Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 238

Archive 235

Archive 236

Archive 237

Archive 238

Archive 239

Archive 240

→

Archive 245

Use of paid death notice / obituary as source for place of residence

An entry for Nathaniel Lubell was added as a notable resident in the article for Fort Lee, New Jersey. This source at Sports Reference lists his place of death as Fort Lee, but has no indication that he resided there. This source published in The New York Times explicitly states that "Lubell--Nathaniel, 90 of Fort Lee, NJ died in his home on Sat., Sept. 17th." The paid death notice had been used as a source in his article and I used that same source in the Fort Lee article to support the claim that he was a resident.

Would this source be permissible per WP:SELFPUB as a reliable source solely for this purpose? Alansohn (talk) 16:42, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I have to ask: are you trying to establish what the subject’s “legal residence” is... or simply that he owned a house in Fort Lea. I don’t think the obit supports the first, but may be reliable enough to support the second. Blueboar (talk) 20:04, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

rs for sports

http://www.eliteprospects.com for hockey related articles? Thoughts appreciated. Gabriel syme (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

They appear to have staff and editors with editorial guidelines so on the surface they appear to meet the RS standards, however, I did not cross check them for accuracy. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:15, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Cool thanks anyone else have any thoughts? Gabriel syme (talk) 06:39, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Laura Bailey (voice actress)

I just spent some time stripping out reddit, amazon.com and youtube sources from the Laura Bailey (voice actress) article. I now notice dozens of "credit references" which are pointers to the page in a video where her name appears in the credits. let's say, very roughly, references 69-91. I'll append two examples here:

Are these RS? Should I be asking on the OR noticeboard instead?

References

--104.163.148.25 (talk) 03:16, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

It isn’t OR (since the cited video does indeed directly say the actor voiced the role). The credits of a video are a reliable PRIMARY source for who played which parts in the video. Blueboar (talk) 12:28, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

OK but who verified them? The source gives no idea of who, it just goes on faith.104.163.148.25 (talk) 16:46, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I don’t understand the question... our sources don’t need verification, they ARE the verification (for what we say in WP). And a primary source verifies itself. Blueboar (talk) 19:27, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

What I am saying is that if you look at the two sources given, they do not link to anything outside Wikipedia. They are each made up of three internal wikilinks. So who is the authority?104.163.148.25 (talk) 21:23, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Ah... now I think I understand... you are confused because the citations included blue-links to related WP articles, and not external links to some web site. The links are not important to the citation (nothing says citations have to contain a link to anything), and they could be delinked to read:

References

In other words, the "authority" appears in the video itself... Specifically, the credit sequence, indicated in last line of the citation. Blueboar (talk) 11:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Mankind Quarterly

Mankind Quarterly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I wanted to ask whether articles published in the pseudoscientific racist journal Mankind Quarterly is ever reliable, and if so, what content it can be considered reliable to support. I just removed information sourced to an article published in this journal from White Latin Americans, and was wondering if other editors supported this removal and/or removal of similar content from other articles in which this journal is cited (e.g. Memetics, ref. 27). Every morning (there's a halo...) 21:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

What makes it "pseudoscientific"? The article says it is peer reviewed. The answer to this question will determine whether it is reliable for anything other than its own views. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

this source notes that it has "a long history of publishing pseudoscientific accounts of black inferiority". Not all journals that claim to be peer-reviewed are reputable and thus reliable sources. For example, the Journal of the American Physicians and Surgeons is not considered credible despite saying it's peer reviewed. [1] What really matters are things like indexing in selective databases and at least having an impact factor. Every morning (there's a halo...) 22:21, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

If the pseudoscientific accounts only apply to black inferiority then it should in theory be a reliable source for claims not related to that, but obviously if something has a long history of such a problem instead of just one or two isolated cases in a journal that has a peer review process then something it suggests that it may not meet the standards for WP:SCHOLARSHIP. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion, there is no way under the sun that this overtly racist "journal" should be considered a reliable source for any factual assertion other than the name of its current editor and its office location. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:53, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

We need to be careful before dismissing the journal. Publishing research that is politically/socially odious (or racist) does not make a journal non-RS. The question should be the qualify of editorial control and peer review.Icewhiz (talk) 06:29, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

No, we really don't. It is a vehicle for racist theories, there aren't going to be any independent sources analysing whether any specific article it publishes is bullshit or not, and we're not allowed to do that ourselves. So: anything that is genuinely important will be discussed in a better source, anything discussed only here, is not important and should not be on Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 14:43, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

What Guy said. If you can't find a mainstream source (and MQ certainly isn't mainstream) it doesn't belong. Doug Weller talk 15:10, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Emirati news outlets Gulf News and XPRESS

1. Source. News articles from printed in XPRESS, such as: Farooqui, Mazhar (January 17, 2018). "Fake degree holders get fake calls". XPRESS.
2. Article. Axact (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
3. Content. More recently, Axact employees have impersonated Emirati government officials in an effort to extort "legalisation fees" from unsuspecting fake degree and diploma holders in that country. (diff)

I'm not so much interested in the particular content as I am seeking feedback about the reliability of this Emirati weekly print newspaper, XPRESS. Here is their "about" page. They don't post a masthead. Their parent organization appears to be Gulf News, which publishes a daily. This is the only bio I could find of Gulf News' editor-in-chief, no apparent professional journalism experience. I could find no evidence that either of these outlets are cited approvingly by other reliable sources. Perhaps someone proficient in Arabic could investigate this further? (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Investopedia?

Does Investopedia.com meet RS? Should all investopedia links [2] [3] be deleted, en masse, without further discussion?

In particular, there is a new SPA, TaxAct2018 (talk · contribs) engaged in doing just that. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't much about the official rules and I might not be putting in the right reason in the edit comments but I've just found a couple articles where the links are quite spurious. I used link search to see if it is a pattern. I don't think that they are inappropriate in every case that I've seen but it's definitely more than 75%. TaxAct2018 (talk) 20:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

about page "Ruth Davis Konigsberg is the Managing Editor of Investopedia where she oversees the daily operations of the content team." could be worth looking more into it. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

There's lots of nonsense and half-truth on Investopedia. There will always be a better source for valid content. SPECIFICO talk 22:18, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

So we have an account that's now indeffed as either a sock (which they've admitted, but the original account hasn't been blocked) or else as a COI username with some piece of accounting software. They run a pretty obvious SPA to strip all references to a competitor site (leaving a right mess behind) and you're defending this? When do these SPA crusade accounts ever either achieve something positive, or don't turn out to have some hidden [sic] agenda? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:22, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I want to be sure this is a suitable source...in regards to the Tartessian Language article.

This source was cited in the article, but was removed again, because someone decided it was not reliable, though, the comment can be directly traced to the expert himself.

Dr. David Stifter of Maynooth University, himself, posted a response to a Lenore Fischer back in 2011 on the Old Irish L archive. https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A2=old-irish-l;DyXx1Q;20110806191509%2B0100

Here is Dr. Stifter's page at the Maynooth website: https://www.maynoothuniversity.ie/people/david-stifter

This is the part in question below. Dr. Stifter's response is the second paragraph starting with "Joe's scepticism stems..."

Subject: Re: Tartessian 2
From: "Dr. David Stifter" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: Scholars and students of Old Irish <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2011 19:15:09 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain

Parts/Attachments: text/plain (87 lines)

On 6 Aug 2011 at 17:45, lenore fischer wrote:

>*1. Koch, John (Aberystwyth) ‘A Celtic Verbal Complex in Tartessian?’*
>
>Handout has very detailed translations of the inscriptions: I can scan and
>send this to anyone who’s interested. In the questions afterwards Joseph
>Eska remarked that he still wasn’t convinced that Tartessian is even
>Indo-European. Pretty withering, really.

Joe's scepticism stems partly from the apparent sound inventory of those texts, which suggest to him the possibility of dealing with a language that could be related to Iberian and Basque. Given that acc. to Koch's handout the texts seem to be written in scriptua continua, determining words is of course a very tricky undertaking, and one that already predetermines your results of the reading. Because of some recurrent sequences which do on the surface look very much Indo- European, I do not share Joe's complete scepticism, but I can't see anything particularly Celtic at all. A lot of the features that John Koch needs to identify the text as Celtic are very specifically medieval Irish, and require a whole lot of very special developments, which I a priori wouldn't expect to see so early at that remote place. A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 10:13, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Is there any confirmation this is Dr. David Stifter, and why would we need a message board rather then an academic paper or a book?Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, one has but to ask him. His email is presented on his Maynooth page. The personal assessment he offers is not mentioned by him in a book as far as I know. He will confirm that the post is his. A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 10:52, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I think that only admins can accept such assurances.Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

• Not reliable per WP:USERGENERATED. Jytdog (talk) 14:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog, there this exception...since Dr. Stifter posted the above response to another user himself.

Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. Such material, although written by an established author, likely lacks the fact checking that publishers provide. Avoid using them to source extraordinary claims. Self-published information should never be used as a third-party source about another living person, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer.

Dr. David Stifter certainly meets and surpasses that criteria. He has directed projects concerning Celtic and Old and Middle Irish. He authored several papers and book chapters on Irish and Celtic linguistic developments. He is well more than qualified to comment on John Koch's Celtic language work. He is not being used to source an extraordinary claim. He, himself, is not making an extraordinary claim. He is speaking from his own considerable expertise and post-doctorate education on a matter of Celtic and Irish linguistics. See, his personal page (link provided in an earlier post) for his impressive resume in Celtic and Old and Middle Irish linguistics. Again, he meets and surpasses the criteria set forward in the Exceptions section of WP:USERGENERATED. A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 00:04, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Absence of evidence as evidence of absence

"On November 28, 2015, the couple announced their child Chanel had been born, without specifying the exact date."

Is this reliably sourced?

Neither source states they did not announce the date. Actually, the instagram post cited refers to another account created earlier which plainly gives the date.babychanelnicole[4]

IMO, there is no reason to assume they did not give the date and there is no basis to assign meaning to the assumption in a BLP.

From where I'm sitting, the birth date is not in any way controversial and we should simply state when the baby was born without claiming they did not say something.

References

- SummerPhD^v2.0 14:07, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

the day the baby was born is not encyclopedic. just say the child was born in november 2017. Jytdog (talk) 14:13, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually seems to me the sources do say that they shared a picture immediately after it was born on the 28th. But a DOB can be controversial, as it has a certain legal status. [5], says born on the 28th.Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

What Jytdog says. Until the child is notable on their own, the exact DOB is not necessary and would be OR to speculate if the pictures were the same day or a day after or any other time. The US Weekly article is sufficient to peg the date "in November". --Masem (t) 14:22, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, month and date is fine. The question is whether or not we should say that the couple announced the birth "...without specifying the exact date", which is what we currently claim. Without a reliable source saying it, we currently say that the couple did not give the date. I see no reason to say this and no source to support it. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

that is also trivia. fine to remove and yes it is OR. Jytdog (talk) 15:44, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

The statement "without specifying a birth date" it is not OR is because the cited birth announcement by the parent reads "Thanks so much for all the warm wishes today.I'm doing great! I had the best delivery! I pushed Chanel out in 3 tries! This was taken not 5 minutes after delivery,called skin to skin contact..better for a more bonding experience PS.I just started a Instagram for Chanel". The announcement factually, objectively, does not specify a birth date.

The phrase is needed to avoid misleading readers who assume the day an Instagram was posted is the day an event happened. Wikipedia editors often make that same assumption, and this is the only way to avoid it and prevent inaccuracies. Already, one editor assumes that the birth occurred the same day as the Instagram post, because the post says "take not 5 minutes after delivery." But the photo being taken 5 minutes after delivery doesn't mean it was posted the same day. Lyndsy Fonseca posted her wedding announcement on an Oct. 5, but her marriage took place three days earlier. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Also to add that the exact date, if not explicitly given and publicized (not guessed at) by RSes, would be unnecessary per BLP and privacy concerns for children. Clearly they had a child, it can be named, we can give the rough date, but we have no means to narrow that date further nor should we want to, at least until the child ends up being notable on their own. --Masem (t) 18:03, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Given that we know the day the Instagram was posted is the day the event happened, why exactly would we want to avoid leading readers to believe the truth is the truth?

We know that notice does not include a date. We do not know that they did not announce the date. The cites I give above show they clearly did. You want to argue those may not have been posted originally. Maybe, maybe not. The text you are defending says they unequivocally did not. We don't know that. The claim is OR (and trivial). - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

The parents did not announce a birth date. That is the parents' choice. Wikipedia is not in the habit of publishing minors' birth dates unless the parent or their representatives release it publicly. There is no consensus here for changing the status quo of the article. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:31, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

As I've said repeatedly, the parents did announce the birth date. The instagram post currently cited links to an account started by mom.[6] It unequivocally gives the date.[7]

I have suggested removing the current OR fiction that they did not announce the birth date ("On November 28, 2015, the couple announced their child Chanel had been born, without specifying the exact date.") with a neutral statement ("In November 28, 2015, the couple's daughter, Chanel was born.")

Edited to strike out the "28". This was a typo. In editing the existing statement, I intended to give the month and year as suggested. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

No one is questioning that on Nov 28 that these parents posted an instagram photo, and that photo was within minutes of giving birth. The problem is that we cannot date the photo, only whne it was posted to Instagram. Not the same as the birth picture. What if they took the photo, then the mother and baby recovered for a few days, and when they got home, reviewed their photos and posted that? That's the problem here, we cannot confirm that date. Add to the privacy issues of BLP, and that's a good reason to not detail the specific day. --Masem (t) 22:38, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

You are disputing that there is a consensus here and are threatening to take the issue to ANI. Fine. We'll make it a RfC. Masem, Jytdog and Tenebrae, Feel free to comment at Talk:Coco_Austin#Request_for_comment_on_birth_announcement. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:16, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Again, no one can unilaterally declare a consensus for one's own position.

Secondly, as I've said repeatedly, you're making a POV assumption that people must post on Instagram the same day an event occurs. "This was taken not 5 minutes after delivery" does not mean it was posted 6 minutes after delivery. As you've repeatedly ignored, I have given a concrete example in Lyndsy Fonseca posting an Instagram about her wedding day three days after the wedding took place. Your assumptions would have resulted in an incorrect wedding date in Wikipedia.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:20, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I am not unilaterally doing anything. You've objected at several steps along the way. I've elevated the issue to an RfC with admin closure to establish a consensus.

I am not suggesting including the date of birth. I am suggesting removing the OR claim that they announced the birth "without specifying the exact date", leave out the date of the announcement and give just the verifiable, encyclopedic statement "In November, 2015, the couple's daughter, Chanel was born." They clearly have announced the date of birth, full name, etc.[8][9] I am suggesting that we not conduct original research based on a primary source in a BLP. I am suggesting we cite secondary sources, as listed in the RfC. Does any source anywhere directly state that the parents did not speccify the date of birth? Is there anything in my proposed statement you feel should not be there? - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:55, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

The current line reads, "On November 28, 2015, the couple announced their child Chanel had been born, without specifying the exact date." Anyone (see link to the Instagram post) can see that, as stated, the announcement does not specify an exact date. That is not OR but observable, objective fact about the announcement.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:57, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

RE: Secondary sources: Per WP:BLPPRIVACY, we do not give birth date about minor children based on anonymous claims from shadowy, unidentified "sources". If the parents or their representatives themselves announce the birth date, BLP allows editors to include it, as confirmed in a previous RfC. Primary sources are allowable in some cases, including this.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

It incorrectly implies they did not announce the date of birth anywhere. Clearly they did. Is there anything wrong with the statement I have suggested, based on reliable secondary sources without reading anything into the WP:BLPPRIMARY source? If not, what is gained by stating they did not announce the date of birth when they unequivocally have announced the date of birth?

What "anonymous claims from shadowy, unidentified 'sources'" are you referring to? In the RfC, I have listed several unquestionably reliable sources that give the date, often including an interview with one or both parents.[10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:07, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The sentence is not "implying" anything. You can infer whatever you like, but the statement as written is objectively factual. Secondly, you say they "clearly" announced a birth date. Where? If you find that, then this entire discussion is moot. I genuinely would love to see that cite so this can all end.

Where is Us Weekly and the other outlets getting their information, if the parents or their reps aren't giving it? "Sources claim" ... "Insiders say" ... "We're confirming (but not saying how)." Those are the anonymous claims from shadowy, unidentified "sources". It's well-established WP:BLP requires a higher standard than "anonymous sources say". --Tenebrae (talk) 23:14, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

The Honest Drug Book

I'd like to solicit some feedback about this book, The Honest Drug Book, which is used as a reference on numerous recreational drug topics (mostly drug and plant articles, as far as I can tell). I don't have access to the book itself, but can only judge it by what I can find others' saying about it. Amazon.com (https://www.amazon.com/Honest-Drug-Book-Chemical-Botanical/dp/0995593604) describes the author merely as an "explorer", not noting any relevant education or scientific expertise (pharmacology, botany, etc.) Based on that page, the book's contents appear to be mainly subjective experiences. The description of it presenting "hidden truths" also raises my concern about possible WP:FRINGE content. My first impression is that it definitely shouldn't be used for any type of medical-related claims. See for example Celastrus paniculatus, where the book is used as a reference for claims that it is a "stimulant" and of "psychoactivity". However, would it be an acceptable source about more objective facts, such as perhaps the way certain drugs/plants are used recreationally, though? Deli nk (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, this search turns up 15 pages using the book as a reference. Deli nk (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Best never to use self-help books full of nice pictures by a professional traveler.....to quote the opening "This is essential reading for the 250 million people who use drugs, and for anyone thinking about using them."--Moxy (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Appears to be self-published - I can't find any trace of MxZero Publishing. Not reliable for anything and not for anything about health, for sure. Jytdog (talk) 03:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

As noted above, its a self-published book thus unreliable especially related to medicine/health. Meatsgains^(talk) 03:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

The author has complained in Reddit about censorship by Twitter and Facebook. The book's website provides no information about the publisher, and barely mentions the author's name. There is an extract available online (CC-BY-ND). It looks like a harm reduction model. I was going to suggest that "MX" is a common abbreviation for Mexico, and so a web search in English might miss a legitimate Mexican publisher; however, it appears that the author lives in the UK, which makes that an unlikely explanation. I think we have to tentatively conclude that the book is self-published.

Even self-published sources can be reliable. This book is likely reliable for statements such as "Dominic Trott believes that strict prohibition kills people" or "Dominic Trott recommends that drug users follow a safety plan that includes <points A through J>". However, while the source would be reliable for such a statement, including that reliably sourced statement in an article would almost certainly be WP:UNDUE. So: "reliable", but not "usable". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree. The quote would be valid if Dominic Trott were a noted authority. As far as I can tell, he isn't. So, as you say, UNDUE. Guy (Help!) 18:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• All instances removed as making medical claims but failing WP:MEDRS. Guy (Help!) 18:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

-

I ADDED ONE OF THOSE REFERENCES

I added one of those references, only to find today that it was removed. I thus find myself here.

