Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 193

Archive 190

Archive 191

Archive 192

Archive 193

Archive 194

Archive 195

→

Archive 200

Emereo Publishing

Someone made an edit on Emilia Clarke claiming she has ADHD and takes medicine for it (see this edit) The source is The Emilia Clarke Handbook by Emily Smith published by Emereo Publishing (isbn 9781486461912). Emereo Publishing seems to be a self-publisher that just repackages Wikipedia content. See these links that say Emereo is not RS: [1], [2], [3], see 5th paragraph, [4].

Should any source from Emereo Publishing be consider RS? I'm inclined to say no personally. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Definitely not, per Wikipedia:CITOGENESIS. Gamaliel (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Not reliable. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Terrible source, copied from Wikipedia. Every once in a while I search for and remove any Emereo reference. It's a steady job, because people keep adding this stuff. Binksternet (talk) 00:57, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Should this be added to Wikipedia:List of companies engaged in the self-publishing business? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

The Diplomat

Greetings all! I was wondering if we could assess the validity of The Diplomat magazine. Specifically, in regards to Park Yeon-mi. There are two sources used from The Diplomat that question Yeon-Mi's statements about her stories. No issue there. But reading the articles, they are seriously lacking integrity in my opinion. As such I believe there is an issue with WP:QUESTIONABLE.

• http://thediplomat.com/2014/12/the-strange-tale-of-yeonmi-park/
• http://thediplomat.com/2014/10/north-korea-defectors-and-their-skeptics/

Both articles have updates at the bottom of the page in which they basically rescind all the claims they make. These updates also show that the magazine did not do very much research or investigating before publishing these articles. They also apparently did not seek a response from Yeon-Mi until after releasing one of the articles. Below

"Update: A Response from Yeonmi Park: I want to thank Mary Ann Jolley for caring so much about the terrible situation in North Korea that she would point out any inconsistencies in my quotes and how my story has been reported. Much of the time, there was miscommunication because of a language barrier. I have only learned English in the last year or so, and I’m trying hard to improve every day to be a better advocate for my people. I apologize for any misunderstandings. For example, I never said that I saw executions in Hyesan. My friends’ mother was executed in a small city in central North Korea where my mother still has relatives (which is why I don’t want to name it). And there are mountains you can even see on Google Earth – maybe you call them big hills in English – outside of Hyesan that we crossed to escape. There are many more examples like this.

But one very important thing to correct: I do not have a foundation. The website was a dummy site built by a friend, and it was not supposed to be live. There was no way it could accept money, and I haven’t taken any. I am so sorry for the confusion. The site has been taken down.

Also, I apologize that there have been times when my childhood memories were not perfect, like how long my father was sentenced to prison. Now I am checking with my mom and others to correct everything. I am also writing a book about my life in North Korea, my escape through China and and my work to promote human rights. It is where I will be able to tell my full story.

In the meantime, I thank you all for your patience and kindness to me."

"*Update: It appears the newspaper misquoted Park. What she actually said was: “Every morning and every … like … some riverside like this [gesturing out the window] you can see the dead bodies floating, and if you go out in the morning and just people dead there.” It should also be noted that the BBC did in fact film a body in the Tumen river on the Chinese side of the border in 2008."

This just doesnt seem like it meets the standards of a reliable source. Seems more like a blog. And while I understand reliable sources are very much allowed to have biases, in this instant, with a publication that does not follow journalistic behaviours, their bias is a bit more questionable. In conclusion I contend that these articles, and very like The Diplomat as a whole, does not check for facts and has no editorial oversight. DaltonCastle (talk) 07:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

It's definitely inaccurate on this topic. Such examples can be found for any long-running publication, and has to be evaluated for whether it constitutes a pattern. Unfortunately, "The Diplomat" is hard to Google. The editoral board has quality bona fides, and its articles are regularly highlighted by the Council on Foreign Relations website.[5] I would consider it a reliable source in general, but not on the topic of Yeonmi Park. Rhoark (talk) 15:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. But what happens if there are similar articles by The Diplomat that are inaccurate like these? Do we have to resort to some discretionary rule that The Diplomat is reliable by default unless shown to be inaccurate? DaltonCastle (talk) 20:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

