadSafe Concurrency Static Analysis Tool Announces First Public Release, InfoQ.com, August 28, 2013.

and

Atkey, Robert. Discover and Diagnose Java Concurrency Problems Using Contemplate's ThreadSafe, InfoQ.com, January 14, 2014.

The author of the former is on InfoQ.com's editorial team, see http://www.infoq.com/contribute#meet_editors. Dsannella (talk) 10:33, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I suggested the questioner come here. I do not view myself as competent to judge this source for reliability. I, too, am interested in the answer. Fiddle Faddle 13:10, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I started a talk page discussion at Talk:Hispanics_in_the_United_States_Marine_Corps#Homeofheroes.com discussing homeofheroes.com. After looking at the website Homeofheroes.com which was used as a citation, I fear that it is a personal website. Another editor argued "Home of Heroes is a reliable source which only cites the citations written by the US Military." See diff WhisperToMe (talk) 01:47, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

This website (http://www.fallingrain.com) is used as a reference by more than 3,500 Wikipedia articles. There used to be an article about it which was deleted several years ago (Discussion here). I can see why it was deleted; information about it is hard to come by and it's apparently considered not reliable. Is there a recommended alternative source?

A similar question applies to findarticles.com (FindArticles) which has been effectively dead since 2012 (redirected to a website which has none of the original content) but is still referenced by around 2,400 articles. Colonies Chris (talk) 11:13, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Falling rain has caused concerns in the past (for instance Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_123#fallingrain.com, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_63#Fallingrain.com) and imho cannot be considered a reliable source and there is probably a consensus on that. However so far there was no consensus on how to resolve the problem in particular due to the large amount of cases in WP. Ideally all references to Falling rain should be replaced by alternative sources, but that might require a larger amount of editors and maybe bots helping out. More importantly somebody (ideally familiar with such cases in WP) would need to take the lead and organize the effort. Without that the references to falling rain will only vanish slowly over the years, when they get removed by chance by people maintaining/updating individual articles, where a falling rain references happened to be used. This last scenario isn't really a great approach, but that is essentially what happened so far over the last years.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

A good first step could be to simply tag all those references with ^{[unreliable source?]} so that readers (as well as the maintainers of those articles) are aware of the problem. Can we get some bot owner to do that automatically? Diego (talk) 10:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I've requested it here. Colonies Chris (talk) 14:38, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I would appreciate opinions on whether epguides is considered a reliable source. It seems to be fan generated, as is indicated in its Wikipedia article, although the article implies that it's highly regarded. Given its links to imdb and tv.com, I don't see how this site could be regarded as reliable, but there are editors who will no doubt disagree. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Although their own content is not user-generated, they apparently partner with other sites whose content is, such as TV.com. Their FAQ states that they are non-professional fans who source their content from a mix of primary and secondary sources. It seems to me that it would be best to just go to the secondary sources that they use. I'd say this is not a reliable source, but it might be a good starting point for research, much like the IMDb. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:27, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Is http://DevX.com a reliable source for Wikipedia? It is a prominent online news site covering professional software development. The organisation behind InfoQ is explained in http://quinstreetenterprise.com/about_us - it also publishes the magazine Datamation.

This question arises in connection with a reference in the draft article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:ThreadSafe which is used to support multiple statements, where the editor is questioning reliability of DevX.com itself. (I am the author, and I think DevX.com is reliable, but the editor suggested that I ask for opinions here.) Here is a concrete example: most of the first sentence

ThreadSafe is a source code analysis tool that identifies application risks and security vulnerabilities associated with concurrency in Java code bases, using whole-program interprocedural analysis.

is a near-quote of the second sentence of

Taft, Darryl. Contemplate Delivers ThreadSafe Java Concurrency Static Analysis Tool, DevX.com, September 4, 2013.

Dsannella (talk) 10:45, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I suggested the questioner come here. I do not view myself as competent to judge this source for reliability. I, too, am interested in the answer. Fiddle Faddle 13:11, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

The author of the referenced article is a professional journalist, see http://www.eweek.com/cp/bio/Darryl-K.-Taft/ and http://www.linkedin.com/pub/darryl-taft/8/187/ab3 Dsannella (talk) 10:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Argument over which sources are more reliable has been going on for months. Needs to get to a conclusion. Talk page RfC - Richfife (talk) 19:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I am asking for new, uninvolved editors to weigh in on this RfC. It involves whether we can include a mention of the subject's discipline problems in school. There is a dispute about the content, and you can help determine consensus. Thank you. Useitorloseit (talk) 21:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I have noted a couple of instances in which want ads for positions at universities have been used as citations for other statistics. Examples are here for number of students and I saw a want ad earlier used as a reference for the endowment value, although I can't seem to locate the diff right now. Are these want ads considered reliable sources? Does it depend on if they are WP:SPS or if a recruiter is publishing the ad? Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 15:18, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I tend to think they are reliable. I often see and occasionally use Amazon references to show that a book exists; that a subject is named as an author; to obtain the ISBN. Thats as reliable a source as can be found sometimes for such a purpose. Trackinfo (talk) 21:38, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Amazon.com is a terrible source. If you can't find information anywhere but Amazon, then it's probably undue to include it. If you just want to source an ISBN, you don't need to put a citation to Amazon. Just put the ISBN in the article without a citation. Such things are trivially verifiable to themselves as a primary source. If someone actually challenges it, then you can go look it up on worldcat or whatever. As far as want ads, no, I would probably say they're not a reliable source. Anyone can claim whatever they want in an want ad. What we need is a history of fact checking and correction, and that simply does not exist in a want ad. For the most trivial of information – name, address, date of establishment, CEO, etc – I would certainly let a want ad, press release, or other self-published, promotional primary source stay. For more than that, I'd probably raise a discussion at the talk page and argue against the use of that source. Basic statistics, such as number of students, seems like a borderline case to me. Again, if no secondary sources are reporting it, then it's probably undue to include. Some users have an almost OCD-like compulsion to fill in every field in an infobox, and it's just not necessary to do so. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree with this. Want ads are exactly that, advertisements. They shouldn't be considered reliable for their claims without corroboration from other sources. In the specific case of student numbers, universities will sometimes make no distinction between part-time and full-time students, student who apply but never begin studies, multi-disciplinary students being counted twice, etc. Most schools have an interest in appearing as large as possible, which leads to apples-and-oranges comparisons or unreliable reporting. A clearly attributed claim can sometimes be included, but shouldn't be presented as known fact in Wikipedia's voice.__ E L A Q U E A T E 14:26, 4 June 2014 (UTC)