I have a copy of the book itself, and can refute most of which is stated above. I would not have edited the page if these were legitimate comments.

It does describe subjective experiences, but these are clearly marked as such. The main thrust of the content is peer confirmed and academically researched information, which again is clearly marked. Nor are the "claims" medical in nature, which seems to be a strange interpretation of recorded historical and scientific data, particularly when used to justify wholescale removal of every reference.

Regarding the publisher and the author I have just performed some checks. I registered for and searched the ISBN at Nielsen. According to this MxZero does seem to be a credible third party publisher or an arm of one. The records there include data on both the book and the publisher. An extract for example -

Nielsen BIC Subject & Qualifiers

Drug-induced states (JMTK)

Personal & social issues: drugs & addiction (Children's / Teenage) (YXJ)

Drug & substance abuse: social aspects (JFFH1)

Coping with drug & alcohol abuse (VFJK)

Publisher BIC Subject & Qualifiers JMTK YXJ JFFH1 VFJK

BookScan Product Class Code S2.2T

BookScan Product Class Text Psychology: Textbooks & Study Guides

BISAC Subject PSYCHOLOGY / Cognitive Psychology & Cognition (PSY008000)

JUVENILE NONFICTION / Social Topics / Drugs, Alcohol, Substance Abuse (JNF053040)

SOCIAL SCIENCE / Disease & Health Issues (SOC057000)

For the author, I would guess that he retains privacy for the same reasons that I do, specifically, social attitudes to those who take or discuss drugs.

In these circumstances, how would one become a "noted authority"? For example, regarding issues of certain aspects of psychoactivity, and relative psychoactivity, surely a factor in the status of authority would be the personal use of the substance or compound itself. Given this, I suggest that finding a "noted authority" who has thus tested these psychoactive materials in a comparative, relative and scientific sense (as much as is possible) and who's "authority" equals or exceeds that of the author would be virtually impossible. This is why I purchased the book in the first place.

I feel subject context is of particular importance in certain fields, drugs being one of them, and that this has not been taken into account regarding the removal of my reference, and presumably the others.

I am saddened to see this fall, largely because the information is valuable and useful, and certainly worthy of inclusion in any objective and informative platform. I believe that my edit was perfectly valid.

I recognise that my post here will likely be futile, and may not be welcomed, but seeing factual harm reduction and scientific based data blocked from public scrutiny across the mainstream media, which seems to include Wikipedia, is frustrating. This platform should be a conduit for reliable data and not dependent upon the whims and prejudices of society.

The Honest Drug Book

I'd like to solicit some feedback about this book, The Honest Drug Book, which is used as a reference on numerous recreational drug topics (mostly drug and plant articles, as far as I can tell). I don't have access to the book itself, but can only judge it by what I can find others' saying about it. Amazon.com (https://www.amazon.com/Honest-Drug-Book-Chemical-Botanical/dp/0995593604) describes the author merely as an "explorer", not noting any relevant education or scientific expertise (pharmacology, botany, etc.) Based on that page, the book's contents appear to be mainly subjective experiences. The description of it presenting "hidden truths" also raises my concern about possible WP:FRINGE content. My first impression is that it definitely shouldn't be used for any type of medical-related claims. See for example Celastrus paniculatus, where the book is used as a reference for claims that it is a "stimulant" and of "psychoactivity". However, would it be an acceptable source about more objective facts, such as perhaps the way certain drugs/plants are used recreationally, though? Deli nk (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, this search turns up 15 pages using the book as a reference. Deli nk (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Best never to use self-help books full of nice pictures by a professional traveler.....to quote the opening "This is essential reading for the 250 million people who use drugs, and for anyone thinking about using them."--Moxy (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Appears to be self-published - I can't find any trace of MxZero Publishing. Not reliable for anything and not for anything about health, for sure. Jytdog (talk) 03:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

As noted above, its a self-published book thus unreliable especially related to medicine/health. Meatsgains^(talk) 03:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

The author has complained in Reddit about censorship by Twitter and Facebook. The book's website provides no information about the publisher, and barely mentions the author's name. There is an extract available online (CC-BY-ND). It looks like a harm reduction model. I was going to suggest that "MX" is a common abbreviation for Mexico, and so a web search in English might miss a legitimate Mexican publisher; however, it appears that the author lives in the UK, which makes that an unlikely explanation. I think we have to tentatively conclude that the book is self-published.

Even self-published sources can be reliable. This book is likely reliable for statements such as "Dominic Trott believes that strict prohibition kills people" or "Dominic Trott recommends that drug users follow a safety plan that includes <points A through J>". However, while the source would be reliable for such a statement, including that reliably sourced statement in an article would almost certainly be WP:UNDUE. So: "reliable", but not "usable". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree. The quote would be valid if Dominic Trott were a noted authority. As far as I can tell, he isn't. So, as you say, UNDUE. Guy (Help!) 18:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• All instances removed as making medical claims but failing WP:MEDRS. Guy (Help!) 18:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

-

I ADDED ONE OF THOSE REFERENCES

I added one of those references, only to find today that it was removed. I thus find myself here.

I have a copy of the book itself, and can refute most of which is stated above. I would not have edited the page if these were legitimate comments.

It does describe subjective experiences, but these are clearly marked as such. The main thrust of the content is peer confirmed and academically researched information, which again is clearly marked. Nor are the "claims" medical in nature, which seems to be a strange interpretation of recorded historical and scientific data, particularly when used to justify wholescale removal of every reference.

Regarding the publisher and the author I have just performed some checks. I registered for and searched the ISBN at Nielsen. According to this MxZero does seem to be a credible third party publisher or an arm of one. The records there include data on both the book and the publisher. An extract for example -

Nielsen BIC Subject & Qualifiers

Drug-induced states (JMTK)

Personal & social issues: drugs & addiction (Children's / Teenage) (YXJ)

Drug & substance abuse: social aspects (JFFH1)

Coping with drug & alcohol abuse (VFJK)

Publisher BIC Subject & Qualifiers JMTK YXJ JFFH1 VFJK

BookScan Product Class Code S2.2T

BookScan Product Class Text Psychology: Textbooks & Study Guides

BISAC Subject PSYCHOLOGY / Cognitive Psychology & Cognition (PSY008000)

JUVENILE NONFICTION / Social Topics / Drugs, Alcohol, Substance Abuse (JNF053040)

SOCIAL SCIENCE / Disease & Health Issues (SOC057000)

For the author, I would guess that he retains privacy for the same reasons that I do, specifically, social attitudes to those who take or discuss drugs.

In these circumstances, how would one become a "noted authority"? For example, regarding issues of certain aspects of psychoactivity, and relative psychoactivity, surely a factor in the status of authority would be the personal use of the substance or compound itself. Given this, I suggest that finding a "noted authority" who has thus tested these psychoactive materials in a comparative, relative and scientific sense (as much as is possible) and who's "authority" equals or exceeds that of the author would be virtually impossible. This is why I purchased the book in the first place.

I feel subject context is of particular importance in certain fields, drugs being one of them, and that this has not been taken into account regarding the removal of my reference, and presumably the others.

I am saddened to see this fall, largely because the information is valuable and useful, and certainly worthy of inclusion in any objective and informative platform. I believe that my edit was perfectly valid. I also suspect that there is an irony here in that had I added the information without a reference it would most probably have been left in place.

I recognise that my post here will likely be futile, and may not be welcomed, but seeing factual harm reduction and scientific based data blocked from public scrutiny across the mainstream media, which seems to include Wikipedia, is frustrating. This platform should be a conduit for reliable data and not dependent upon the whims and prejudices of society.

Having posted the above notice and information, a day or so ago, and given that there was no counter response, I reversed the removal of my edit. I did the same to a few of the other removals, which were also clearly erroneous.

I then found myself blocked from Wikipedia by the exact same person ("Guy") who had originally blanket removed all references to this source.

Further to this, the same person archived this discussion, removing all evidence of this situation from view.

Could I suggest that the community examines this carefully, both the underlying flaws in the logic of removing references to the most notable source on the subject, and the conduct of the said person?

I noticed too that his talk page was protected. As a consequence, when he edits on a subject which he appears to have little knowledge, or when he conducts himself as subsequently described, there is no opportunity to discuss directly. Note too that he made no effort to reach either prior to the block or to the archiving of the story itself.

It is extremely disappointing that in a field in which Wikipedia presents sometimes dangerous misinformation, in fact potentially fatal misinformation, efforts to address this are so abuptly and irrationally curtailed. I am not sure whether there is an escalation procedure for this sort of issue, but if there is, I suggest that it is invoked.

A reputable source that references a tabloid

Hi! Are we not allowed to use a reliable news outlet as a source if their report references a tabloid?

I tried to post sexual assault allegations against Sylvester Stallone on his page. I used BBC News as my source (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-42023885), however another user removed it for being unreliable because the article mentions that the police report was published by the Daily Mail.

And if so, would I also not be allowed to use a reliable source that references TMZ? (For example, this: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sylvester-stallone-rape-allegation_us_5a3ce122e4b025f99e165ce4) Because the WP:PUS says that TMZ "has received criticism for errors in breaking news and has a reputation for gossip, but it is increasingly seen as credible by other news agencies" and so I wasn't sure if that was considered unreliable or not.

Thank you. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 23:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

• Given that we are talking about a BLP, I am not sure we should be covering “allegations” (no matter what source is cited)... OK, if there is a law suit, or if actual criminal charges are filed... sure... we can mention those... but anyone can make an allegation. It’s not our job to spread gossip. Blueboar (talk) 00:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• "I am not sure we should be covering “allegations” (no matter what source is cited)" WP:PUBLICFIGURE says otherwise. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok... but it also says to omit allegations that are not covered by MULTIPLE reliable sources. Blueboar (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Correct. I was referring to the policy in general. We document allegations all the time.

If the subject of this thread (allegations against Stallone) isn't backed by multiple RS, then PUBLICFIGURE would exclude mention. Does that make sense? I have just written a section about this on my talk page. You're welcome to come and discuss it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources often use what we would consider unreliable sources. The difference is that journalists arer expected to have the professional capability of determining what is or is not accurate in them. However, note the difference between what the BBC said and your edit: BBC: "The Mail Online has published what it says is a police report dating from 1986." Your edit: "The [Mail Online] article includes a copy of the police report." So according to the Mail Online it was a copy but the BBC is unwilling to state that as a fact and neither should we.

Also, the Reuters story picked up in the HuffPo says, "Reuters could not independently verify the accusation." That's a very important fact to note.

TFD (talk) 03:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I'm in an agreement that we should not post allegations that came from tabloids and to spread gossip on Wikipedia. BattleshipMan (talk) 09:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, TFD. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 14:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Affirming Reliable Sources in deletion discussions

I recently (unsuccessfully) nominated an article for deletion. It was my first nomination, the 4th for the article. The discussion brought up many claims of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but I was most surprised by the claims about sources. At the time I reviewed them, all of the sources were either blogs, tabloids/weekly tabloids, or “lifestyle” websites. The strongest sources were HuffPost, FHM, Cosmopolitan, and Maxim, but the articles were humorous, opinion pieces, summaries of social media posts, or all of the above. The argument that carried the day (I think) was that for esoteric topics one was allowed / encouraged to use such sources (the topic is esoteric because it’s a fake/satirical holiday, Steak and Blowjob Day, see the talk page for details). My search of the reliable sources archives turned up little or no discussion, so I'm hoping for some guidance. Dictioneer (talk) 03:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

You're never going to get that article deleted until Wikipedia's demographic changes. Guy (Help!) 23:04, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, but I need a bit more, and I would note that the article had been "salted" (deleted and banned from re-creation) for the last 10 years until its recent reappearance. Since the deletion debate is finished, I am trying to learn from the experience and (in wp-speak) develop a WP:CLUE about how the approval process actually works. My new goal is to improve the article by removing non-RS references. My problem is that I don't understand how to apply the sliding scale I describe above.

To take an easy example, the last ref in the article is from FHM's online blog and the author is "An FHM editor," both of which seem disqualifying. Further, the article is used as justification of the statement that "businesses were cashing in on the unofficial holiday." I wouldn't think, under ordinary circumstances, that the source supported the statement (it simply describes a dinner special offered at a NYC strip club's adjacent restaurant) and seems like blatant commercial promotion. I’d prefer to assume good faith on the part of my fellow editors in this process but you seem to suggest otherwise, so perhaps this is the wrong forum. If so, is there somewhere else I should take this? Dictioneer (talk) 02:05, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Banglapedia

This has been discussed twice before with no real decision being made as to its reliability. Per http://en.banglapedia.org/index.php?title=Special:ListGroupRights it is a mediawiki powered site whose registered edits can edit pages. Pages such as http://en.banglapedia.org/index.php?title=Soil_Resources_Development_Institute have absolutely no references on them. By clicking on "Random page" a few times this seems to be a common theme. Now on the other hand, there is http://en.banglapedia.org/index.php?title=Online_Edition which claims that the material is edited by professors and there is some oversight to it and there is a print version under the same name. There is no link that I can find between the print version and this website. The fact that this is a mediawiki powered site with a user group that can edit pages seems to indicate that this is not a reliable source. But it continues to be used on 50 pages. --Majora (talk) 23:33, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: Those pages do have the name of the writer/researcher. Banglapedia is published by the Asiatic Society of Bangladesh and its current president is Amirul Islam Chowdhury, Vice-Chancellor of Jahangirnagar University. Here is a link to the book volume one. Both the book and the websites are published by Asiatic Society of Bangladesh. There is no evidence to suggest that anonymous editors can create accounts or edit the encyclopedia.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 23:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• Website en.banglapedia.org is the Asiatic Society of Bangladesh's web version of their print encyclopedia, Banglapedia: The National Encyclopedia of Bangladesh. I have access to the ten volume second edition set, and have never encountered any difference between the print and web versions. The URLs in citations to Banglapedia serve only as convenience links.

After trying other content management systems over the years, the society settled on MediaWiki for its web version. Unlike Wikipedia and many other wikis, however, their content is not user-generated (you may have noted that their wiki has one user, one administrator, and one bureaucrat - you and I can't join and edit). Banglapedia follows the old-fashioned encyclopedia model of the chief editor inviting a subject matter expert to write each article. Authors of important topics are often preeminent in their fields and have written multiple books on the subject - Anupam Hayat for many cinema topics, Sirajul Islam for history, and Harun-or-Rashid for politics come to mind.

Banglapedia is a tertiary source rather than a secondary one. Some articles cite sources, some do not, making it like many other encyclopedias, such as Encyclopædia Britannica. It would be nice if all their articles cited sources, but as a practical matter many of those sources would be in Bengali, published in Dhaka, and virtually unobtainable outside of a good research library in Bangladesh, so of limited practical use to most editors and readers of the English Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources does not require that a reliable source cite its sources.

The bottom line is that Banglapedia is a reliable source. There's a good reason it is cited in over 2,800 articles, and has been for over a decade. Bangladeshi academics are no more or less susceptible to taking a local view of subjects than are academics from any other part of the world. Sensible editors look for a variety of sources published in a range of countries. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• As this seems to be in response, at least partially, to my comment on the talk page that started all of this I guess I'll just copy and paste my post for reference sake. I am fully capable of admitting if I am wrong. If I am wrong, I apologize. I'm just not fully convinced of that fact. Yet. The lack of any sources on the majority of article is concerning. Britannica tends to include references to other sources in their articles. I would expect other tertiary sources to have references to secondary sources. Banglapedia doesn't appear to do that. Which, again, is concerning. Britannica does include references in most of their articles. Not just to other Britannica entries but to external sources for verification purposes. Any referencing at all at Banglapedia appears to be a rarity. At least from clicking the random page button a few times. --Majora (talk) 01:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• What if the particular information, using Banglapedia as a source, has been disputed by a scholarly source available on Google Books? Would you still consider using Banglapedia? How will you attribute Banglapedia? I don't agree that one has to provide references for their information. Excelse (talk) 05:18, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

When Reliable sources disagree, present the disagreement and attribute who says what. See: WP:Neutral point of view Blueboar (talk) 13:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• There's a good reason it is cited in over 2,800 articles is not a valid argument. We've had plenty of works cited in those sort of volumes that have nonetheless been determined to be unreliable. onefivenine.com is a recent example, as are wikimapia and Google maps, and many British Raj era authors. Dare I add the Daily Mail? For what it is worth, I've long held doubts about Banglapedia, too. - Sitush (talk) 10:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • The sentence you quoted is not the argument, but part of the summation of the three paragraphs that come above it. The "good reason" it refers to is that Banglapedia is written by scholars who are authorities on the subjects, under the editorial control of other academics, and published by a respected scholarly society. The sentence mentions the number of citations only to correct the OP's error above, and mentions how long they have been cited only to emphasize that their use as a reliable source predates their current WikiMedia-powered web presentation (which seemed to bother the OP even though the content is not user-generated). --Worldbruce (talk) 21:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
    • OK. One of the problems with Banglapedia is that it has been heavily politicised as part of the Muslim/Hindu thing that still goes on today. It is entirely possible for a group of academics to create a walled garden (think Mises Institute?) and I would much prefer to see secondary sources over something like this, regardless of which article it is being proposed for. - Sitush (talk) 21:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
      • Absolutely, bias is something to beware of with any source, but per WP:BIASED, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, only Wikipedia articles are. Also agree that Banglapedia is a tertiary source, and Wikipedia articles should be based more on secondary sources than tertiary ones, per WP:PSTS. Fortunately for us, the more controversial the topic, the more likely it is that quality secondary sources are readily available representing a diversity of viewpoints.

• Banglapedia has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Like any reliable source, they aren't always correct, but they published corrections in their second edition, and encourage readers to contact them if they notice something they believe is an error.

According to WorldCat, Banglapedia is moderately widely-held by major research libraries, which suggests that they value it as a resource. Libraries in South Asia are not well represented in WorldCat, so its view may understate global holdings. Another objective measure is that according to Google Scholar, Banglapedia articles have been cited in other reliable sources. Exactly how often is a little difficult to tell, as Google Scholar seems to treat each encyclopedia article as a separate source, but a few examples:

• Willem van Schendel (2009). A History of Bangladesh. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781316264973.
• Tope Omoniyi (2010). The Sociology of Language and Religion: Change, Conflict and Accommodation. Springer. ISBN 9780230304710.
• Ali Riaz; C. Christine Fair (2011). Political Islam and Governance in Bangladesh. Routledge. ISBN 9781136926235.
• Susan Bennett and Christie Carson (2013). Shakespeare Beyond English. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781107040557.
• Harun Rasid; Bimal Paul (2013). Climate Change in Bangladesh: Confronting Impending Disasters. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 9780739183540.