DaltonCastle: I was the one who added The Diplomat source to the article. I am sorry I don't understand your point. You state Park's response to the article in The Diplomat, which is already present on the Wikipedia page. Everyone has a right to reply, that doesn't mean that the original article was wrong. It was wrong in one respect, but the error was not by The Diplomat, but the newspaper to which Park gave the interview, who misquoted her. These kinds of errors happen all the time in news, indeed the fact that they are corrected is one of the signs of a WP:RS. Please see this: One signal that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy is the publication of corrections. Kingsindian ♝♚ 10:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello there! I meant these corrections basically nullify several of the articles' claims. "Park has stated that the inconsistencies arise due to her imperfect English and mistranslations of her statements by journalists" is not notable, and should just be removed, as with the criticisms that were incorrectly made due to the language barrier. Why dont we just use those sources from SBS Dateline? DaltonCastle (talk) 18:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

@DaltonCastle: I am not sure what corrections you mean, which nullify the article's claims. I see only one correction, namely the one after the "Update: " portion. That part is not mentioned in the wikipedia article. The rest is a response by Park, which does not have any higher validity than the original article. Just because someone responds doesn't automatically mean that what they are saying is right. Our aim on Wikipedia is to describe disputes not engage in them. If you wish, you can elaborate a bit on her response in the section. Kingsindian ♝♚ 04:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, for starters, Abt's claim in one article about Yeon-Mi's statements about bodies in rivers was inaccurate. Yeon-mi was misquote due to the language barrier, and in 2008 the BBC did, in fact, film a body in the Tumen river. The same goes with Michael Basset, who denied the river comment. Am I saying remove ANY criticism section? No, not at all. But these sources from the Diplomat are poor. DaltonCastle (talk) 06:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, on the second article, which is rather poor in quality and is written more like a blog post, basically all the inconsistencies arose from the language barrier. These two articles did not handle Yeon-Mi's case very well. DaltonCastle (talk) 06:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I am afraid that is not how it works. Just because Yeonmi states that all the inconsistencies arise from her language barrier does not mean that they actually do. WP:NPOV deems that we present the criticisms, and we present Yeonmi's response, both of which are present in the section. We do not take a position on the debate, we simply describe it. As to the second article, it is written by Mary Ann Jolley, who interviewed Yeonmi on SBS Dateline herself. So when you say that we should cite SBS Dateline, we are actually doing it. Furthermore, there are other sources, like the Japan Times source, also cited in the article, that other defectors question some aspects of her story. Kingsindian ♝♚ 06:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

That still does not address the concerns of the page. The corrections are pretty big ones. Its not just "we got this one detail wrong". Its "we missed a lot and didnt do much research before publishing this article". DaltonCastle (talk) 22:19, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

These articles make blaring errors about Park and North Korea. For instance, they state her claims that bodies being in a river were absurd. But then later they go on to state they were in error since the BBC had in fact filmed bodies in the same river before. I think the number of factual errors made in these articles merits another look at them. DaltonCastle (talk) 03:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Since this page exists to get outside opinion of editors, I will not say much more on this. If you are unhappy with the section, I suggest opening an RfC on the topic. Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

IP editor using website to cite American-Serbian individuals

84.221.70.207 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is using the website http://robert.susnjer.com/Prominent-American-Serbians/Prominent-American-Serbians.html as a source to add the category Category:American people of Serbian descent to articles. The edit to John Miljan popped up on my watchlist, and checking the site, info about this person seems to come (mainly) from WP in the first place. I'm guessing this site isn't a WP:RS for biographies (or anything, for that matter), but want to confirm. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• Not reliable These types of massive directories never have an acceptable level of fact-checking. CorporateM (Talk) 01:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
• Not Reliable for BLP's. Like the above user stated, the website doesn't have much of a fact-checking system. Cheers, Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 17:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