In short, Banglapedia is generally reliable for what encyclopedias are generally reliable for. If the OP wishes to follow the instructions on this page and identify specific content in a specific Wikipedia article for which Banglapedia would not be a reliable source, then particulars can be discussed. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:08, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I understand that you may be upset but you are being a tad over the top here. I wasn't talking about specific examples but general reliability of the source. "The OP" followed the instructions which have a pretty clear "if available" qualifier on them. Having outside opinions from editors who are not part of the pretty insular WP:WikiProject Bangladesh can only help. --Majora (talk) 03:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Insular:ignorant of or uninterested in cultures, ideas, or peoples outside one's own experience. Tad bit insulting is it not? You are assuming plenty here and not in good faith. Was this comment necessary?Vinegarymass911 (talk) 15:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Insular has more than one definition. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/insular --Majora (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

European Journal of American Studies

Is this [18] open access journal RS? Thanks. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't see why not. It's peer-reviewed [19]; the "official journal" of the very legit-looking European Association for American Studies [20]; has an editorial board of established scholars [21]; doesn't appear on Beall's list [22]; and is published by OpenEdition.org. – Joe (talk) 19:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I see no reason why not, as well. DOAJ says it's double-blind peer reviewed. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• Checked against my lists and sources, seem to be OK to me as well. Guy (Help!) 14:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

News24 and Nairobi News – Elizabeth Michael

Elizabeth Michael is an actress who has been convicted of manslaughter for the death of her boyfriend, actor Steven Kanumba. I've been debating with several users over the last few weeks over an assertion I added to the article that Michael admitted during her testimony in court that she did push him during an argument. (Two of them tried to remove any mention of the conviction from the article altogether! So I didn't grant them much credence, as they were clearly working to an outrageous extreme to keep negative material out of the article. My current correspondent hasn't done that.)

I sourced this claim to two apparently reliable sources. Those who've taken issue with this are insisting that these sources aren't reliable. I don't think any of them has provided alternative sources that explicitly say Michael didn't admit, during her testimony, to pushing Kanumba, only sources that don't mention her saying anything about it at all. (For what it's worth, in her statement at the time of her arrest several years before the trial, it does appear that she denied having pushed him.)

It may be that three different people just don't want to believe what these two sources wrote, or it may be that the sources are generally known to be unreliable, or it may be that they happen to be wrong in this case. I don't know, but I thought I'd present the situation for consideration here to get more opinions.

See my latest discussion about this on my talk page, User talk:Largoplazo#Wrong source. Largoplazo (talk) 15:27, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I see my inquiry has gotten no traction. In case it helps, the sources attesting her admission to having pushed him are:

• Nairobi News: http://nairobinews.nation.co.ke/chillax/bahatis-tanzanian-crush-jailed/
• News24: https://www.news24.com/Africa/News/tanzanian-movie-star-jailed-for-death-of-famous-lover-20171113

— Largoplazo (talk) 23:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

And the following are the sources from Tanzania where she is from ,that show she didn't admit to push him but rather she was convicted because she was the last person to be with him

• Mwanahalisi online Tanzania http://mwanahalisionline.com/lulu-kanumba-alijiangusha-chumbani/
• Mtanzania Newspaper (Government newspaper) http://mtanzania.co.tz/lulu-akana-kusababisha-kifo-cha-kanumba/

Candy78

Does either of these articles say "Michael never admitted to having pushed Kanumba"? By the way, the second link is broken. Largoplazo (talk) 12:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Do you understand swahili?!! Why do they have to say that"Michael admitted to having pushing Kanumba" and Michael herself didn't admit in the court ,they have reported what Michael said in the court and not what they think or guess as the source you use which are outside Tanzania that were definitely not in the court .I'll repeat this the source you use show she won ZIFF award for Foolish Age which is not true she won for Woman of Principles.It's clear they know nothing about Michael Candy78 (talk)

Do I need to explain the difference between a source saying "X didn't do Y" and a source not mentioning whether or not X did Y? The former contradicts the statement "X did Y". The latter doesn't. Largoplazo (talk) 13:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• Thank God it has reached here!. I also tried to edit by removing those sources as I know they have reported it wrong ,no where she has ever admitted to have pushed him,but when I tried to put it clear Largoplazo threatened to block me from editing so I Stopped but the truth is she has never said in the court that she pushed him

Allen Terry

• You tried to keep mention of the manslaughter out of the article altogether. Largoplazo (talk) 13:40, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• Stop lying,I removed that reference after seeing it has lied ,it say things that she hasn't said in the court ,she has never admitted such thing and one of the user have submitted some sources from her country Tanzania that shows she has never admitted . And why don't you want to accept opinions from other ,You have said three people have made doubt on that source why are you still referencing it ??!

Can I ask you?? The references you use said Michael won best actress by Foolish Age but it's wrong she won by Woman of principles the official website of ZIFF <http://www.ziff.or.tz/2013/07/07/ziff-2013-the-awards/> Do we still have to believe that source??? Allen Terry

Where did I lie? Are you claiming that someone other than you made this pair of edits completely removing any mention of her manslaughter trial from the article?

"... she has never admitted such thing and one of the user have submitted some sources from her country Tanzania that shows she has never admitted" Are you psychic?

"... one of the user have submitted some sources from her country Tanzania that shows she has never admitted": I already responded to that, and the answer is still the same: The one article doesn't show that she didn't admit to it, it only doesn't say that she did admit to it. The other article doesn't exist at the address that she provided. Further, if those articles actually said "she didn't admit to it", why would I choose to believe them instead of the sources I provided? Why would you? As for sources being from Tanzania: Is there something magical about Tanzania that makes information reported by sources in that country automatically true while information reported by sources in other countries is automatically false? Whether sources are or aren't Tanzanian sources carries no weight in this discussion.

Meanwhile, I'm seriously hoping for people who weren't involved in this discussion in the first place to participate, because getting fresh perspectives was the entire reason I posted this here. Largoplazo (talk) 17:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I come here from WP:Africa where comments were requested. I am not familiar with the sources from before, but from what I can assess News24 appear to be an acceptable source, and the particular article appears to be a AFP source which is clearly RS. Yet, not every information in a reliable source is alway accurate and relevant context may be lacking, but as a starting point information in this article should be considered reliable. But great care is always needed when writing on criminal matters concerning living persons. Iselilja (talk) 20:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

If you don't want to believe them,and you want to believe your own sources that everyone is against them why can't you let us edit that article??Because everytime one try to remove that source and write the truth you are going to undo them.I wonder what kind of person you are.. with so much hate !.and you have been provided with some evidences to show that they have mistaken it but you don't want to accept..and no where I said Tanzania sources have to be believed,what I said she was convicted in Tanzania and many sources here in Tanzania were in court compare to those sources you're using that have translated it wrong and they obviously not in the court By the way you haven't answered my question

Can I ask you?? The references you use said Michael won best actress by Foolish Age but it's wrong she won by Woman of principles the official website of ZIFF <http://www.ziff.or.tz/2013/07/07/ziff-2013-the-awards/> Do we still have to believe that source??? Allen Terry (Allen Terry)

That same article also says that Michael was "sentenced to two years in prison for involuntary manslaughter" and that "Kanumba was buried in Dar es Salaam" and that "Her lawyers have vowed to appeal the sentence." Are these statements also false just because of the misstatement about which film she won the award for at ZIFF? Further, I've supplied two sources supporting this assertion. Largoplazo (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, I object to you saying "I wonder what kind of person you are.. with so much hate !" Really? Everybody in the world who disagrees with you about something has "so much hate"? Because no one without hate would ever disagree with you? Or do you mean that I must be filled with hate because I have the nerve to have written what I found in two reliable sources and to contest its removable by people who have presented no objective, verifiable evidence that it isn't true. I strongly recommend you read WP:AGF before you again accuse anybody here of hate or anything else you have no basis for accusing them of. Largoplazo (talk) 17:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

AV productions

Is this [23] RS for information about the said artist, or in general. I can find nothing about who writes for it or its editorial policy.?Slatersteven (talk) 16:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

You might want to ask someone from Wikipedia:WikiProject Armenia about that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

If it has staff writers surely we can see that (or an editorial board)?Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

It has an about page in English[24]. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I know, that is why I am asking here, I can see nothing about who writes for them, who edits for them or inclusion criteria.Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources aren't required to publish such information. I don't ever recall seeing "inclusion criteria" for a newspaper or news magazine, for example. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

True, but thy do have a named editorial staff, and most articles have a byline. Moreover we know that most would not accept information from Joe public. The point is can see nothing which indicates they are not user generated content (for example).Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Most newspapers do accept information from Joe Public. Here are the standard terms for Joe Public (and Fred Freelancer) to submit articles to a local daily in your area. At a quick glance, the terms are that you keep the copyright, and they get to use it (or not) for free, unless you've convinced them to pay you before you submit it.

It's true that newspapers generally name their editorial staff, and that most feature-length articles have a byline. (By sheer volume, most articles don't have bylines, as most articles are just two or three sentences that tell you that a local business has changed hands, or that there will be a meeting of the Ladies' Auxiliary on Tuesday, or things like that.) However, naming the editors and authors isn't a requirement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• I have to say this does not pass the sniff test. It looks more like a blog than a news site. Guy (Help!) 16:21, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Profiles of historical personnel from Kasetsart University website

Hi. I'd like to ask about the following source, which was added to Pao Pienlert Boripanyutakit as a general reference and removed by User:Chris troutman (Note that I've added some details to the citation):

• Kasetsart University Archives. พลเอก เภาเพียรเลิศ บริภัณฑ์ยุทธกิจ [General Phao Phienloet Boriphanyutthakit]. ฐานข้อมูลบูรพาจารย์มหาวิทยาลัยเกษตรศาสตร์ (Database of Historical Personnel of Kasetsart University). Kasetsart University Archives. Retrieved 15 February 2018.

It's a website published by the Kasetsart University Archives, a department of the Office of the President, Kasetsart University. The site provides profiles of some of the university's distinguished personnel, as part of celebrations of the university's sixtieth anniversary. According to the introduction page, some of the material was taken from the following book:

• ปวิณ ปุณศรี; บุญธรรม จิตต์อนันต์; สมเพียร เกษมทรัพย์; วิทวัส บัวจันทร์; สุราษฎร์ กุฎอินทร์ (2003). เกษตรปูชนีย์ 60 ปี มหาวิทยาลัยเกษตรศาสตร์ (2 กุมภาพันธ์ พ.ศ. 2486-2 กุมภาพันธ์ 2546) [Kaset Puchani: 60th Anniversary, Kasetsart University (2 February 1943 - 2 February 2003)]. Bangkok: Kasetsart University. ISBN 974-537-419-9.

And some original material was added to make the website. (The subject was a former President of the University Council, in case you're wondering.)

I have tried to explain some of this, and asked why Chris troutman thinks the site is not a reliable source at Talk:Pao Pienlert Boripanyutakit#archives.psd.ku.ac.th, but we've so far failed to come to a conclusion. His arguments from the talk page and in edit summaries are:

• "source fails WP:SPS; this looks like private work hosted on a university server, there's no editorial review"
• "... it fails WP:RS. It's not published. I don't see any signs of editorial review. This isn't an academic paper; it's just junk hosted on a university server." (To which I pointed out that no one claimed it to be an academic paper.)
• "It's online. I don't think it passes RS. Just because someone is hosting content online (especially some web archive) does not mean that the information contained therein is reliable or correct." And
• "It's not that the university as an institution is a problem. The webpage you want to use looks like some student's writings being hosted on the university server."

I don't know if he reads Thai, but I do and can provide further info and/or translations if needed. We'd like some third opinions on this. Thanks in advance. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The problem (as I see it) is we do not know who write this (or how much of it is sourced). I agree this does look like just some material hosted on the university site.Slatersteven (talk) 16:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The authorship credit here would of course be institutional, i.e. the Kasetsart University Archives. (I've modified the above citation accordingly.) For comparison, White House briefings such as this don't appear with a byline either. Yet I'm sure we won't have problems citing such material as coming from the White House. So what exactly is the problem here? I realise the website's appearance does appear quite dated (which is to be expected, given that it's probably over a decade old), but I don't think there's any valid basis to dismiss the content as "just some material hosted on the university site." At least not when the above detailed explanation to the contrary had been provided, unless you're implying that I'm lying? --Paul_012 (talk) 17:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that it was not an official communique from the university, but an archive of a page whose provenance we are not aware of.Slatersteven (talk) 17:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry if I did not explain this clearly enough. This is not an archival website. That is not an archive of a webpage. The entire site is an official publication by an institution which is named the "Kasetsart University Archive", which is the department of the university that works with documenting the history of the university itself. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

To start with the most obviously wrong objection, this material is certainly WP:Published. The definition for that word, given at WP:V itself, is: Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form". If it's on a website, and if such members of the general public as Wikipedia editors can see it there, then it is definitely "published" as far as we're concerned.

User:Slatersteven, please go to the webpage and find the yellow box at the bottom, so you can see that there is actually a specific source named for the content. Make sure that you have Javascript enabled if you want to see the photo; you can use machine translation to get a rough idea of what แหล่งข้อมูล means, but I'll give you a hint: the word appears 73 times in the Thai Wikipedia's policy on verifiability, 38 times in their version of WP:CITE, and is a section heading in tens of thousands of articles there. So even if it were a rule that reliable sources have to list their sources – and it's not – this one actually is listing its main source for that biographical sketch.

User:Chris troutman, can you explain what made you think that this part of the website for the university's archives department "looks like some student's writings"? There are about 100 such bios on that site (see the dropdown menu on the left), and it seems to me rather unlikely that "just some student's writings" would encompass writing a hundred biographies of notable alumni, some with historical photographs and all with a source.

IMO this is a reliable source, especially for such limited use as a Wikipedia:General references. (@Bearcat:, I see that you are the most recent editor to comment at the AFD for this article, and you have some experience with these things. Do you have any views on this particular source?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:16, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

To be honest, that site is a little bit difficult for me to really evaluate all that well. Because I can't read Thai, all I can really do is a sloppy machine translation via Google Translate — so I can extract the basic gist of what it's trying to say, but can't really give an honest evaluation of whether it was well written Thai or not. That said, I don't really see any obvious red flags that would exclude it from being used as a reference. Technically speaking it's a primary source rather than a fully independent one, so it wouldn't be a source that could carry him over GNG if his association with the university were itself the crux of the notability claim — but his main notability claim is actually the already-verified fact that he served as a cabinet minister in the government, so this source is perfectly fine for some verification of facts as long as nobody thinks it's the only new source we need to find. We are allowed to use primary and affiliated sources for some verification of facts, as long as the article isn't relying exclusively on primary and affiliated sources. So basically, I don't see a reason to nuke it — as long as there are some more book and media sources forthcoming, it looks fine to me. Bearcat (talk) 05:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean independent. I think you meant that it's an affiliated source. (It's not likely to be a primary source, strictly defined, because it's based on some other work – it looks like a military-related source in this case.) I agree that it's not an obvious indicator of notability on its own, although its existence and cited source does suggest that such sources are likely to exist elsewhere. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I think the critical question is whether we can be confident that the web page in question can be shown to be the official university website for the department. So if you can show that, for example, the main uni website links to the website, that would show that they are aware of it and endorse it. Similarly if it can be shown that the webpage is considered by the department as part of its corporate content, that's fine. Incidentally, being mentioend as an alumnus or ex-employee by a university does not contribute to GNG.Martinlc (talk) 16:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: First, the machine translation may not do the source material justice, so I can't comment on that aspect. My concern is that it remains unclear who did this work, why, and what sort of publication process happened. The website generally appears to be the work of university librarians archiving old web material, so I don't know who wrote this stuff or from what department it came. The design of the website does look years old so it's possible no one knows. It's unclear what the source material is because, again, the machine translation doesn't explicate that. Paul's misleading argument is that because the material is on the university's website then it must be an official publication, but he forgets that universities (especially in the past) made available server space for professors and students. While some busybody librarians have sucked this material into their archives there's no provenance and I doubt there was ever any serious fact-checking or editorial review. If anything, Paul would do well to cite the book or other offline document this write-up was based upon. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I have found the link to the "first page" (home page) in the upper left: http://archives.psd.ku.ac.th/kuout/p001.html It appears to explain the provenance quite well. The author's name appears to have be given along with the year of 1944 (2487 in the local calendar). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

(E/C) Martinlc, That is easy to demonstrate. Visit the university website at http://www.ku.ac.th , and wait for the splash page to redirect to the main menu. Click the Union Flag at the top right corner to change the language. Locate the "About KU" Menu, and click "History". Now change the language back to Thai, as the link isn't included in the English version. Scroll down, and you'll find three rectangular banner links. The top-right one links directly to the site we're discussing. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Chris troutman, regarding citing the original source, that would of course be the optimal solution, but since we don't have access to the book we can only cite what we can access. I understand your reservations about the nature of the site, since you don't read the language. But I have repeatedly tried to explain that the site does explicitly say that it is the original work of the librarians, not information copied from some other site. I am familiar with the university's domain hosting personal space, and have confirmed that this is not such a case. (In fact, for Kasetsart University, such hosting happens on the subdomain pirun.ku.ac.th .) Since you clearly don't belief what I'm saying, though, I don't know what else there is I can do. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: You are mistaken. The name and date refer to the poet that wrote those lines at the top. 1944 cannot be the year the material is written because the subject of the webpage in question wasn't president of the university council until 1951. The page you're pointing to indicates that this material was written up for the celebration of the ag school's 60th anniversary (in around our year 2003). We still have no definite author and no proof there was any fact-checking done, although it appears it was done at the university's behest. I'm not giving any authority to this amateurish effort. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say that it was the date of the work. I assume that it's either the author's birthdate, in which case she would have been 59 when the book was written, or the year that she graduated from the university, in which case she would have been quite elderly.

But if you read the text below her name, it says that the material came from a book published by the university in 2003. We do not need the actual name of the individual human(s) who wrote it to know that a book published by the university for its 60th anniversary was not "just some student's work".

I'm still trying to figure out what your basis is for declaring this to be the work of amateurs. Are you reacting to the halo effect of the simple web page formatting? I gather that you don't read Thai, so you can't be commenting on the writing style. So what is your basis for declaring it to be an amateur's work? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Clarification: ท่านผู้หญิงดุษฎีมาลา มาลากุล isn't the author of the website. She's just being attributed for the quoted poem at the beginning. The site is attributed to the University Archives itself, with no individual authors named. I have given the names of the authors of the book in the {{cite book}} template in the second bullet point of my initial post. But it's unclear how much further editing had taken place in transferring the contents of the book to the website. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I found the scan of letter [25] (from director of university archive to dean of Veterinary Technology asking for participation) with details of a press release event on 27 May 2009 and a seminar on 28 May 2009 to debut this online archive [26]. Both events was held in the university main auditorium. The opening speech for the press release was by the chancellor of university.