He who pays the piper

Catholic think-tank in Poland, called the John Paul II Centre for Thought (Centrum Myśli Jana Pawła II) in order to make themselves feel good about how the Catholic Church is doing in the country apparently paid commercial pollster CBOS to conduct a survey. The results were published by the society of Jesus in a series of PDF files, many with deeply controversial answers to questionnaires about other religions and their practices such as the ritual slaughter of animals for consumption. Now, we have User:Sdino with the total number of 194 edits under his belt waging an edit war using Twinkle to restore biased expansion of the article Religion in Poland, including monster pie charts based on the society of Jesus publications and his ridiculous colour schemes. The new information is mostly about what Catholics think about other religious denominations. The Centre for Thought of John Paul II (according to its own website) is devoted entirely to the teaching of the Blessed Pope John Paul II and follows the intellectual heritage of the Pope.[6]

• Please, see his blanketed summary at Reverted 2 edits by Poeticbent (talk) to last revision by Sdino. (TW)
  

Also, please read my detailed post about this WP:RS conflict at Talk:Religion in Poland#Read the writing on the wall. I do not wish to continue edit warring with this user (possibly a devoted parishioner), but I will gladly follow our community decision in this matter. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 16:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Is there a question here? Rhoark (talk) 04:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Ultimately, Rhoark, it was actually a matter of UNDUE content being pushed using a biased source which has been deemed inappropriate for this article per TITLE. The content may be considered biased RS, therefore fine for usage (with attribution) in the appropriate context... but the "Religion in Poland" article is by no means the appropriate context. My understanding is that this group are WP:FRINGE as is. Devoting a large slab of the article to their 'research' and 'polling' results is way off topic. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Use of online video as source on Bosnian mujahideen

I came across Bosnian mujahideen by chance, the article contains the text: 'Abu Hamza, was one of the leaders,' … (of the Bosnian mujahideen)

Source used is an Al Jazeera video on 'YouTube called Veterans - Siege of Sarajevo

A quick 'Google' 'Abu Hamza Rabia Bosnia' threw up two hits, both WP pages (at present we are linking to the dab page).

A quick 'Google' 'Abu Hamza al-Masri Bosnia' threw up more hits, but they mainly refer to his claims to have fought in Bosnia.

I appreciate there are BLP as well as RS issues. I also realise Bosnian + Mujahideen are problematic areas, of which I have little expertise. I have posted on talk but so far no response. Advice?Pincrete (talk) 18:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Clarification of problem: I think the first problem is the use of 'dab' link failing to identify WHICH Abu Hamza, and thus by implication suggesting the more infamous Abu Hamza Rabia, that isn't a RS matter, but is part of the background. … … Second problem is whether a single Al Jazeera documentary is good enough for such a claim. The other 'Abu Hamza', the imprisoned cleric, has quite a number of hits for his presence in Bosnia, but I could not find very serious ones for any 'leadership' role, rather the opposite, many of them claim he 'peddled' a fake war history among his followers. Pincrete (talk) 07:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

It's from an official Al Jazeera YouTube account, so should be considered as published by Al Jazeera. Rhoark (talk) 19:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Update I've solved problem for now by removing the offending text and leaving a 'talk' message, until we know WHICH Abu Hamza, better to say nothing. Opinions on using such a video as 'sole source' for such a claim, still welcome.Pincrete (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Stupid Wikipedia mirrors and Wikipedia Books!!!

So I've been working on sourcing Articles lacking sources from October 2006. As can be expected, those articles have been around long enough that there are many mirrored versions of them on the web; that doesn't surprise me.