For the 60th anniversary book, this link from university library website lists the authors for the book: [27] --Lerdsuwa (talk) 11:23, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

USA Today article on a book

I'd like to know if this news article is reliable to determine notability of the article The Spark: A Mother's Story of Nurturing Genius specifically with the criteria of WP:NBOOKS. Weddle, Eric (April 8, 2013). "Boy genius' celebrity grows with new book, movie deal". USA Today. --Prisencolin (talk) 00:31, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Please follow the instructions above: "please be sure to include the following information, if available: Links, Source. Article, Content." Certainly USA Today is a reliable source for what is published in USA Today. It may also be reliable for other things, but you have to specify what. TFD (talk) 02:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: the edit warning box suggests using a particular format but I've revised the first post to be more understandable.--Prisencolin (talk) 05:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

This isn’t the place for this question, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Spark: A Mother's Story of Nurturing Genius is. --Calton | Talk 09:09, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Multiple sources are needed for notability. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Now that you have changed your post, it is not, as Calton says, an issue for this notice board. But to answer your question, the Emir is right that multiple sources are required to estaablish notability. Whether or not this article helps to establish notability is best discussed in the AfD. TFD (talk) 18:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Fox News reliability RfC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Following on the discussion above (permalink), the following is proposed, as the community stance on Fox News as a source, generally. Within this, as always, each specific use to support specific content must be evaluated in light of the content policies.

Fox News is generally as reliable as CNN, NBC, and ABC for mundane facts unrelated to politics, but is deprecated for political subjects. Therefore it should be used with caution regarding politics and its opinions clearly attributed.

--Jytdog (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

RfC !votes

• Strong oppose this was already discussed ad nauseum above. Fox News is as reliable as CNN, NBC, NYT, etc. And don't waste your time badgering/bludgeoning me with the "false equivalence" assertions already made the above thread. I have no interest in such wikilawyering. Lepricavark (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
• Strong support Fox News is a right-wing outlet, proudly so, and this affects not only its commentary but its news programming, in terms of selectively self-censoring news for political reasons. See, for example, "'I want to quit': Fox News employees say their network's Russia coverage was 'an embarrassment'", by Oliver Darcy, CNN, October 31, 2017. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per previous discussion on this Darkness Shines (talk) 18:14, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Although I agree that Fox News should be used with caution regarding political topics and opinion, the same could be said for many other media outlets. Fox shouldn't be singled out this way. Edgeweyes (talk) 18:19, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
• support Fox is equivalent to RT. Treating it like legitimate sources is corrosive. Jytdog (talk) 18:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Terrible idea. Deprecate all right-leaning news outlets AND all left-leaning news outlets, or deprecate none of them. TimBuck2 (talk) 18:46, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
• support But with the caveat (as I have said more then once) that in truth this should be applied to all news outlets that allow opinion to masquerade as news. We have to start somewhere, and it seems to be Fox is as good a place to start. I really think it is time to stop using scandal rags and political mouthpieces as sources.Slatersteven (talk) 19:00, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support, obviously, but in the certain knowledge that in the current partisan environment this will probably not achieve consensus, because for some, to say that Fox is not RS is tantamount to saying that right-wing opinion is de facto incorrect - that's not at all what we're saying, but it's how the tribal media have led people to see it. Guy (Help!) 20:44, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
• oppose. This is a remarkably simple-minded approach to a complex problem. News sources of every type should be thoughtfully evaluated on a case by case basis. Deli nk (talk) 20:51, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose The caveat likely should apply to every remotely controversial topic by any source, in fact. That some editors might loathe a source is insufficient for supporting this RfC, alas. Collect (talk) 21:51, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Jytdog summarized the evidence against Fox below. It's not very conclusive. --GRuban (talk) 22:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC) (UTC)
• Oppose Fox isn't much worse than other mainstream sources, and certainly not on the level of the DM and other prohibited sources. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 23:33, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC discussion

• I don't have time to read through previous discussions. Can someone(s) who supports the proposal please put forward their best, most concise explanation for it? I'm particularly interested in links to reliable, fairly recent analyses that evaluate Fox News' reliability for themselves, perhaps discussing recent mistakes and how the newsroom responded to them. The ideal source would be something from Columbia Journalism Review or similar caliber. I'm not interested in learning more about the bias of Fox News' opinion programming, of its news headlines, of its website layout, or of its coverage decisions. News reporting content only. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:31, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure "mistakes" is the issue; all sources occasionally make mistakes, and even The New York Times runs corrections often (usually of very small stuff such a name spelling). The issue is bias in the news reporting, as I mention (with a link) above. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:46, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes (and thank you for the link, btw) but you see, the complaints in that article were about opinion programming and news coverage, not about news content. If anything the article suggests that Fox News reporters are getting it right, but that their stories are getting demoted and ignored by the talking heads and headline writers. The article is also only about coverage of the Mueller investigation, which is much narrower than the proposal. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

User:DrFleischman,

I would offer you the obituary of Roger Ailes who established the fundamental "messaging" of Fox News: "'If we look conservative,' he said, 'it’s because the other guys are so far to the left.' In his mordant humor, CNN stood for Clinton News Network and CBS for Communist Broadcasting System. What Fox News did, he said, was apply a necessary corrective." This is, by all reasonable accounts, a huge lie and a corrosive poison injected into the body politic of America, that rendered the world "truthy". And this NYT profile, "He implicitly injected the news with politics — and set Fox to the right of its rivals — even as he professed to be doing the opposite."

User:BullRangifer had posted the following above:

1. Their American politics reporting is very GOP biased.

   They aren't quite as close to center as CNN is on the left, but more like MSNBC is to the left. Pew Research Center is good on this. (Play with this.) They often literally won't mention basic political facts and news stories which are counter to their own GOP POV, and when they are finally forced to do it, it's with very heavy spin.

   My wife, who isn't political at all, will sometimes switch back and forth between CNN, ABC, MSNBC, and Fox, just to see how all MSM are discussing stories, but Fox is discussing some minor event of no significance, and often it's a distraction. She points it out.

   They refuse to cover stories against their POV, and then only with spin that turns it into actual falsehood and propaganda. Sins of omission have consequences. Good propaganda is often without direct lies, but by omitting certain information the effect is very deceptive.

2. Their fact checking is weak, and correction of publicly noted errors is slow, and usually without apology. There are many well-known examples of this. Seth Rich is one we have mentioned. Another one that's current is related to Peter Strzok#Fox News coverage.

   This means they are literally fact checked by other MSM, which forces them to finally make a correction as the caboose, way behind on the train of facts.

   When they have a GOP talking point or POV to push, they are like a bulldog that won't let go. It blinds them so their bias is very obvious to anyone who compares news coverage, and they have occasionally repeated fake news from the extreme right.

   The pathway from Russia to Fox News has been described by Paul Wood:

   "This is a three-headed operation," said one former official, setting out the case, based on the intelligence: Firstly, hackers steal damaging emails from senior Democrats. Secondly, the stories based on this hacked information appear on Twitter and Facebook, posted by thousands of automated "bots", then on Russia's English-language outlets, RT and Sputnik, then right-wing US "news" sites such as Infowars and Breitbart, then Fox and the mainstream media. Thirdly, Russia downloads the online voter rolls." Source

   Note that Fox picks up a few of the fake news stories, but by that time the MSM is aware not to do it.

3. Fact checkers have rated their accuracy last among the major MSM.

   This is directly related to this RS policy. It has to be weighted heavily against them.

   1. Fox's file at PolitiFact

   2. Comparison of MSM at PolitiFact.

   3. Snopes

   4. Fox least trusted in 2014. Pew Research Center

   5. Fox News Pounded In Ratings As Truth Mounts a Surprising Comeback, Newsweek

-- Jytdog (talk) 20:47, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the links Jytdog, they quantify what the issues actually are, beyond the rhetoric. Unfortunately, the Newsweek article is strictly an opinion piece, no facts. The Snopes link isn't actually to an article? The Pew and PolitiFact links are actually useful, but don't show a clear line between Fox and the others. Pew says Fox is trusted by 44% of respondents and CBS by 46%, I'd hate to rule we don't trust Fox over such a small difference. While PolitiFact says 60% of statements from Fox are Mostly False or worse, which is terrible, but it also says NBC's statements are 44% Mostly False or worse, which isn't much better - I wouldn't consider treating a source which gets 44% of its statements wrong as a reliable source. I can only assume that means PolitiFact aren't differentiating between news and opinion statements, surely 44% of the news reported on NBC isn't wrong. But in this case it may well just mean that Fox has more opinion commentators, not that its news coverage is inherently less trustworthy. I don't watch a lot of TV, but understand Fox is actually famous for having lots of shows dedicated to commentators, correct? So if this is the best evidence against Fox being like most of the other American mainstream media outlets, it's not conclusive. --GRuban (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

As I already pointed out above in the discussion, 'Politifact' is not useful as a comparison to other sources or even representative of the true distribution for any one source (it is actually useless as a judge of anything but each individual claim itself). It is not random sourced, but rather a representation of submitted inquiries that they then look into. No system like this can ever result in a representation of the true picture. Saying "PolitiFact says 60% of statements from Fox are Mostly False or worse" is complete BS, because you should be saying is: "PolitiFact says 60% of statements from Fox selected for investigation by our viewers and that we bothered to looked into are Mostly False or worse". If most of those statements it checks are stuff that people flagged because they thought it was false (a very safe bet), then the statement is actually closer to "PolitiFact says 60% of statements from Fox that people thought were false were Mostly False or worse" which of course is meaningless to judge the actual reliability of all statements from Fox. Could I skew the numbers by requesting them to look into 100 random statements that appeared very true? Sure, but would they bother reporting on the truth of obviously true statements? Probably not, which is another clear reason why bias shows up in this kind of system. Politifact is USELESS for the purpose you are trying to put it to. Please stop. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 23:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

This RfC is getting ambiguous responses because it raises two separate issues with one yes or no question. We need to solicit editor opinions separately on political and non-political content. From the comments it appears that editors are Opposing this not because they feel Fox is RS for politics but because they feel it is not RS for anything at all. It's a nuisance, but I suggest restarting this with two separate questions. SPECIFICO talk 22:57, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

• I agree. Guy (Help!) 23:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
• I pulled this. Somebody else can pose something else if they like. Jytdog (talk) 23:39, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

FYI... I would oppose on any RFC that singled Fox out... but I would support a statement cautioning readers about political coverage on ALL media outlets. We can set harsher reliability criteria if we want... but we have to be even handed about it, and apply whatever criteria we come up with to all news outlets. Blueboar (talk) 01:30, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

That is a rather foolish position. You would put the political coverage of Fox on a par with the Washington Post? Fox was founded by a Nixon adviser who thought the real problem with Watergate was the Washington Post. The two are very much not equivalent. Obviously all media has an editorial line, but the problem with fox is that the editorial line interferes with news reporting (as it does witht he Daily Mail, for example), in a way that reputable news organisations try to avoid. Guy (Help!) 16:51, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, no one has provided the type of source I requested. All of the sources provided fail in one way or another to address the central issue of whether Fox News' news reporting is reliable. I am not saying that Fox News is reliable. I am saying that editors are talking past each other, and since the "unreliable" camp has a very heavy burden here, unless editors start listening to and responding to the other side, there is virtually zero chance we will see any sort of blanket ban, even a partial one. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:36, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• No one is seeking "any sort of blanket ban, even a partial one." Deprecation is not a blanket ban, but a limitation, in this case regarding "politics" and "use with caution". That's it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• If we've discussed this before...and the discussion was closed, then had the RFC withdrawn, what exactly do we think will change in this discussion? Shouldn't this have closed with the RFC? Niteshift36 (talk) 14:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

As this has now been withdrawn why is it still being argued over?Slatersteven (talk) 14:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Fine with me. Hat or archive it. Whatever works. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

comment Honestly, as I was trying to suggest before, the reliability of a source (like fox) that is generally reliable should be reviewed case by case.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• i left this open to see if there were ideas about how to reframe the RfC. I don't agree that any of the opposes were because people were saying Fox is unreliable for anything -- all of them are clearly opposing the deprecation. I still kinda think a multi-option RfC would provide a better sense of the community consensus.... Jytdog (talk) 05:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
• I was looking for the chart of common media sources byy bias and found it again today: http://www.allgeneralizationsarefalse.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Media-Bias-Chart_Version-3.1_Watermark-min.jpg Guy (Help!) 20:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Well that seems super-well researched and reliable. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
    • ...but even if you accept that "mediabiaschartgmail.com" is a reliable source, it only lists one particular Fox News show. There is more to Fox News than just The Daily Wire program. It is not unreasonable to think that Fox News could be reliable for "Olympic snowboarder breaks neck after fall in competition" but not as desirable a source for "ABC News, Joy Behar slammed for Mike Pence joke" (both current headlines for Fox News, according to my search engine). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, The Daily Wire is Ben Shapiro's extremist website. The listing is not referring to a Fox program. Fox News is included as itself, without reference to any of its programs, such as Fox and Friends. That would have ended up in the bottom right corner as Putin's echo chamber. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting it as an article source, but the woman who runs that site analyses massive quantities of claims line by line. It's written by a practising attorney, and she publishes her methodology: http://www.allgeneralizationsarefalse.com/methodology-posts/. And anyone who doesn't think Fox News is biased is frankly delusional - even if it is presenting a neutral depiction of a kitten being rescued from a tree, the chiron will be telling you about how the Florida shooter was a communist who followed ISIS. CNN is biased too, but their balance of news to punditry is better and they seem to at least care about factual accuracy rather than ideological truth. Gotta feel for Shep Smith though - his segments are starting to look like hostage videos. Guy (Help!) 16:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and I knew I'd read this, so went back and dredged it up. CJR describes perfectly the specific and unique problem with Fox.

Stewart suggested that Fox’s tendency to mislabel opinion as news is what differentiates the network from other, more traditional news sources. But that’s the least of it. The more important distinction is the conservative slant and essential inaccuracy of much of Fox’s news reporting itself. Stewart conceded Baier’s premise that because Fox has reporters stationed in Middle Eastern hot spots their reporting on world affairs is above reproach. It is not.

Emphasis mine, to distinguish CJR's view from Stewart's. This isn't FAIR or some other politically activist media watchdog, CJR is a serious source. Guy (Help!) 16:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not likely to use any television program as a source (since I have no television and therefore never see their promotional ticker stream), but I don't think we can or should ban it. For one thing, WP:BIASED sources are explicitly permitted: e.g., "Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context". For another thing, when it is inaccurate, it should be possible to exclude it on grounds of WP:DUE. This would be the case, e.g., when most sources say X and a Fox News program says Y. I don't see it as being fundamentally different from any other news source, except that we are much more likely, upon close examination, to reject the source because an alleged news article is partly an opinion piece masquerading as news and/or doesn't represent a mainstream/consensus position on the facts in question. I see it as a problem of degree, not of type. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, you write: "can or should ban it". No one is seeking a ban, but a "use with caution" for politics deprecation. That's all. Fox News is different enough for real news sources to warrant such a deprecation. No ban is being sought. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• In regard to American politics, and foreign events connected to American politics, Fox New is a central and integral part of the right-wing echo chamber. It is totally unreliable in those contexts, and for anything else which the right fights over, such as climate change. I would only recommend using Fox News as a source for the most mundane of facts, in which case there will almost always be better and more reliable source which can be used instead. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

While there's no question there's a right-wing echo chamber of which many of Fox's commentators fall within, there's just as much of one from the left. There are very few sources today that attempt any type of neutral play on politics without any bias. Doesn't make these unreliable when they talk straight-up news, but when we look towards their editorial content, it can be difficult to see wholly original thoughts amid the opinions that bounce around that echo chamber and equate that with UNDUE/WEIGHT. It's all more towards why we should not be writing in as much detail about ongoing political topics per RECENTISM, at least when it comes to reactions and analysis, and wait for the dust to settle when people will be writing about the situation with more level heads. It's easy to pick on Fox for this because they have very few other RSes that share that echo chamber (Brietbart, etc. not being RSes) and make them look standout compared to all other sources, but we have to recognize that there's a bit of echo-chamber those other sources share too. --Masem (t) 14:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Political bias is no reason to exclude a source of OPINION, but that bias is call for concern when the "news" source which called itself "Fair and Balanced" for so many years (now the pretense is gone) consistently ignores facts it doesn't like, or, when it does mention them, it alters and twists those facts to the point where the result is propaganda. That's not a NEWS channel, but a propaganda channel in the "entertainment" division of Fox Entertainment Group. That was the purpose for its creation by Roger Ailes. He was the media consultant for multiple GOP presidents and the RNC, and wanted an unofficial channel for the GOP. He allied himself with Rupert Murdoch, an enemy of democracy, and created his dream. It's not a normal news channel, but a GOP propaganda network.

We must recognize these differences and deprecate it with a "use with caution for politics" label. This is not a ban. It can still be used for mundane facts. In those cases, it doesn't mix, without mention, its political spin/opinions with the news. It can state such facts perfectly well. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Website from IITG/RCILTS

1. Source: [28]
2. Article: Kamrupi dialect
3. Content: [29], [30]

The above changes are challenged by @Bhaskarbhagawati: and so I would like to solicit opinions on the reliability of the source listed above. The website claims that Kamrupi is not one but a group of dialects. The exact quote is follows:

Several regional dialects are typically recognized. These dialects vary primarily with respect to phonology and morphology. A high degree of mutual intelligibility is enjoyed among the dialects. Banikanta Kakati has divided the Assamese dialects into two major groups. They are:

However, recent studies have shown that there are four dialect groups, listed below from east to west:

1. Eastern group spoken in and other districts around Sibsagar district.
2. Central group spoken in present Nagaon district and adjoining areas.
3. Kamrupi group spoken in undivided Kamrup, Nalbari, Barpeta, Darrang, Kokrajhar and Bongaigaon.
4. Goalparia group spoken in Goalpara, Dhubri, Kokrajhar and Bongaigaon districts

This website and the text itself is quoted/referenced in a conference proceeding&mdhas;Nath et. al. "A Preliminary Study on the VOT Patterns of the Assamese Language and Its Nalbaria Variety", p543. The senior author of this article is a lead researcher in a different institute (Tezpur University). Some of the recent research has been on a number of Kamrupi dialects: Barpetia dialect, Nalbariya dialect, etc. For example, the PhD thesis on Barpetia dialect—[31]—was submitted to the Gauhati University. Some more discussion is listed here: Talk:Kamrupi dialect#Kamrupi dialect -> Kamrupi dialects

I believe it is fairly established that Kamrupi is a group of dialects, and not a single dialect all by itself as it has been accepted by the linguistic community. I seek the help of this noticeboard in establishing the reliability of the source, or failing which the recommendation of any other source. Thanks.

Chaipau (talk) 07:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

The source mentioned above was written as tourist brochure many years ago. The references it provided itself are less reliable, none was written by any noted linguist or deals primarily on subject. Dr.Upendranath Goswami, a pioneer linguist wrote various works on 'Kamrupi language' including his Phd thesis which later published as book in 1970 as 'A Study on Kamrupi', besides he wrote dedicated works on Assamese language, Deori language etc. Nonetheless, his prime focus was Kamrupi language, ascertained by numbers of works, listed in the 'Kamrupi dialect' article. So, i believe this article should follow works of experts rather than lax sources, when there is content dispute.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 09:58, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I do not believe argument to authority applies in Linguistics. Goswami's work, published in 1970, is 48 years old, and much work has happened since then. If Goswami's work can extend Kakati's work (Kakati identified two Assamese dialects - Western and Eastern), then later Linguists can extend Goswami's work as well. Chaipau (talk) 19:40, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

You have misrepresented a few things above.