What does surprise me however, is the fact that a good many of them have apparently been included in Wikipedia Books, which then feature prominently in book search results. Generally for historical articles I turn to book searches first, as the web tends to be full of lots of unreliable nonsense. Now Google Book searches are turning up Wikipedia Books containing copies of the unreferenced articles I'm trying to reference. Why on Earth are the people who make these Wikipedia Books including totally unreferenced articles in them?

For an example of what I'm talking about look at Royal Order of Saint George for the Defense of the Immaculate Conception. The entire first page of book results on Google is nothing more than Wikipedia Books and self-published nonsense by a man who thinks he can use an odd combination of orders of nobility, genealogy, and heretical nonsense from three religions to do - something that I haven't read enough of his nonsense to make sense of (something about "exposing the secrets" of Christianity which are hidden by the Catholic Church). See search results here.

Yes, I know how to modify the search to exclude Wikipedia books, which is somewhat easier to do than excluding Wikipedia mirrors from a web search. I can also exclude the self-published author's nonsense. What I'm left with leads me to seriously question the accuracy of the article, beginning with the first sentence ("founded by Maximilian II Emanuel, Elector of Bavaria in 1726").

Does anyone have any tips on excluding Wikipedia mirrors and Wikipedia books to get at reliable sources for an article which has been floating around unsourced for 9 years and has been included in compilations of Wikipedia articles that have made it to print? These stupid books are even turning up on Amazon and library searches! ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Try different search terms. These sham books tend to turn up higher when the search term isn't used much in books, and in this case that's because this order is better known as the Georgsorden. There are lists of literature on dewiki and nlwiki that you wouldn't find with a query for "Royal Order of Saint George". QVVERTYVS (hm?) 07:20, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll try Georgsorden!~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Unable to help on 'searching', but in the case of 'Royal Order of Saint George etc', would you not be justified in proposing deletion when the article has had a 'no refs' tag since 2006? A proposal to delete might bring in help for sourcing what is left.Pincrete (talk) 07:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Deletion is not cleanup; sources to corroborate existence and notability exist in other editions of WP and this article isn't in so bad a state that WP:NUKEANDPAVE applies. Trimming it down to a stub might be better idea. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree, deletion is not clean up. Otherwise we could just go through and take everything in the tagged for sources since 2006 categories to AFD. Currently there are 200+ articles in the category for October of 2006 and thousands in later months. People at WP:RFA are always talking about conquering adminstrative backlogs, but there are a LOT of regular editing clean up backlogs that are far more neglected. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

RfC notice: The Washington Post on 2012 Koch-related funding of Americans for Prosperity

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Americans for Prosperity#Request for comment: $44M of $140M raised by Americans for Prosperity in 2012 election cycle from Koch-related funds. Please contribute to this request for comment, at which the verifiability and accuracy of the paraphrase have arisen as issues. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 20:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

This is inappropriate WP:CANVASSing. But the request has already been on this board, where consensus leaned against. (Note, that I've changed my mind. The sources are reliable, but do not say what Hugh says they do, even though he's changed what he wants to add. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Please see WP:Requests_for_comment#Publicizing_an_RfC. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 05:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Your comments are welcome at the RfC. By most of us. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 05:11, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Hot wheels wiki

[7], is this source reliable enough to support the statement that lakesters are playable in Hot Wheels Turbo Racing and Hot Wheels Velocity X made in Lakester? --Yutah Andrei Marzan Ogawa¹²³|UPage|_☺★ (talk) 12:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

It's a Wikia, so therefore user edited. I'd say no. Azealia911 _talk 12:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Not a reliable source. No fact checking going on and can be edited by anyone. Meatsgains (talk) 03:33, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• Not reliable Has a bright "Edit this page" button. All openly editable or crowd-sourced content is not reliable by its nature, even for the most mundane statements. CorporateM (Talk) 03:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Patent records as sources

Editors here are invited to participate at Talk:Yamaha_Tesseract regarding the acceptability of a list of patents cited to official patent records. CorporateM (Talk) 04:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

RT.com in CIA–al-Qaeda controversy

1. Source. http://rt.com/news/usa-egypt-muslim-military-233/
2. Article. CIA–al-Qaeda controversy
3. Content. "Allegations were made [by Don Debar in an interview with RT] that the United States and NATO have either unknowingly or knowingly been supporting al-Qaeda affiliates during the Libyan Civil War and the current Syrian civil war."

In an interview with RT, Don Debar of Community Progressive Radio in NYC stated: "Well, they [i.e. Washington] have no problem dealing with Al-Qaeda in Syria and Libya, and again, the folks who supposedly assassinated Anwar Sadat were connected in one way or another to the Muslim Brotherhood – that’s the official story from the United States, my suspicion is that it was the US military." My gut feeling is that a brief quip like this by a talking head on Fox News suggesting a conspiracy theory would not be permitted in Wikipedia, so I'm wondering how others feel this should be addressed. WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT, and/or WP:FRINGE? - Location (talk) 20:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

RT in this case would be reliable for reporting the opinions of Don Debar. I'll leave it to editors more familiar with the matter as to whether this deserves weight within CIA–al-Qaeda controversy. The relation to other topics is almost certainly WP:ONEWAY. Rhoark (talk) 22:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Rhoark is correct. In this case RT can be relied upon to report Debar's remarks (especially since there is likely to be mutual sympathy and thus no motivation to misrepresent him). The question is whether Don Debar's views are noteworthy. That is a matter for the article talk page rather than this noticeboard. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

RT is problematic, if this is a noteworthy comment, then a more reliable source will have published it. Spumuq (talq) 14:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• It is reliable with an in-text attribution to Don Debar, according to WP:NEWSORG, WP:SOURCE and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, and Spumuqs opinion does not count, as it is not based in our policy. Erlbaeko (talk) 16:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

How can Debar be a reliable source for the statement "the United States and NATO have either unknowingly or knowingly been supporting al-Qaeda affiliates during the Libyan Civil War and the current Syrian civil war" when the only reference to al-Qaeda in the article was his quip, "Well, they have no problem dealing with Al-Qaeda in Syria and Libya..."? And the article doesn't even reference NATO, or the CIA, for that matter. - Location (talk) 16:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Good point. I did not notice at first reading. However, the article is still reliable for reporting Don Debars opinion with an in-text attribution. Erlbaeko (talk) 17:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• Saying it is reliable, because you want to use that POV, does not make it reliable, look at older discussions of RT on this noticeboard, other editors agree RT is not reliable, if you are so determined that Debar's words are important you can find a reliable source. Spumuq (talq) 16:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

  If RT says the sun rises in the east then one should get up at 6 a.m. to verify. However, as stated by the OP this was an interview with RT so they would be the best source for this particular interview. Don Debar is quite sympathetic to Russia, so there's no reason to expect his words were misreported. Again, the real question is whether Don Debar's views are sufficiently relevant for inclusion. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Spumuq, I don't want to use that POV, and I have never even heard of Don Debar, but that does not make the source unreliable. Nor does your repeated no votes. We base our advice on policies and guidelines around here. Erlbaeko (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Sources are supposed to be determined reliable or unreliable in context, and I have supplied the context of his quote and the context of how it appears to be used in the article. They don't seem to match, so I cannot see how the source is reliable for the content specified. - Location (talk) 16:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

It looks like the Wikipedia article is misrepresenting RT/Debar. I missed that that was at issue. Debar says the US was "dealing with" al Qaeda, which seemed to me to mean in the sense of communicating or negotiating with them. I don't think it should be stretched to "supporting". Rhoark (talk) 17:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I missed that too. However, I noticed that this article was used as second source earlier, ref diff. I am not sure if Voltaire Network/Tehran Times is reliable or if the two sources fully supports the statement, but the removal of that source may be the reason for the misrepresentation. Erlbaeko (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