• U N Goswami did not work on a 'Kamrupi language' but on the Kamrupi dialect. The title of his thesis (1958) was A Study on Kamrupi, a Dialect of Assamese. [32]
• Goswami himself pointed out the three different varieties of Kamrupi. In page xxv he writes: "These dialectical varieties can be grouped into three divisions..." [33] Thus, the RCILTS website restates Goswami.

Therefore, the RCILTS and the recent works on dialects are extensions of Goswami's work.

Chaipau (talk) 10:47, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I would like to invite some editors who have participated in Assamese language and Kamrupi dialect article and talk pages to this discussion: @SameerKhan:, @Tuncrypt:, @Aeusoes1:, kindly contribute to this thread. Chaipau (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm all for finding more recent research, but I don't think this particular source does a good job of establishing the authority needed. It's a tertiary source and, although it's missing inline citations, presumably the sources it cites can be used to confirm the results of more recent research (and, if needed, any sources the source's sources cite). Someone's got to do the hard work of finding where the above source got its information and then we can use that to back up our edits.

That said, I don't see much reason to doubt the source's information. Bhaskarbhagawati says that the sources cited aren't by "noted" linguists, which is so completely arbitrary and subjective a measure as to be meaningless. If the sources are linguistic ones, we can use them. If the sources are sufficiently academic and back up linguistic claims with linguistic sources, we can use them. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 20:02, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

This is precisely my problem—and the reason for the request for RS comments on the website. We know who delineated the Eastern and Western dialects of the Assamese language (Kakati); who divided the Eastern dialect into Eastern and Central (G C Goswami); and who defined the Kamrupi dialect and thus divided the Western dialect (U N Goswami). But I see no single work that states that Kamrupi is actually a group of similar dialects. Instead I see many works (PhD thesis, conference papers, posters, journal papers etc.) on individual dialects of Kamrupi: Barpetia dialect, Nalbaria, South Kamrupi etc. All these works implicitly assume that Kamrupi is indeed a group of different dialects. The only reference I have seen that states this situation explicitly is the RCILTS website, which in fact, gets cited in academic papers as well (link above).

Chaipau (talk) 23:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

It is a case of WP:WEIGHT, there is no serious research done on the subject after Goswami (1970), we can find few casual references here and there.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 12:03, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

That is a remarkable statement. Though Goswami published his thesis in 1970, he had submitted it in 1958. The claim that no serious work has happened in this area in the last 60 years is untrue. Chaipau (talk) 00:02, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I accept aeusoes1 (talk · contribs)'s comment that the website's information is correct (that the Kamrupi dialect is a group of dialects), but that we need better sourced references. Chaipau (talk) 08:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, aeusoes1 is party in various disputes on the subject.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 17:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

It is OK for you to not agree with others. But that does not mean you have veto powers on Wikipedia. Chaipau (talk) 04:00, 18 February 2018

(UTC)

I take it as WP:CAN.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 11:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Not true. I have requested WP:RFC from all those who have contributed to related subjects. Chaipau (talk) 12:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Reliabilty of source can be ascertained by anyone active in noticeboard.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 22:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Salon Newspaper an Opinion website ?

Hello in the actual Wikipedia article about Salon newspaper it states in the opening line that Salon is a "News and Opinion website". Salon_(website)

If this particular website is half just opinion - why are Salon articles counted as a reliable source in quite a few Wikipedia articles? That is especially taking into account the very trashy and grotesque language that is obviously acceptable.

Has anyone looked into the opinion versus news dichotomy, in terms of accepting Salon articles as proper encyclopedia references of fact?

Thank you for your time. Maryanne881 (talk) 22:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

It has multiple editorial staff [34] as well as a dedicated corrections page [35]. I have not fully looked into the dichotomy of the two sections though. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Maryanne881, some of their articles are news stories, and some of them are opinion pieces. You may cite the news articles for facts (just like you would cite your local newspaper, which also contains opinion pieces), and you may cite the opinion pieces for facts about the opinion being presented (e.g., "Rita Reviewer wrote that the movie was fantastic"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• It's very context dependent. Salon has a pronounced leftward editorial bias, but its reporting of science can be very good indeed. Guy (Help!) 16:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with Guy and WhatamIdoing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• News and opinion means that it has both news and opinion sections (and the two are clearly delimited.) The news sections are citable as news (its editorial slant should sometimes be taken as context, but isn't itself something disqualifying under WP:RS - see WP:BIASED), and the opinion section is citable as an opinion under the usual WP:RSOPINION rules. --Aquillion (talk) 05:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Can the Toronto Sun be used as a citation in Wikipedia?

User T****** wrote that the Toronto Sun is an unreliable citation. I looked in Wikipedia article, Toronto Sun, and it doesn't confirm this. Is the Toronto Sun, which appears to be a major newspaper of Toronto ok to use as a citation in Wikipedia? Vanguard10 (talk) 22:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

For context, here [36] is the post in question. Wikipedia:QUESTIONABLE would exclude most North American tabloids as they have a reputation for the opposite of fact-checking. WP:BLP requires the highest quality sources for claims about living persons. Unless and until there's a consensus that the Toronto Sun is a rare exception to the unreliability of tabloids, you should avoid citing it for details about living people. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:52, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Copy-pasted from elsewhere: The Toronto Sun certainly is one of the least reliable "newspaper" in Canada, and is modeled after The Sun of the UK. It's a tabloid, not a serious source of news. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

It's edging on a tabloid; I would avoid it for any BLP related issues (like this), unless they are the principle source and information corroborated with them and/or their coverage becomes central to the story at hand. --Masem (t) 23:29, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

In this case, the Toronto Sun clears him. So it fixes BLP issues. Still, I don't know this Patrick Brown politician so I don't really want to edit the article after this current issue settles. Vanguard10 (talk) 23:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

If this is about the Patrick Brown scandal, you want this the absolute best sources for this stuff, not tabloids. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

It is really a BLP violation if Wikipedia is biased either way. If there is only mention of allegations then it makes Wikipedia a hit piece. If it is all positive, then it can make Wikipedia like a propaganda piece. It's important that anything be covered as neutrally and comprehensively as possible. Otherwise, nothing should be covered. I have fixed it to be neutral. There is no mention of the Toronto Sun in the text of the article. Only the fact that Brown took a lie detector, which is not disputed by anyone or any source. Thanks for the analysis. Vanguard10 (talk) 23:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

No, that's not how BLP works. BLP raises the bar for any sources about living persons, especially negative statements. That doesn't mean that the bar is set lower than usual for positive statements. Like, we generally wouldn't accept a tabloid's claims about non-living individuals either, because tabloids have an earned and well-known reputation for being unreliable. Neutrality does not mean that we're under any obligation to create an artificial balance that isn't present in reliable sources -- see WP:GEVAL. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

For example, if a tabloid reported that someone used their fourteen inch penis and incredible lovemaking prowess to raise enough money for charity to cure cancer, we still need a better source than that, even if it was somehow true. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Even if a tabloid did an article about a death mask of Pope Alexander VI, we still would need a better source -- even though it's about an object that happens to look like a person who has been dead for centuries. Tabloids are not real news, and this should not be news to you. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

What Wikipedia and we should do is to make a list of unacceptable sources. I didn't know the Toronto Sun was unacceptable until now. How about newspapers from countries with dictatorships? Should both left wing MSNBC and right wing Fox News be on a list of banned sources? Or, for now, just keep it to the Toronto Sun? I don't ever intend to use the Toronto Sun again as a Wikipedia citation. Vanguard10 (talk) 00:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

You're missing the point. It's been common knowledge that tabloids are not real news but sensationalist pablum for years. I've known not to trust tabloids since I was in elementary school, back in the Clinton administration, well before Wikipedia was a thing. We already have policies and guidelines that make it clear that professional, mainstream sources with a reputation for factchecking are what we want. There are more news sources and more fake news sources than you realize, so creating a set list for users who somehow don't know that tabloids are not real news would be a pointless waste of time. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Its news reporting is reliable. Note it is a member of the National Newsmedia Council, which investigates complaints of inaccurate reporting and The Sun is owned by the Postmedia Network, which owns broadsheet, tabloid and local newspapers. The paper was founded by staff from the broadsheet Toronto Telegram after that paper closed and chose the tabloid format for the convenience of its largely blue collar readers who read it on the bus to work. I note that there are no complaints about it on the Council website. The website says, "Journalistic standards require a news story to be factually accurate, including identification of individuals and quotes. The article should acknowledge the ‘other side’ of a case, and allow opportunity for response."[37] That fully meets the requirements of a reliable source. TFD (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

This is not news reporting, though, it's scandalmongering. Guy (Help!) 12:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Question about songkeybpm.com

Hello everyone! I was looking for sources for the "My Man" (Tamar Braxton song) article, specifically to add information on the song's composition. Would I be able to use the following site (songkeybpm.com) to cite the key and beats per minute? Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 02:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like it. There's no evidence it is authoritative. Guy (Help!) 12:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• Makes sense, thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 15:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

News reports no longer considered as RS?

WP:NEWSORG notwithstanding, would anyone care to comment on this: [38] and "news reports are primary sources for historical events". This is in relation to BrowseAloud and now AfD:BrowseAloud (3rd nomination). It's a piece of software that was barely notable in the past and was deleted on its 3rd AfD. As it has recently, since that AfD, become news-worthy for a whole new reason it went through DRV, and now AfD. This AfD seems to hinge on excluding sources like these: and I cannot see anything in our RS policy to support this new "news reports are not RS" approach. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The issue of whether a given source is primary, secondary or tertiary has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not the source is reliable. All three types of sources can be either reliable or unreliable, depending on the content and the reputation of the source. Someone expressed the opinion that newspaper articles are primary sources. Such articles can be primary or secondary, depending on context. A "police blotter" type newspaper article saying that a burglary was reported at 123 Main Street is a primary source, and is probably reliable. A lengthy article by a staff reporter about a wave of burglaries, including interviews with detectives, victims and detailed reporting of court testimony is a secondary source. And significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources is required to establish notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• "The issue of whether a given source is primary, secondary or tertiary has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not the source is reliable."

OK, I can agree that point. But over at the AfD, this same issue is being used to argue for deletion, on the basis that the sources fail RS, and thus the article topic fails WP:N. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

See WP:PRIMARY and WP:PRIMARYNEWS (part of WP:USEPRIMARY which is directly linked from WP:PRIMARY). Its nothing to do with reliability as such. However notability (see WP:GNG) prefers secondary sources to primary ones. So a news story from the point of time of an event - reporting the event absent any real analysis as such, would be a primary source. Almost all 'current event' news reporting falls under that, exceptions might be an indepth expose that causes a scandal, the original expose would be secondary, the subsequent news reporting on the scandal would be primary. A news report written significantly after the event analysing the causes, effect etc in depth - would be secondary. For the purposes of notability all the sources could be reliable per our policy but not an indication of notability. WP:NOTNEWS also exists for a reason, where there is a flurry of news items about a breaking story, we are not a news ticker. Notability *should* be assessed by its impact over time. Sadly NOTNEWS is routinely ignored. -add- for the two references listed, I would class them under current event reporting and so primary sources per the standard non-wiki definition as well as the wikipedia one in the linked pages above. Only in death does duty end (talk) 02:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• So where would you stand on this AfD question? And if that was delete, would that be on the basis of NOTNEWS?

I used to be very much on the fence for this article. It's a bad product, WP should not promote it, but I also see value to WP debunking it, or at least pointing out that it's not universally supported. In recent years, it has become widely used for the sort of government websites who frequently behave in a dumb and profligate manner because government thinking encourages that ("Something must be done, this is a something, let's do it."). Recently though there is an upsurge of interest in it, driven by the malware problem. It is within encyclopedic scope to answer public demand to explain such topics and I see articles like The Reg (a competent, technical specialist publication in this field) as being exactly the sort of source we should be using to justify that. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• I think I already stood on the AFD and the DRV (prior to that) before you posted this ;) I dont have any problem with the reliability of the sources. Its that absent its use in the malware issue, its just not notable at all. And the malware issue is hardly unique or 'notable' as wikipedia would class it, plugins for browsers being vectors for virii/malware is not a new or uncommon problem at all. If there was an article on the specific malware issue itself, or a section in a relevant article on cryptomining it might/probably be worthy of inclusion there as an example. As it stands though, the article (unless something drastically changes) is just going to be an attack page completely unduely weighted towards one event in software's history. To make it not weighted that badly, you would have to restrict it down to a sentence or two and then you are still left with nothing notable. If you have to bulk out an article with a load of news reports about one event *that isnt even specifically about the subject of the article* then its a good sign NOTNEWS should be looked at. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• I think the arguments are reasonably clear. This is a non-notable software component that was caught up in an exploit. It's not that news reports arent reliable, or that they are primary, it's that they are about the exploit not the non-notable plugin. The same sources would be fine ot mention this in an article about bitcoin mining browser hijacks. Guy (Help!) 12:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I would almost say that we have some type of equivalent concept of WP:BLP1E when it comes to commercial products, entities, etc, which the GNG considers part of enduring coverage. A piece of software that is part of a significant news event that is not directly tied to the intent of the software doesn't make the software notable. Instead, we look to the event, or in this case, the class of events of other illicit cryptomining incidents, and can mention the software in there. It is the same how the legit piece of software Medoc in 2017 cyberattacks on Ukraine isn't notable on its own, but is mentioned in context of the attacks. --Masem (t) 14:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
• News reports are primary in the general discipline of historiography = our problem, as is often our problem, is that are regularly trying to cover 'current events'. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

References

Is "Religious Studies News" reputable?

• Is "Religious Studies News" a reliable source for editing articles on Wikipedia? It is located here. Instinct for me would indicate that it is not, but I want to gauge the opinions of some editors more experienced in these matters before making a judgement either way. It relates to a question at the Teahouse. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Stormy... you might want amend your question using the full name of the source in the header... the abbreviation “RSN” is used on Wikipedia to refer to our “Reliable Sources Noticeboard” (ie this very page) and so others might not understand what you are asking. I know you clarified things in the actual text of your question, but for someone just glancing through the headers to see if they want to respond to a question, it LOOKS like you are asking if this Noticeboard is reputable (and they might assume you were trolling us).

Whoops... Done. Sincerest apologies, I really don't know how I missed that. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

no problem... I hope you get a quick reply Blueboar (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to throw my hat in with those who were confused by the original section title. It's even worse if you see it in the page history without any context. One would almost suspect deliberate punning; if this were the case (and I don't think it is -- the above apology looks sincere) I would likely praise the genius wit responsible, but as is I guess it's just a humorous accident of the kind that occasionally happens on Wikipedia. Still got a good chorkle out of it, though. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

As to your actual question... I don’t know enough about the source or topic to give you an answer... hopefully someone else will. Blueboar (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• "Religious Studies News is the web magazine of the American Academy of Religion". It also looks like it's the name of the association's quarterly newspaper? AAR is a legitimate academic association, as far as I understand, so I'd treat it the same way I would any other academic association's non-academic members-oriented publication. In other words, it may contain some useful columns, reviews, summaries, etc. that would make for a decently reliable source, as long as you keep in mind it will have some promotional bent regarding its members and is not itself an academic journal. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:07, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

DBase

Source: DBase.tube

Article: List of most-subscribed YouTube channels

Content: § By country and territory

The "most-subscribed by country" table is currently based on the lists compiled by VidStatsX, but the website has been inaccessible for about two weeks. If the table is to remain, another reliable source must be found from which relevant, regularly updated statistics can be derived. I believe the best candidate is the website DBase, which provides lists of most-subscribed YouTube channels for around 200 countries and territories (examples of some of the lists that would be used: [39] [40] [41] [42]), but I am struggling to determine if it is reliable. The lists are most likely automatically generated, but does that preclude them from being dependable?. LifeofTau 07:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

SyrianCivilWarMap.com and aleppo24.com

These two sources are being mentioned in the infobox on this article. To me it seems like a case of questionable sourcing for the map link as there's nothing indicating how or why it's notable, what its editorial standards are, etc. From what I can gather, it's crowd-sourced news; twitter reports, blogs, etc. While Aleppo24.com could be used as a source in the article itself, including either of them by name in the infobox seems like giving their estimates undue weight and seems highly unorthodox. Eik Corell (talk) 08:11, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Reliability of http://www.tracking-board.com for film/entertainment entries

Specifically the article [43]--Prisencolin (talk) 18:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

My attempts to find anything about their editorial standards keeps pulling up advertisements for their services, or "opportunities" to write for them, or other things that leave me rather concerned about the site as an RS. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• I call spam. Guy (Help!) 01:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Medical Hypotheses

I found at least 15 articles in Wikipedia that cite the Medical Hypotheses journal, which is well-known for its promotion of pseudoscientific theories. Do most of these references need to be replaced? Jarble (talk) 20:29, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Probably. Though what we really should do is eliminate content that relies on Medical Hypotheses, and then decide if there is additional material based on robust and reliable sources that belongs in our articles. (That is, we shouldn't start with Medical Hypotheses crap and go hunting for sources to support it. We should start 'clean', and try to write content that is supported by good sources from the get-go.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• I nuke them periodically, along with a long list of others. Feel free to do the same. Guy (Help!) 01:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• Indeed. Not a RS for medical facts. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• My one caveat to a “Nuke them all” attitude would be that it may be reliable when used as a PRIMARY source for supporting a statement about “what the claims of pseudoscientists actually are”. Note, this would only be appropriate in an article or section ABOUT a pseudoscientific theory, and it would have to be attributed... but under these very limited circumstances it might be reliable. Blueboar (talk) 15:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, Blueboar is right. Even blacklisted sources can be used for that purpose, and those instances should be kept. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:52, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Further caveats to nuking are necessary as in many RS determinations, absolute blanket statements about reliability are not always correct. In the wake of their pseudoscientific publications on AIDS denialism, the editor was fired by Elsevier in 2010. Articles since 2010 are now subject to peer review and there is a new editor, advisory board, and editorial policy in place. Post-2010 publications in this journal are therefore not automatically non-RS under MEDRS. Even prior to 2010, Horrobin and Charlton did publish some reasonable papers. For example, one of our articles in the search results Jarble posted is Tularemia which cites Trevisanato, Siro I. (2007) “The ‘Hittite Plague’, an Epidemic of Tularemia and the First Record of Biological Warfare, Medical Hypotheses, Vol. 69, Issue 6, pp 1371-1374. This paper is a rather boring example of archeo-epidemiology and supports its plausible hypothesis with reasonable evidence. The same caveats apply to it that apply to, say, this paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, which is almost automatically accepted here as a RS. An individual assessment against our guidelines is necessary for any cite to Medical Hypotheses instead of blanket condemnation and removal. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:48, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

No, even then it is not usable, because if the only source for what $QUACK says is $QUACK saying it in $QUACKRAG then it's [WP:UNDUE]]. Guy (Help!) 22:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Are pics a reliable source?