OK. Now things make much more sense. The insertion of both sources went in the same time here. That article does claim a US-al-Qaeda conspiracy but doesn't mention any CIA connection to make it relevant to the article. - Location (talk) 20:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC) edited 21:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• I think you have agreed that the source is reliable for the opinion of DeBar.
• Let's move the discussion on to relevance and noteworthiness, which I did at Talk:CIA–al-Qaeda controversy#Don DeBar comments about Libya and Syria

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• Not reliable Unless I'm missing something, the source is a blurb and an interview from a second-rate news organization. The claim being made is WP:EXCEPTIONAL, as well as speculative (accusations, as oppose to confirmed facts). As an interview source, only the paragraph at the top that is in the voice of the reporter is reliable - the rest is basically the equivalent of an op-ed. However, even if the whole thing was in the voice of the reporter, it still wouldn't be anywhere in the ballpark of what we should look for, for something like this. CorporateM (Talk) 01:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
• The RT.com part isn't the most relevant part of reliability here; let's just assume, for the sake of argument, that they're reliable for conveying someone's comments in an interview. But so what? Who the heck is Don DeBar? The whole CIA–al-Qaeda controversy#Allegations section is highly controversial, in fact WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Government shaking stuff. Now some of the sources there are strong enough to bear that burden, such as top level government officials from the UK and Saudi Arabia, OK. But some guy from a NYC radio station? No way is that enough for claims like this. --GRuban (talk) 03:02, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
• This is a typical Erlbaeko problem. No doubt the comments are, strictly speaking, verifiable, in the sense that we can find them in a source of some kind; but that's missing the point. Giving undue weight to WP:FRINGE opinions and watering down the mainstream view is a much bigger problem. Insistence on citing RT is a red flag for this - if an editor really wants to put text in an article whilst citing a Kremlin propaganda mouthpiece, we should consider whether that text poses a neutrality problem. bobrayner (talk) 08:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

If you had taken the time to read the discussion, you might have noticed that I said that I don't want to use it. In fact I have suggested to delete the whole section. Erlbaeko (talk) 09:37, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Kanyetothe.com

Can't seem to find a blanket-ban guideline on user-submitted forums, if there is one then please tell me I'm a plonker and direct me to it, because I'm sure there may be one. But a Kanye West fan forum has been cited on multiple discographies in album sales updates (1, 2, 3) the figures seem close to the previously listed figures, but the post its self gives no indication of where it achieved these figures. Is it safe to say this is unreliable? Azealia911 _talk 22:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

@Azealia911: I think WP:USERGENERATED is what you're looking for. You are correct, forums cannot be used as sources for anything; the same goes for any crowd-sourced sources. CorporateM (Talk) 03:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

@CorporateM: that's along the lines of what I needed, thankyou! Azealia911 _talk 09:45, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

raceandhistory.com

This article is being used as a source on the evolution of epicanthic folds in this Wikipedia article. The following claims are made.

It is hypothesized that epicanthic folds are caused by climatic factors, and it may have originated more than once during human evolution. The genetic basis of epicanthic folds is not well understood. The fat above the eyes insulates the eyes, conserving body heat.

The article is attributed to an Amon Hotep, on whom I can find little information on the internet other than various self-published writings attributed to him. Therefore, he has no reputation, and it is not clear whether he is a real person or whether Amon Hotep is a pseudonym. He is allegedly the founder of an organization in Trinidad and Tobago which calls itself the Self Empowerment Learning Fraternity and which runs a number of websites including www.raceandhistory.com.

The article itself is not a primary source and cites no sources.