The article for Princess Lilian, Duchess of Halland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) makes extensive use of photographs as references. Especially in the Princess Lilian, Duchess of Halland#Honours section. Are these considered reliable sources? There is no mention of where they were taken nor is there any indication of what honour is in each pic. If they are okay a followup question is, since they are bare url's, how can they be formatted to avoid linkrot? Thanks ahead of time for any assistance that you can provide. MarnetteD|Talk 21:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Has medal, source, picture of her wearing medal. No, that looks a lot like WP:OR to me, because it assumes we correctly identified the medal. Guy (Help!) 01:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

About the only time you could use a picture for that would be if you had a photo of the award being presented and even then it would be a bit of a punt. Only in death does duty end (talk) 01:09, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

A photo is a published source and can be used to source facts as long as the fact being summarized from the image is obvious to any reasonable reader. From Wikipedia:PUBLISHED; "audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources. Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third party and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet."--Mark Miller (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Not in this case, because in order for it to be a source for the claimed fact, it requires interpretation by someone familiar with the awards in question. It's WP:OR. Guy (Help!) 22:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

What we are actually talking about are Royal Orders so an image such as this could be used to demonstrate that she indeed has been awarded the order because of how unique each order is to each country but, whenever there is an actual documented text source, it should be used. So multiple use of images to source a single fact could become undue weight if the images are all from the same photographer or even different photographers or images when a text source is available.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Surely we don’t need to rely on a picture to know what orders someone has been awarded. There are all sorts of written sources that list such things. Cite one of them. Blueboar (talk) 15:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I have to say if that is the only source for this I am thinking the issue of identification may be very valid.Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

There are other published reliable sources for at least the first Order that I checked. "Debrett's Peerage and Baronetage" is often used for these types of claims and does mention the Orders of Seraphim and of North Star of Sweden. There are likely to be more. I would exhaust all reliable sources in books, journals, news blogs, newspapers (which generally announce the award of Royal orders) as well as primary source government documents such as Royal decrees or declarations etc. before resorting to image sourcing only.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

And if there are no book sources then it's WP:UNDUE and if it's only a picture of the decoraiton being worn it's WP:OR because there are so very many decorations, many of which appear very similar. Guy (Help!) 22:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Uhm...not really. Royal Orders are military orders or awards basically, and all have very specific designs and specific sashes and ribbon that are worn. It really depends on the image. A confirmed image of a royal of Sweden wearing a specific Royal Order is easily identified but it is the image that is original research and being used as a primary source. Photographs are original research but can be used as a source.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:29, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

And recognising them in a photo and using that as a source for attributing that grant, is blatant WP:OR. Every single one of them will be officially published in a newspaper of record (London Gazette, in the UK). Use that. Guy (Help!) 00:55, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Sort of related, years ago, an editor wanted to use a picture of some guys office which had some awards hanging on the wall as a citation for the guy having received said award. I was VERY against this. I would be very very very very weary of using pics as RS, especially with photoshop ect. --Malerooster (talk) 01:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Well unfortunately our guidelines do allow it to a point and no, Guy, it is not actually true that every Royal Order awarded will be published. We can summarize an image on an article without a source as long as it is obvious by sight however, I would probably say "wearing the royal order..." in any such caption and not "Awarded". An image showing a royal wearing the award only means they wore it, but it can be assumed they didn't buy it from Wal Mart.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:59, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

No, our guidelines do not allow it. WP:RS trifecta: reliable, independent, secondary. And WP:NOR. Guy (Help!) 10:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

To my mind, the problem with using pictures as sources is not so much a "reliability" issue as an "OR" issue. And it's not about the medium "image" as such; it's about using sources to back up statements that are not intended as such by the medium's original author. Citing a source on Wikipedia, in a responsible, non-OR way, always means rendering a statement that can be attributed as such, as an intented message, to the original author of the source. If we could prove that the photographer of this picture originally published it with the intention of showing: 'here, she got this order', then it would be okay as a source. Since we can't (and it's highly unlikely they intended any such thing), we are left with a claim of fact that we can't attribute to an author but that we have made up ourselves. We are using the picture not as a source of somebody else's claims, but as evidence for our own claims. That's the very definition of "original research". Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:12, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Just to address the example picture near the top. Thats a picture that shows someone wearing an award. Even if I knew what it was, its not verifying it was actually awarded to the person. They could have picked it up in a charity shop. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, a royal personage is unlikely to do so, but the issue is definitely one of OR. Consider: I could take a capture of the opening sequence of The Prisoner and use it as a source for the claim that McGoohan's character drives a Lotus Seven with the registration KAR 120C. I could do that, but it would be OR. The registration pate, fine, that requires nothing other than reading the plate, but the model? It's a Seven alright, but is it a Seven, a Super Seven, a Caterham Seven? You'd have to be a Lotus nerd to know, and that means the identification is wholly reliant on accepting the interpreting editor as an authority, which is canonical OR. Oh, and actually the title sequence is a Lotus Super 7 series II, but there are a couple of other cars used in the series itself, one of which was a standard Seven fixed by Lotus to look like a Super 7. Obviously. Guy (Help!) 10:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

And I'll reiterate that my argument above actually goes a lot further than this: all these considerations about how obvious or incontrovertible or open to alternative explanations the "facts" in the picture are, are in fact quite irrelevant. Even if their correctess was completely, 100%, beyond all possible doubt, my distinction above would still hold: the picture would be evidence of a fact, but not a source for a claim. In Wikipedia, WP:RS is always about the latter, not the former. Sourced claims always have to be somebody's claims: the intended statements of the original author, not your own. Deriving your own claims from a picture you present as evidence is always OR, no matter how obviously true they might be. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:55, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Images (photographs, maps, graphs, etc) are best thought of as being illustrations of (or visual support for) what the reliable sources say... not as being sources themselves. Blueboar (talk) 12:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

In the current case, all I'm seeing are random, blurry, uncaptioned photos of a person who happens to be wearing a variety of medals on her sash. Like this: what information is someone supposed to tease out of THAT? --Calton | Talk 13:12, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd also wonder if it passed as being mentioned, was the photo taken to show off the medals or to show the person. The medals may just be what they wore than than something that was being mentioned. If you see a photo of two people shaking hands you can be pretty certain that them shaking hands was something that was being mentioned by the photo. Dmcq (talk) 14:41, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Photos don’t “mention” anything, they “depict” things. Now... if the photo originally appeared in a reliable source, and there is a caption with the original photo, THAT CAPION might be used as a source (however, the source containing the caption and photo may be unreliable... misidentifying the people in the photo or, worse, staging it with impersonators... so be cautious). Blueboar (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

The "Swedish honors" section lists 4 awards with 12 "sources". Of those 12 "sources", 9 are simple uncaptioned photo-image files, showing the subject at social events, usually accompanied by others; 2 go to Pinterest pages of random royals, and 1 is a dead link to an image file. These don't even count as PRIMARY sources. --Calton | Talk 15:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• No, pictures are primary sources, using them to support claims in the encyclopedia is OR.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:54, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  • That is basically my understanding as well however, we can use a primary source with limitations. Any random image is not the issue. An image that is verified to be the subject wearing a Royal Order can be used to state that they wear the order and perhaps even list it in an honors section depending on how much primary source information there is and depending on the consensus of editors. It's a case by case basis. But I do think it's lazy, especially when it is a modern Royal. If this was a subject from 1877 a primary source like that is more understandable but even I was able to find a newspaper source from that period eventually that, not only listed several recipients but gave a good deal of history about the order. As I said above, I found text sources for the first award on this particular subject and I'll bet there are even more.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

If reliable sources say something is a concept, does that make it so?

Having a disagreement at Talk:Mottainai#additional_references_for_expansion so want some clarification here. If a reliable source, such as http://www.abc.net.au which a search shows is used in 1,906 Wikipedia articles already, has an article titled Avoiding waste with the Japanese concept of 'mottainai' , does that prove its a concept not just a word? The argument is that they and other sources found aren't experts on "Japanese linguistics", that you need a "university press or peer-reviewed source by a Buddhist specialist", not a "popular news websites" to state something. Dream Focus 12:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I note how you start from the assumption that the sources are reliable, despite this being the forum to establish if sources are reliable for the content. Anyway, they are all "popular" media sources, none peer-reviewed scholarly sources, so they are not more reliable than the standard dictionaries that say mottainai is just a common word meaning "wasteful", "What a waste!", etc. abc.net.au is a news site, and is generally trustworthy for content like that, but they are not Japanologists, linguists or Buddhologists; when the word mottainai doesn't appear anywhere in either the Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism or Routledge's Encyclopedia of Buddhism, it's safe to assume that it's not a unique Buddhist concept, and you need a better source than popular news site to contradict that. And even if it is "a concept" (a word which you have been continuously refusing to define), it doesn't matter when we already have an article on that same concept: Pratītyasamutpāda (which in Japanese is engi, not mottainai). (Note that this is based on your source; I have read and understood it, even if I don't agree with it, where you apparently have not read/understood it and are only using it to prop up an argument you are making to undermine my contributions to an article you clearly have no interest in improving.)

Additionally, what are you even doing on the article? You made one drive-by !vote in the AFD five years ago, then when I went to the talk page and suggested merging you suddenly showed up again, and your conflict with me on the swamp monster AFD and other places has made this your most active month of editing in over three years; are you hounding me?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

During your long drawn out nonsense about the the ARS at various places, you did mention that article multiple times. So I did check it out. You complained about no one adding sources to it in your village pump rant and/or elsewhere, I don't remember, so I looked for some, and found some I thought useful and put them on the talk page so they could be worked somehow into the article. I honestly thought that'd be helpful. But you wish to declare yourself an expert on everything Japanese, and dismiss any major newspaper or other reliable source as being wrong, so I asked here for opinions from those who regularly deal with cases about reliable sources. Dream Focus 20:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

No, I mentioned it once -- one other editor kept honing in on it and I made the mistake of responding to him.

My complaint was never about no one adding sources to it; it was about ARS members not working to fix it (and a lack of "sources" was not the problem so much as a lack of specialist sources that made it clear that there was no WP:NOTDICT problem -- Wiktionary already has an entry on it, BTW) after having steamrolled the AFD, which is the opposite of how ARS is supposed to work. I concurrently made a concrete proposal (cut all the etymology crap, most of which is OR based on a rudimentary knowledge of modern Japanese grammar that wouldn't make sense in classical Japanese, cut the "Cool Japan" marketing stuff sourced to defunct ex-pat magazines, and merge what's left into Wangari Maathai), and then a few days later you showed up and basically said "I found these popular media sources, one of which is just another Cool Japan ex-pat magazine"; don't merge the article".

"drawn out nonsense" and "village pump rant" are off-topic and uncivil, and I would appreciate it if you would refrain from making snide remarks like that here or elsewhere.

Also, neither ABC nor NBC are newspapers; they are (the websites of) national television networks in Australia and the United States, repectively; are you referring to The Japan Times? JT is a "major newspaper" now? It's essentially another Cool Japan ex-pat magazine, with a slightly larger circulation that is inflated by Japanese readers wanting to improve their English literacy, but no Japanese would read it for reliable information on their own country. I seem to recall they once called the Man'yōshū Japan's "oldest anthology of domestic poetry", translated its title as "Collection of 10,000 Leaves", and misspelled Susumu Nakanishi's name, all in the same short book review? It is reliable for uncontroversial claims mostly related to modern (Japanese) politics and society, but not for anything related to traditional Japanese culture if they are contradicted by better sources.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

JT is a "major newspaper" now? It's essentially another Cool Japan ex-pat magazine, with a slightly larger circulation that is inflated by Japanese readers wanting to improve their English literacy

Oh, horseshit. It's a straight-up daily newspaper, for sale in kiosks all over the Kanto area, at least. When I see someone at the point of having to make up stuff to prop up his case, I have wonder why the obsession? --Calton | Talk 00:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@Calton: Sources? I doubt 99% of customers frequenting those kiosks are buying an English-language newspaper to get the inside scoop on Japanese current affairs, let alone the detailed niceties of traditional Japanese culture; they do it to practice their English. The ex-pats who use JT as their primary source of information on any of that stuff (who are definitely a tiny minority of the paper's readership if it is indeed on sale in "kiosks all over the Kanto area") are just as likely to use Japan Today, Nipponia or Look Japan. All of these sources can be used for uncontroversial BLUE content that can easily be verified in better sources, but none of them are as good as scholarly reference works from Princeton and Routledge. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

BTW, it's not clear what you think I "made up" -- if you could clarify, I'd be happy to back up anything you think I made up with. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Sources? I live in Tokyo, and have read it for years. So from personal experience I know that your characterization is, to put it charitably, off-base. Oh, and protip: if you have to make up shit ("...get the inside scoop on Japanese current affairs"? Who said THAT?) you're not helping your case. --Calton | Talk 06:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Please drop the tone. I did not insult you personally, and I don't deserve you issuing me "protips" and accusing me of "mak[ing] up shit". I honestly have no idea what your last three sentences are meant to mean -- are you saying that few people use The Japan Times for information on Japan? That's the same as I am saying. The simple fact is that most of its readership consists of Japanese people who want to practice their English reading, but we are not using it for English-language advice; we are using it for information on Japanese culture, in this case an alleged ancient, or at least medieval, Buddhist (or Shinto -- no one seems to be able to make up their mind) "concept". If you don't have anything to say about article content and are just here to defend a paper you've been reading for years from an off-handed remark I made about how it should only be used when better sources agree with it, which has next to nothing to do with the core issue here (the JT doesn't actually disagree with me), then I would kindly ask you to go build the encyclopedia rather than picking fights for the sake of picking fights. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, I did not mean to imply with any of the above that I believed The Japan Times to be a disreputable smut rag that should never be cited. What I meant was that general news media (regardless of format or editorial bent -- the applies equally the The New York Times and The Daily Mail) are generally considered inferior for Wikipedia's purposes to peer-reviewed scholarly works, at least in fields like linguistics, religious studies and classical literature. (The question is actually tangential to the content dispute, though, since the article in question does not contradict my claim that mottainai refers to the concept of wastefulness.) It's obvious that multiple good-faith contributors have interpreted my comments as saying what I didn't mean them to say, so I apologize for my lack of clarity. In that spirit, I have stricken everything I wrote above about The Japan Times specifically. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense. If the New York Times and others said something, that'd be enough. Even if you couldn't find something in what you considered to be a "peer-reviewed scholarly works", that wouldn't mean that you could just decide something doesn't exist, and argue nonstop about it not being real and having no reason to have an article. Dream Focus 16:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• I placed a friendly suggestion at Hijiri88's talk page: a similar suggestion is made to other participants in the discussion here and at Talk:Mottainai#additional references for expansion: comment on content not on contributors, and certainly avoid to bait other editors into making personal comments. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
• So, thus far, in the Source/Article/Content logic for entries on this noticeboard, we have (if I'm not erring):
  • Sources (from Talk:Mottainai#additional references for expansion):
    • Avoiding waste with the Japanese concept of 'mottainai' (abc.net.au)
    • Los Angeles' Little Tokyo Looks for a Sustainable Future With Some 'Mottainai' (nbcnews.com)
    • Sato, Yuriko (2017), "Mottainai: a Japanese sense of anima mundi", Journal of Analytical Psychology, 62 (1), John Wiley & Sons: 147–154, doi:10.1111/1468-5922.12282
    • Suzuki, Yasushi; Kar, Rabi N. (15 September 2017), "India-Japan Cultural Distance on the Mottainai Ethics", Towards A Common Future, pp. 155–170
  • Article: Mottainai
  • Content: --???--

I haven't seen a clear actionable content proposal yet: unless someone can provide one, with proper sourcing to the above or other publications, that we can discuss, I propose to close this thread as impossible to process on this noticeboard. Or is this only about finding sufficient independent reliable sources for WP:GNG reasons? Even then, sufficient sources should be usable for actual content in the article, so content proposals would be the way to go anyhow, even for proving notability. Or, alternatively, post {{merge to}} & {{merge from}} tags in appropriate places, in which case this RSN thread can probably be closed too (open a discussion regarding the proposed merge on the talk page of the article you propose to merge to). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTBLOG: questions that don't affect article content do not need to be answered on this noticeboard. Also, please stop commenting on named or unnamed other editors.
The following discussion has been closed by Francis Schonken. Please do not modify it.
My original question remains. Do reliable sources saying something is real make it real? I would assume it does, but one editor keeps insisting that they don't. Dream Focus 16:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Content based on Look Japan article

• Look Japan is used in the article as a reference, but then tagged as an unreliable source with the long message "unreliable source|reason=These magazines designed to introduce Japanese culture to resident foreigners are generally oversimplified and juvenile, and are frequently wrong. This is like attributing an entire paragraph of a Wikipedia article to a sixth-grade textbook.|date=February 2018". Mottainai#Modern_Japanese_environmentalism So, how about that specific example here? Is it a reliable source, or can someone give their personal opinion and declare it not one? Dream Focus 16:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • For that example we would have:
    • Source: Chiba, Hitoshi (November 2002). "Restyling Japan: Revival of the "Mottainai" Spirit". Look Japan. Archived from the original on April 5, 2004. Retrieved July 22, 2013.
    • Article: Mottainai#Modern Japanese environmentalism
    • Content: "In November 2002, the English-language, Japan-based magazine Look Japan ran a cover story entitled "Restyling Japan: Revival of the 'Mottainai' Spirit," documenting the motivation amongst volunteers in a "toy hospital" in Japan to "develop in children the habit of looking after their possessions," the re-emergence of repair shops specializing in repairing household appliances or children's clothes, the recycling of PET bottles and other materials, the collection of waste edible oil, and more generally the efforts to stop the trend of throwing away everything that can no longer be used, i.e. the efforts of reviving "the spirit of "mottainai""."

  & some prior discussion about this content-reference combination at Talk:Mottainai#Merge?, (ii). Thoughts (apart from those already mentioned above)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Inside the article itself, where its used as a reference, there is a tag saying "unreliable reference" and anyone clicking edit on the article can see that long reason given as to why. Should that "unreliable reference" be in the article?" Dream Focus 16:55, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

The above-quoted section title is my softened version; the content as it was originally written was complete nonsense. My version at least doesn't appear to contain fringe content, but as written now it would seem to belong more in an article on Environmentalism in Japan. An ex-pat magazine using a common Japanese word that virtually everyone who lives here and has at least a passing knowledge of the language knows does not demonstrate anything beyond its being an everyday word. Even use of more obscure words in such sources could easily be attributed to an intention to teach sub-N1 foreigners the language. The reason parameter in my tag focused on the apparent lack of critical nuance in the source (and I might even be wrong about that -- you should take it to the talk page and see what User:Curly Turkey and User:Imaginatorium think), but there are plenty more reasons why that source is inappropriate for the content attributed it and the context in which it is attributed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Hijiri, you're arguing with someone who's not trying to understand what you're saying. All they care is if the article's sources meet the lowest of thresholds, which they unfortunately do. And so we're stuck with bullshit. At this point, the best you can do is damage control, like you did with that section header—and delete all that uncited text in "Origins" (which should be titled "Etymology"—"Origins" borders on POV-pushing).

Mottainai is a "concept" only in the sense that words in general stand for concepts. It's deserving of no more than a mention in Environmentalism in Japan, but an entire article on mottainai ignores the fact that it's a common, everyday word, not normally loaded with political or religious connotations. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

So multiple reliable sources and a noble prize winner talk about the concept, but two self proclaimed experts on anything Japanese say something else. Others please add in your input here. Dream Focus 22:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Dream Focus: you're not even trying to understand what the issue is, so trying to communicate with you is only exasperating. Thank you for "improving" the ecyclopaedia with bullcrap. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Curly Turkey: As I said on my talk page, I'm done wih the article. You even suggested I focus my efforts elsewhere. I might take a look at that bushidō article you mentioned: even if it is somewhat outside my normal wheelhouse, I can at least keep it from saying things like "The Heike Monogatari dates to the eighth century and is one of the earliest Japanese writings."[44] I guess this thread can be closed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:07, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Dream Focus: Could you just answer, simply: who do you think knows more about the Japanese language: a person who has studied, speaks, and reads the Japanese language, or a person who has not, but has received a noble, or even a Nobel prize (not for linguistics)? Imaginatorium (talk) 06:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Well since I added references showing the Japanese Prime Minister talked about the concept[45], there is a bestselling book about it from a Japanese writer, and various Japanese news sources talk about the concept as well, I find it far more likely to believe these reliable sources than the personal statements of a few self proclaimed experts on anything Japanese who say something else. Dream Focus 18:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Technically, every word in the Japanese vocabulary can be cited as a 'Japanese concept', if you want to grab attention. It's a rhetorical trick endemic to popular media spinning a trite piece of everyday usage as something with a distinct 'unique' Japanese tang. This is not taken seriously by Japanologists, who have written numerous books and articles showing the silliness of the practice, which makes nationalistic hype to keep up the drumbeat that the Japanese are different. I was once asked in Japanese do you have 'human relations' in your country?, my interlocutor believing that the huge amount of chat about Japanese 'ningen kankei' must mean that 'ningen kankei' (human relations) is peculiar to Japan. It's farcical.Nishidani (talk) 19:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Nishidani: Perhaps you could weigh in at Talk:Mottainai on some of the other disputed and misrepresented sources that haven't been brought up here. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Legacy.com

Is Legacy.com generally considered to be a RS? Should it be treated as a primary source if it is? I checked the RSN archives, but only found 3 hits none of which were conclusive. I also checked WP:EL/P, but found nothing there. Generally, official obituaries written by staff of major newspapers, etc. tend to be considered OK as RS, but ones written/submitted by family members seem to be treated as WP:UGC or WP:SPS.

The reason I'm asking is because I would like to know if this can be considered a reliable source for David Steiner, in particular stuff about his surviving family, place of internment, etc. The obit says at the bottom "Published in a Chicago Tribune Media Group Publication from Dec. 29 to Dec. 30, 2016" which might be referring to this; owever, that Tribune page states that the obit is "courtesy of Chicago Jewish Funerals" which looks like to be this. No idea who wrote the obit, but I think these are often directly written by a surving family member or funeral service employees based upon information provided by family members.Can this be used as a reliable source and if so are their any restrictions placed upon it? Would it be best to cite the original website it appeared on and then use the Patch as the |via= parameter in Template:Cite web? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think Legacy.com is a reliable source in most cases, because it's just an aggregator that's collecting information from various places that publish obituary information. No one there is fact-checking that info; they're reprinting it, no questions asked. In most cases, you should be able to find a better source (ie the ones that Legacy is pulling their info from). Rockypedia (talk) 02:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the assessment Rockypedia. That was one of my concerns about the cite as well, which I tried to trace the obit back to its original source as much as possible. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:51, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Zero Hedge

There are at least 49 articles in Wikipedia that cite Zero Hedge, which are mostly written by anonymous contributors using the pseudonym Tyler Durden. Would this make it an unreliable source for most purposes? Jarble (talk) 05:44, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I think being English-language financial blog would generally disqualify it; so would classified as "alt-right", anti-establishment, conspiratorial Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:46, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

It's a fringe site with very low factual accuracy. While this fact checker site should be used with some caution, it's often pretty good: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/zero-hedge/ This time they rate it very accurately: Zero Hedge is a conspiracy theory, pseudoscience site. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Reliability often depends on context... how and why a source is cited can make a huge difference. For example, we need to know whether the source is being used to support an attributed statement of opinion, or an unattributed statement of fact. So, could you link us to a few of the articles where this source is cited? Blueboar (talk) 11:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

You can see that in the search link Jarble gave above. I'd say even for opinion you'd want a RS that quote them. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks... I’ll take a look. Blueboar (talk) 11:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Zerohedge is actually a highly valuable resource for financial professionals - frankly - when something breaks (e.g. I see the DAX crashing 3%, or bond yields go flying), their twitter is often the first thing I look at in order to figure out what's driving the drive. And if I'm analyzing an ECB speech in real-time - they are something I watch as well. Their financial news is actually vetted quite seriously and is usually highly reliable (e.g. which assets moves and why, coverage of market malfunctions, passing through analyst papers) - alongside the serious stuff, they also have quite a bit of umm.... I wouldn't call it conspiracy, but highly unorthodox views running as opinions (at times under the Tyler Durden moniker, at times an external writer). The Tyler Durden moniker is really a gag more than anything else - it basically says their editorial board is behind it.... All that being said - for the most part I would say it should be avoided for Wikipedia purposes. In some cases - e.g. [46] - work is attributable to other authors. Coverage like this (translation and aggregation of other sources) - [47] - is probably accurate. Something like this - [48] - is a reprint/rehash of something published elsewhere. But the problem with using them is avoiding sensationalist claims and the more conspiracy minded pieces.Icewhiz (talk) 12:38, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• Looking at that list, I don't see many articles where we couldn't find a better source for the claim being made. I don't think we should be citing this. Andrew³²⁷ 13:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• Just going through some of the Zero Hedge citations. Many are pieces from elsewhere blogged by them, so easily replacable by original sources where reliable; others are completely spurious. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
  • As to their accuracy on financial events - I think they're as good as trading room gossip and chatter. Mainly unfalsifiable and soon-forgotten punditry and "correct" roughly 50% of the time. Like the guys on CNBC or Fox Business. SPECIFICO talk

• Here are the first few descriptions from books that pop up from a Google books search.

Social Media Strategies for Investing: How Twitter and Crowdsourcing Tools Can Make You a Smarter Investor, Brian D. Egger, "F+W Media, Inc.", Nov 1, 2014:

"Many individual investors might also be unfamiliar with Zero Hedge, the blog associated with Mr. Ivandjiiski. Zero Hedge has emerged as a favorite daily read among Wall Street's literati. According to Quantcast, a digitical audience-measurement and advertising company, Zero Hedge recently attracted about 3.4 million monthly unique visitors. The website has built up an impressive amount of monthly traffic for a publication with the mystique of an underground operation. More mainstream blogging websites, such as TheStreet and Seeking Alpha, each attract 8–9 million monthly unique visitors, according to their advertising web pages. Zero Hedge and its principle contributor with the mysterious pseudonym are not exactly newcomers to the world of financial blogging. In 2009, a New York Magazine article, entitled "The Dow Zero Insurgency", shed light on Zero Hedge's little-known principal in a feature article on the burgeoning world of financial blooding... Zero Hedge's coverage of [a Goldman Sachs] story became emblematic of its unique brand of investigative journalism — one laced with a deeply cynical distrust of Wall Street... Zero Hedge is an amalgam of punchy economic analysis, conspiracy theories, and wonky rants about the failings of U.S. political and economic institutions ad policies... Its writers dart back and forth between conventional news coverage and opinion-laden editorials. Readers value the blog's frequent, topical updates and strong point of view. Followers of Zero Hedge also praise the author's cerebral brand of cynicism and determination to challenge mainstream views about business, finance, and politics... Many financial advisors and stock investors have bookmarked it (and others like it) and scan it for interesting headlines several times a day... etc."

Dark Pools and High Frequency Trading For Dummies, Jay Vaananen, John Wiley & Sons, Feb 23, 2015:

"Perhaps the most famous blog on markets in general is Zero Hedge, a site with a cult following. Zero Hedge dwarfs all other financial market blogs. Started in 2009, the blog is written in an activist style and is highly critical of markets. It has managed to remain shrouded in mystery. It's still not entirely clear who started it and it's believed to be edited by several people..."

The Neatest Little Guide to Stock Market Investing: Fifth Edition, Jason Kelly, Penguin, Dec 24, 2012:

This site's unsentimental worldview is right in its header: "On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone drops to zero." Its anonymous writers post articles under the pseudonym "Tyler Durden"... about risks and shady developments in financial markets, news that impacts economies, and politics. It also runs guest posts by named contributors. Zero Hedge says its mission is "to widen the scope of financial, economic, and political information available to the professional investing public" and "to skeptically examine and, where necessary, attack the flaccid institution that financial journalism has become." It uses anonymity as "a shield from the tyranny of the majority." Whenever you need a little raw reality, swing by Zero Hedge."

There's also a funny comment in this book by David Gerard: "Proponents of Austrian economics include the fringe economics blog Zero Hedge, which has confidently predicted two hundred of the last two recessions. Zero Hedge covers Bitcoin extensively, and Bitcoiners are fans in turn." Gerard's book is self-published, however.

I would write it might be alright to cite in cases where the information isn't controversial (e.g. the information isn't contradicted elsewhere, info that hasn't been challenged by an editor, info that doesn't have any BLP issues). However, I definitely think it's a notable source and can be cited with attribution for its opinion. -Darouet (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Are statements by an advocacy organization RS for the views/opinions of that organization.

The National Rifle Association has published a number of statements related to the organization's views on certain topics as well as direct responses to criticisms in the media. Are these statements, when attributed to the NRA reliable sources for the NRA's views on a subject.

This is my addition in question [[49]]. The original text said the NRA was criticized for being opposed to some electronic record keeping for the ATF. I used two sources to add more information regarding why the NRA opposes such records. First is a 3rd party source stating the NRA sees this as a back door gun registry. [[50]] The second statement was from the NRA saying why they oppose such registries. Since the statements are being attributed to the NRA does this address any WP:RS concerns?

In a related question, what determines the WP:WEIGHT that should be given to these views? One suggestion is the weight given to the NRA's statements is based on the number of independent sources that report it. An alternative view is weight is based on the topic. A number of topics related to the NRA have clear consensus weight for inclusion (criticism of the NRA for objecting to universal background checks for example). As the subject of the article is it reasonable to assume the NRA's stated position on the topic (assuming they have one) has sufficient weight for inclusion?

Here are two recent discussion topics related to this question [[51]], [[52]]Springee (talk) 01:40, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Weight is determined by "the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." It is generally a bad idea to go to the subject itself for its views, since you need secondary sources to establish weight and reading the primary source may require some interpretation. Furthermore, if the opinions you report have not been reported in secondary sources, then we don't have any informed opinion to analyze them. TFD (talk) 02:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• A statement from an organization is the single MOST reliable source for a statement as to the views of that organization. The question is whether the views of the organization should be mentioned in the first place. That depends on the specific article topic. Mentioning the views of an organization (at all) can be relevant or irrelevant... Due or Undue. Blueboar (talk) 02:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

If John Q. Pennyfeather, a notable expert on x, publicly states, "I oppose x," and an article concerning x duly inserts and cites Pennyfeather's direct quote on this, would some secondary commentater be required to "interpret" Pennyfeather's quote before it could be inserted and cited in Wikipedia? If so, why? It seems to me that the concept of "weight" is intended to apply only to "points about which uncertainty still exists," and really has little bearing on points about which we have no reason to doubt their veracity, such as a direct quote reported by a reputable, reliable, and citeable source.One passer by (talk) 05:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

To give some examples: If the NRA takes a position on a new law regulating firearms, mentioning that position in an article about Firearms regulations would be DUE weight... And the most reliable source possible for their position would be a statement from the NRA itself (a primary source). Now let’s say that the NRA also took a position on captive breeding of pandas... while the statement itself would be the most reliable source for that position, mentioning the NRA’s position in our article on Pandas would be UNDUE weight, as Panda breeding is not something the NRA is normally associated with. Blueboar (talk) 12:33, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

The Four Deuces said it most-accurately above. WP:DUEWEIGHT is not determined by fidelity to the subject; It's determined by "the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Citing the NRA for basic, uncontested facts is fine. Occasionally citing the NRA for their attributed opinion about themselves is fine, provided that it's not unduly self-serving or excessive. For example, citing the NRA for the following would be unacceptable: "Background checks are unnecessary, in part because there is no gun show loophole"[53] - MrX 🖋 12:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

What would be acceptable, on the other hand, would be something like: “The opinion of the NRA is that there is no gun show loophole, and thus background checks are unnecessary.” Blueboar (talk) 13:45, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Correct.- MrX 🖋 15:45, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Attribution of opinion as opinion is key. "The Gnarph organization believes that (fill in the blank) is true." would be proper if that is on the official webpage of that organization. If that opinion is of importance even if someone thinks it is self-serving then we ought not elide that which we do not like. That is the essence of WP:NPOV in the first place. Collect (talk) 13:19, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Since it was mentioned, let's use the gun show loophole as an example. A number of articles will attack the NRA for opposing closing the gun show loophole. That establishes weight for the gun show loophole debate in the article. Since the NRA opposes closure, I think the public statement of the NRA would have weight for inclusion as the attributed view of the NRA. Since the NRA's stance is the point of contention the stance has due weight and the most accurate source for the NRAs public position is their position statements thus they should be WP:RS for that purpose (with attribution). Did I misinterprete something? Springee (talk) 13:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

No, that's not how it works. The number of sources covering something does not establish weight for a debate. It establishes weight for whatever view those sources conjecture. You seem to be conflating WP:NPOV (weight) with identifying reliable sources.- MrX 🖋 14:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

A number of sources attacking the NRA's position establishes weight for the discussion of the position. I'm not confusing the two and asked about the weight question here rather that as a second posting at WP:NPOVN. Springee (talk) 14:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

No it doesn't. You're just rephrasing the same erroneous assertion. I'm loosing count of the number of editors that have explained WP:DUEWEIGHT to you.- MrX 🖋 15:45, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

It's my opinion that you are doing the same. I haven't seen that people have articulated what you are claiming. Springee (talk) 15:57, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Policy states: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." It's just that simple.- MrX 🖋 18:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree when we are describing competing opinions on a common subject which is what your quoted passage is describing. The flat Earth society views don't make it to articles about the shape of the globe. However, their views are central to a discussion of the flat Earth society and hence would have weight in that context. Same here.Springee (talk) 18:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I would dispute a statement above that statements by an organisation are the most reliable source of its views. What an organisation says is in general a means of doing what it wants not a statement of its views. An independent secondary source could well be far more reliable about an organisations views. Or is 'reliable source' and 'views' being used in some strange Wikipedia sense? Dmcq (talk) 14:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I think we may be talking about different things. There is a very important distinction between reporting on an opinion and stating a fact. A statement directly from “X” will always be the most reliable source for reporting what the opinion X actually is. You can not get a more reliable source for “X has stated Y” than a primary source where X actually states “Y”. A secondary source is less reliable because there is the possibility that the secondary source misinterpreted or misquoted what X stated (intentionally or unintentionally)... So if we are going to report on what X said, we want to go to the original and cite X actually saying it.

However, this is not the same as saying that X is the most reliable source for the unattributed statement “Y”. X might not be the best source for THAT. Blueboar (talk) 17:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I think a nuanced distinction is being made. A public statement might not reflect true intent which might be cloaked. But a public statement taken from a company does accurately reflect a statement of the company. The in article attribution would have to be clear on that point. Springee (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

That's often not true. Organizations's are just as capable of cloaking their true intent, or even lying, as anyone else. In fact, it's pretty common. We are not in the business of helping promote an organization's viewpoints.- MrX 🖋 18:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Did you mean to reply to my post or Blueboar's? Springee (talk) 18:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I was responding to you. "A public statement might not reflect true intent which might be cloaked." ← "That's often not true. Organizations's are just as capable of cloaking their true intent,..." - MrX 🖋 22:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

That is what I said, a company might cloak their intent, ie lie. Springee (talk) 22:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Again, "weight" has to do with uncertain or unresolved points, where a point of information has not yet been generally "settled," and questions of article neutrality (NPOV) start to come into play. If we wrote an article about the fact that the sky is blue, we wouldn't have to call in secondary sources to support that fact, as it's already a commonly accepted fact (I'm only talking about the most commonly agreed upon color of a cloudless sky here, so please don't nit pick on possible exceptions.) If however we write an article about a sometimes volitile and unresolved topic, such as gun legislation, now parts of such an article will be beyond reasonable question, such as the officially stated positions of the various parties, and for these there is no need to pull out secondary sources to verify that these are their officially stated positions (so long as we accurately describe them as just that).

Other parts of such an article will have to be "proportionately weighted" to represent the "majority scholarly weight," where there is such a thing, and in sections where nobody can say for certain what the "majority scholarly weight" is, both sides would simply have to be listed without "weighting" either way (true neutrality). The concept of "majority scholarly weight," is a very nebulous thing, but that is one of the few places that I know of where secondary sources are necessarily required.

In a case where a party's officially stated position may seem to conflict with the party's actual behavior, still their officially stated position needs no secondary sources, because their officially stated position is not a point of general uncertainty. Granted, if that party's actions may appear to notably conflict with their official position, and the apparent conflict between word and deed might require "interpretation," then secondary sources may be required to make such interpretations, but still, only the "interpretation" of the meaning of the disharmony between word and deed would require secondary sources (if such an interpretation might not be entirely obvious to a typical reader), yet their "officially stated position" itself would remain as a point of reasonable certainty, thus not requiring secondary sources to report on merely the official position. Here again, the concept of "weight" then becomes applicable, because in such cases where word and deed may not agree, we are now probably dealing again with uncertainty and unresolved points of information.One passer by (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes I think 'stated position' is a far better way to describe what an organisation says rather than saying it is the organisation's view. So my answer to the original query is that an organisations own publications are the best source for their stated position. However I would say a secondary source is needed for their views or opinions. Dmcq (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Is Gyan Publishing a reliable source for information on Tourism in India

Their book Tourism In India: An Overview (2 Vols.), Volume 1 By Rabindra Seth is the particular one under consideration. Can it be used to source challenges to tourism in India? Elektricity (talk) 06:04, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Are Salon and Michael Wolff reliable sources for calling someone "far-right" in Wikipedia's voice?

Talk:Stephen_Miller_(political_advisor)#Lead Salon is, well, Salon and has been often discussed here. As for Michael Wolff, should this paragraph be included and cited in the lead: In Michael Wolff's book Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House, Miller was described as a "a fifty-five-year-old trapped in a thirty-two-year-old's body"; Wolff noted that "other than being a far-right conservative, it was unclear what particular abilities accompanied Miller's views. He was supposed to be a speechwriter, but if so, he seemed restricted to bullet points and unable to construct sentences. He was supposed to be a policy adviser but knew little about policy. He was supposed to be the house intellectual but was militantly unread. He was supposed to be a communications specialist but he antagonized almost everyone." Wolff, Michael (2018). Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House. Henry Holt and Co. pp. 64–65. ISBN 978-1250158062.

Wolff and his book have been described as: "dubiously sourced" Garber, Megan. "The Smearing of Nikki Haley". The Atlantic. "getting eviscerated over its accuracy — and it's not the first time" http://www.businessinsider.com/accuracy-of-michael-wolffs-new-trump-book-in-question-2018-1 "Wolff is not merely out of his depth—he frequently seems confused by even basic matters of political ideology—" www.slate.com/articles/arts/books/.../fire_and_fury_by_michael_wolff_reviewed.html "riddled with errors and rumors" https://www.mediaite.com/tv/tapper-wolffs-book-should-be-met-with-skepticism-riddled-with-errors-and-rumors/ etc, etc. NPalgan2 (talk) 20:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

If the political leanings of Stephen Miller are a generally accepted point of information, then that point of information would generally not fall under the NPOV rules, as stating his generally accepted political leanings in an article would not tend to raise any questions about the "neutrality" of such a statement. Generally accepted points of information are by default "neutral" and generally do not require such rigorous documentation and attention as "unsettled points" do, as outlined in our NPOV section.

Personally I don't know what Miller's generally accepted political leanings are, but to find out, I would do various Google word use frequency searches. If the phrase "far right" was the most popular descriptor that popped up with Miller's name, then I'd say its a fair bet that this is a generally accepted point of information, not requiring the more rigorous NPOV treatment. If after doing such a search, it turned out that the description "far right" was seldom used to describe him, and instead he was usually described as merely "right," then probably Solon and Wolf's views on this should not even be mentioned, as they would then probably be mistaken, and if mentioned, should somehow be "weighted against," by somehow expressing that many disagree with Solon's and Wolf's descriptions of Miller's political leanings.

One passer by (talk) 20:56, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• @NPalgan2: your description of where the paragraph from Michael Wolff appears in Stephen Miller (political advisor) is a little ambiguous ("included and cited in the lead"). It isn't in the lead, where it would indeed be undue, but at the very end of the article, where in my opinion it goes well enough. I'll answer the question in your header separately, since your text isn't much about it: Salon and Wolff are not the strongest sources for "far-right", but Business Insider, MSNBC, and The New York Times are cited along with them. So what's the problem? I see there's currently a lively discussion, especially from your side, about this on Talk:Stephen Miller (political advisor). It would have been a good idea to tell the people there that you have taken it to this noticeboard. Never mind, I'll do it. Bishonen | talk 21:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC).

I have been in this discussion with NPalgan2, really it is one of five other sources that says that Miller is far-right. Also he has been confusing lead with what is in the actual article, my feelings is Wolf's views is in the article and not just what others have said to Wolf so are valid. I have said to NPalgan2 that if he feels like it, why not add to that paragraph instead of taking it out. NZFC^(talk) 21:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

With the NYTimes and others backing that description of Miller as "far right," clearly there is enough "weight" to include this info further down in the article, but if there seem to be other "roughly equal" counterbalancing weights representing him as merely "right" then it would seem to me that both views (far right, and right) should probably be represented without favoring or weighting for or against either view. One passer by (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Sources that call him "right" don't mean to differentiate him from "far-right", which is how everybody characterizes him. SPECIFICO talk 21:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Bishonen, yes, you're quite right; it slipped my mind (it's been a long time since I've opened a noticeboard thread.) The entire Wolff paragraph about Miller is at the end of the article body, but it's also cited in the lead sentence. My point is that given the many RSs that have questioned Wolff's book, why is he in the article calling a BLP "far-right", "unable to construct sentences" and "militantly unread"? WP:QUESTIONABLE doesn't say that you can include crappy sources if you just feel like it. Miller's one of the highest profile people in the Trump admin, there's no shortage of RSs available. As you say, take out Salon and Wolff, that leaves three RSs (remember WP:LABEL requires contentious labels be used "widely") calling Miller "far-right". Well, who's a comparable high profile figure who gets called "far-left" in their lead sentence? Jeremy Corbyn, John McDonnell, Melenchon? Is 3 RSs a slam-dunk for "widely"? Take this discussion here Talk:Southern_Poverty_Law_Center/Archive_15#RfC_on_lead_sentence (NYTimes, WashPo, Guardian, etc, etc cited for the much milder label "progressive/left-leaning".) Yes, I was on the other side of that discussion - I'm fine with what the consensus is for how high a bar "widely" is placed - but it should be implemented neutrally across articles. NPalgan2 (talk) 21:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

In any case, it's actually 2 RSs as the MSN link is an exact duplicate of the BI piece (it's just been made a video). We don't double a press agency article reprinted in multiple newspapers. NPalgan2 (talk) 22:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

According to the Jerusalem Post, Miller is a "self described nationalist." Sounds pretty far-right to me. Perhaps changing the lead sentence to reflect that he is a "self described nationalist," and using the JPost as a cite for this would be the most "to the point" for the lead. One passer by (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Then you don't seem to know what being far-right is as left-wing nationalism is a thing, as well as other types of nationalism. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:31, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

But he's far-right/right-wing on Domestic issues as well. [54] [55] [56] [57] etc. SPECIFICO talk 22:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Assuming this is in reply to my comment and not the comment before that then the superior sources should just be used instead of the discussed sourced asked by OP for the claim. Self description as a nationalist seems undue for the lead but could be included in the text body. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually it was not. I was replying to the one above yours, One passer by. SPECIFICO talk 01:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Really. This is the first I've heard of an active and significant American "lefty" nationalist movement. Learn something new every day I suppose. One passer by (talk) 02:52, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure we can find more that says he is right like this telegraph piece that says he embrace "alt right" ideas at Uni. Or another NY times piece that goes into all his right leaning policies and ideals. Not sure reliablity of Newsweek as don't follow many overseas papers but here they talk about his right-wing politics too. NZFC^(talk) 22:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

User talk:NZ Footballs Conscience, User:SPECIFICO could you post quotes from those articles you consider relevant? I don't have a subscription to the Telegraph, for instance, so I can't know what it says. NPalgan2 (talk) 00:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I just looked at the page for that link. We don't need dozens of sources for this. It's not a controversial statement. He is far-right, right-wing, not sure whether alt-right, and yes to radical nationalist. SPECIFICO talk 01:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

The more general debate has gone nowhere over the past 6 months. In the US, the term "far-right" can, in different contexts, refer to somebody particularly enthusiastic about mainstream conservatism, a person who is part of the Tea Party movement/alt-right, or a straight-up neo-Nazi. Unfortunately, Wikipedia can't create words here, but using existing terms that better distinguish between these terms would be ideal. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:10, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• Michael Wolf is not a reliable source. Way too many questions have been raised about his overall veracity in general and his book in particular. Salon, is a politically left leaning publication which does not make it ipso facto unreliable. But it does mean its pronouncements of this sort should be taken with a grain of salt. I would look for stronger sources. I have no opinion on the broader question of how to categorize Miller's place on the political spectrum, other than to caution that we need to tread very carefully when assigning what is widely regarded as a negative label to someone in wiki voice per BLP. And there is also REDFLAG which demands extraordinary evidence in support of extraordinary claims. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

We have a dozen others. SPECIFICO talk 03:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

In this entire arena of identity politics, no mainstream media sources reporting on figures in the news should be considered reliable when they come to labeling these type of people. It's culture war out there, and by accepting any RSes label as factual, we're taking a side in that. We can use these sources to reflect their opinions, but those should be considered within both WEIGHT and RECENTISM. There are definitely some people to identify as being considered far-right, etc by the mainstream media, but that always should be stated as claims. --Masem (t) 03:23, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

What language would you suggest we use to avoid unduly labeling somebody like Miller? We can't list every instance of an RS referring to him as far-right, and moreover we need to convey some sense of the relative frequency with which that characterization appears. SPECIFICO talk 03:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

"...and who is considered by some to be politically far right." I think that is fair, well supported by sources, and accurate. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:34, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

That's perfectly reasonable. "Some" could be replaced by "many" if it's clear abundance of sources. --Masem (t) 03:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Many is probably a better word. I might even go with "...widely considered to be far right" given the weight of sourcing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:42, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid that "some consider" or "many consider" come off as scare quotes to suggest that there are some or many who don't consider him far-right. But just about nobody would disptute that he's far right. I'm not convinced we need unanimity in order to go with the overwhelming weight of RS characterizations of his views. SPECIFICO talk 03:44, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

The quotes were simply used to denote specific wording since you asked for suggestions. Obviously it would be part of the text. And I recall that Fidel Castro was not labeled a dictator precisely because there was not unanimity among sources in describing him that way. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

This request seems moot, since, as pointed out above, we have many better sources describing him as far-right (including the New York Times and Business Insider, both impeccable sources.) If your objection is to the specific sources you cited, just rely on the others for that particular statement instead. If your objection is that we should never call someone far-right unless they explicitly identify that way themselves, regardless of what the sources say (and regardless of their quality or reliability), then your issue isn't a WP:RS issue and should be taken to WP:BLPN or WP:NPOVN rather than here. Personally, I would say that Salon passes WP:RS - keep WP:BIASED in mind; a source is only judged as reliable or unreliable based on their accuracy and reputation, not their point of view. But either way, that's irrelevant when it's only one of many sources. --Aquillion (talk) 03:33, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO, you keep on saying that there's "overwhelming weight" of a "dozen other" RSs labelling Miller as far-right or some comparable label. Well, add them. Is the 'Edit source' button on Stephen Miller broken or something? NPalgan2 (talk) 04:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

We don't overstuff straightforward content with redundant citations. I've given quite a few here. I don't hear any substantive rebuttal from you. Thanks for the snark. SPECIFICO talk 04:04, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

You just dumped a bunch of links. This for instance https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/09/us/politics/stephen-miller-trump-white-house.html where does flegenheimer says miller is far-right? NPalgan2 (talk) 04:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Or this other link you gave. Can you quote the bit you want to cite? https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/05/stephen-miller-duke-donald-trump Most of the article is about Cohan's own views of the Duke Lacrosse scandal which are basically seen as fringe by almost all other observers. (https://newrepublic.com/article/117383/william-d-cohans-duke-lacrosse-case-book-gets-many-things-wrong) NPalgan2 (talk) 04:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Can we get an example of someone described as “near right”?

This is a side discussion... but it does relate. We have had a lot of discussions recently about people described as being “far right” by various sources... but do these sources ever describe anyone as being less than “far” right? Is anyone ever described as being “near” right or “center” right ... or perhaps a “mainstream” right? (Examples please). Blueboar (talk) 05:04, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

[58],[59], [60], [61], just from googling "center right" news. I'm not sure what you mean by "these sources", but the New York Times certainly uses center-right basically every day, for example almost every time they refer to Merkel or her party. However, I almost never see "center-right" used in the context of American politics, where "moderate Republican" or "centrist" are used instead. Also, it's not like every American rightist is a far-rightist. Politicians like John McCain, Marco Rubio, or John Kasich might be described as right wing, but I don't think I've ever seen them called far-right in an actual news article. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 05:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks... yeah, I was thinking in terms of US politics (and whether sources use other modifiers in that context)... And to relate it back to the question of reliability, I am curious to see where various sources draw the lines between the various degrees of “rightness”. Does Salon draw those lines differently than the NYT, or the Washington Post. Blueboar (talk) 12:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

This is the problem with the "far" and "alt" labels. It's very subjective among sources, because its relative to where those writing these articles want the political goallines to be. There is no well-established definition among any sources outside "farther to the right than I am comfortable with"; though this frequently includes white nationalists/supremacists. In other words, those writing seem to know the most extreme examples of people they call consider far right, but as you move more politically into the center, where that switches from "far right" to "center right" is far too varied to be usable for us. Hence why it is nearly best to consider the extreme terms ("far right", "far left", "alt right", etc.) as labels, and simply make sure they are treated as labels with attribution and appropriate claiming language. --Masem (t) 13:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• Note: there is an RfC in progress discussing this issue. See Talk:Stephen_Miller_(political_advisor)#RfC_about_calling_Stephen_Miller_far-right_in_lead_sentence NPalgan2 (talk) 15:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Unintended polarizing political language?

This conversation about the best "political descriptor" to use to best describe Steve Miller's political "leanings" has gotten me to wondering if the descriptor: "far-right" is used more in self description, or by left-leaning folks attempting to pigeonhole some of their political opponents on the right? Do any "right-leaning" folks use the term "far-right" to describe themselves? Perhaps the lead would be most neutral and accurate if it stated something like: "Miller describes himself as a nationalist, and has been described by some as far-right." One passer by (talk) 12:46, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

When it comes to labels, we should always attribute and NOT state them in Wikipedia’s voice (especially in BLPs). And yes, we should definitely mention the subject’s self-identification. Blueboar (talk) 12:53, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• We really need to have a broad discussion about assigning words and phrases that carry an obvious negative imputation such as "far ----" "extreme or extremist" "radical" "alt" "fringe" and so on to political persons covered by BLP. There doesn't appear to be much consistency in the way this is being handled in the project. Some editors are concerned that we de facto have differing standards for persons on the right and on the left. This may not be the best place for that conversation. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree. The RS noticeboard probably isn't the best venue for such a discussion. I would think that probably neither would the "Talk Page" of any given article be the best venue for such a discussion. Nonetheless, for the purpose of seeing how important most editors here feel it is to avoid polarizing political language, I've gone ahead and mentioned this point at the Steve Miller Talk Page where they are now conducting an apparently tied "vote" on whether or not to call Miller "far-right." I doubt that they will pay much attention to my comment there. I wonder what Jimbo would say about this concern? One passer by (talk) 16:45, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Using advertisements in old newspapers as sources

Can a advertisement found in an old newspaper be used as a source to place an individual in a certain place. For example if Ringling Bros. Circus had an advertisement for an upcoming event in the St Louis Post - Dispatch newspaper in 1956, can I accurately state "Ringling Bros. visited St Louis in 1956" and use the advertisement as my source? Idealee (talk) 14:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I tend to believe not because the appearance may have been canceled but I just want another opinion Idealee (talk) 15:00, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The archive is strong enough to establish that the ad was placed. I would note that lists of venues likely are available somewhere. As to "an individual" - even an official list of venues can not establish an individual's actual location on a given day. Collect (talk) 15:47, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I would agree with those who say that "going to be here" and "being here" are not quite the same.Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

It is a reliable source saying that "Ringling Bros. intended to visit St Louis in 1956". but not much more. MilborneOne (talk) 15:54, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• I'm marching with the crowd on this one: The event might have been cancelled after the ad was placed, so no. But it's okay to use to show that they intended to be there on that date. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:56, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

As seen in the article Atlanta International Film Festival.--Auric talk 16:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the input. It was the conclusion I had arrived to but I just wanted some confirmation. Idealee (talk) 16:26, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Can an editor dismiss the official government agency's website because they don't trust the government?

1. Source: Departments of Justice and Homeland Security Release Data on Incarcerated Aliens—94 Percent of All Confirmed Aliens in DOJ Custody Are Unlawfully Present

2. Illegal immigration to the United States

3. A report released by the DOJ and DHS on December 18, 2017, found that more than one-in-five of all persons in Bureau of Prisons custody were foreign born, and that 94% of confirmed aliens in custody were unlawfully present. They also found that non-citizens commit a substantially disproportionate number of drug-related offenses.

I restored part of someone's edit, but the same guy then removed it again. [62] Dream Focus 16:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• WP:ATT. "According to the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security, X". The reader can then make up their own mind. Guy (Help!) 16:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Having looked at their edit summary, I would go with "If you can make the case that the DOJ is untrustworthy with reliable sources, then I'll accept your objection as valid." In other words, if they can make that case to WP content standards, the way it was done with the Daily Mail a year ago, then it's okay to remove a citation to the DOJ based on mistrust of the DOJ. But if they can't, then their mistrust is misplaced, and their revert a mistake. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• The issue to me with the paragraph in question is that it's circular - if illegal/undocumented immigrants are put into Bureau of Prisons custody for being illegal/undocumented immigrants, then you're not necessarily demonstrating anything about their criminality other than merely being in the United States illegally. It would seem to me more relevant to rely on data that discusses rates of conviction/incarceration for illegal/undocumented immigrants vs. other immigrants and/or citizens. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Not at this time. What they do or do not trust is irrelevant. Even if it is not RS, we attribute it, so there is no valid objection nI can see.Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• I requested secondary sources that put the report in appropriate context. Such a request is valid, given that this administration has on at least two occasions produced bogus reports (i.e. reports which produce false or misleading conclusions and omit relevant information) about immigration: (1) A "DHS report" which claimed three-quarters of “international terrorism” convicts were immigrants and (2) a study by the Department of Health and Human Services on the costs of refugees. The former study was ripped apart by reporters and fact-checkers, and was described by experts as highly misleading[63][64]. It turned out that the analysis was not even conducted by DHS analysts. For the latter study, Stephen Miller forced the Department of Health and Human Services to omit that refugees had net positive effects (i.e. they brought in more revenue than they cost) after he was presented with the findings[65][66]. In other words, the administration changed the analysis when it produced findings that it did not like. Should both of these misleading bogus reports have been added to Wikipedia without any independent secondary sourcing to substantiates the reports' veracity or put the findings in the appropriate context? Of course not. The same applies to the administration's most recent report on the horrors of immigration. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

  The first one is just a twitter Trump made. That has nothing to do with the justice department's official stats on their official website. The next bit is about legal refugees, not illegal immigrants. They help the economy because the wealthy ones get in first probably. Read the entire article and it says they just cherry picked information. The report shows they spend more money per refugee than on citizens in this country. Has there even been any proof that a government website has published false information about crime statistics? Dream Focus 17:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

  Your response is bewildering and not about anything I brought up or that was in the sources cited here. Per the RS I cited here, the two reports are bogus. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:40, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• We are indeed dealing with an untrustworthy administration which is pushing bogus information in certain cases. Deal with it on a case-by-case basis, using RS to back up any edits. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, the BJS confirms the claim about the number of non-US citizens in custody, see https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p16.pdf. But this is rather misleading, as federal prisoners (the only ones counted) are only about 10-20% of the total prisoners in the US, and a disproportionate number of them will be citizenship-based offenders based on simple jurisdictions. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The question is not so much RS as UNDUE, IMO. If this is a statistic that no reliable secondary source discusses, then neither should we. Guy (Help!) 18:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Conforming website http://www.deccanherald.com as reference

Article: Shreya Ghoshal

Full reference URL: http://m.deccanherald.com/?name=http://www.deccanherald.com/content/661487/my-whole-focus-always-music.html

Content: She has sung in 14 languages. Zafar24Talk 00:34, 2 March 2018 (UTC)