Rectipaedia (talk) 01:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• Not Reliable - I am fairly confident that this is a unreliable source. Amon Hotep is very deep into self published WP:FRINGE territory and has self published a variety of works on the internet that advocate absurd racist conspiracy theories. For example this, he is hardly an expert on biology or racial differences. Thanks for removing that source. Winner 42 Talk to me! 01:24, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
• Not reliable Per OP. CorporateM (Talk) 03:41, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
• not acceptable, particularly given all of the actual peer reviewed content available about the subject.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
• Not reliable or acceptable due to being a WP:SELFPUBLISHed source. The 'About us' page demonstrates that it's a self-funded 'project' run by an autodidact and doesn't draw on any scholarly research. Pure WP:OR. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:49, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
• Not reliable, for the reasons clearly pointed out by Iryna Harpy, TheRedPenOfDoom and Winner 42. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:49, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Internet Brands

Dedicated Controversy section here is cited exclusively to primary sources, crowd-sourced websites and a press release (the "Reuters" source is just a press release repost). I brought it up at COIN, because I have a very remote potential COI, but it was archived without response. An editor suggested RSN was a better place. I think COIN is probably more focused on investigations of a non-disclosed COI, since in addition to a WP:CRITICISM issue, none of the content actually has adequate sourcing. CorporateM (Talk) 17:52, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Columnist

Additional input is welcomed here. I'd also like to ping @Gandydancer:, since the subject is related to feminism, which is a topic I know they have an interest in. CorporateM (Talk) 20:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Peacenow.org.il

Is the anti-Semitic site peacenow.org.il a reliable source? On French Hill, it is being used to claim as a fact that a Jewish neighborhood in the Israeli capital Jerusalem is a racist term called an "illegal Israeli settlement."

• Not reliable English version of their About page is here. They are some kind of political advocacy organization. Way out of bounds from a reliability perspective. CorporateM (Talk) 20:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Catholic politicians, abortion and communion or excommunication

This is more of an OR question than an RS question, but NORN is very low-traffic and I'm skeptical of this user's willingness to allow his bold edit to be reverted even if no one else supports it, so hopefully RSN can help out - maybe along the lines of "are these sources qualified to do this analysis." Anyway, User:[email protected] believes that this paragraph in Catholic politicians, abortion and communion or excommunication is synthesis, while I have pointed out that the no-synthesis policy prohibits original analysis by editors, not the inclusion of the analysis by reliable sources. What do you think: is the bolded text prohibited by WP:SYNTH, or are the cited sources accurately represented and qualified to do this analysis of the events?

In 2004, Archbishop Burke said he would not give communion to 2004 presidential candidate and Senator John Kerry, in part because of his position on abortion. According to religion experts, such a denial of communion would have been unprecedented. Kerry's own Archbishop Sean O'Malley refused to specify the applicability of his earlier statement that such Catholics are in a state of grave sin and cannot properly receive communion. The issue led to comparisons between Kerry's presidential campaign and that of John F. Kennedy in 1960. While Kennedy had to demonstrate his independence from the Roman Catholic Church due to public fear that a Catholic president would make decisions based on the Holy See agenda, it seemed that Kerry, in contrast, had to show obedience to Catholic authorities in order to win votes. According to Margaret Ross Sammons, Kerry's campaign was sufficiently damaged by the threat to withhold communion that it may have cost him the election. Sammons argues that President George W. Bush was able to win 53% of the Catholic vote because he appealed to "traditional" Catholics.

References

I've encouraged Rms to read the relevant policies, but he has declined to do so, mistakenly citing BRD as a reason to repeatedly try to push his change onto a pretty calm article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment It's a bit odd to cite a bunch of minor local publications for a national level presidency. I haven't reviewed the sources for SYNTH, but they seem pretty week in general. I see that one of the sources has "opinion" in the URL and opinion content cannot be used anywhere for anything, certainly not for this kind of material, which would probably fall under WP:EXCEPTIONAL. CorporateM (Talk) 20:33, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Uh, what country are you from? The Washington Post is one of the largest and most reputable papers in the US, and the SF Chronicle and SD Union-Tribune are smaller but still in the top 25 or so, I think. The Toronto Star is Canada's largest paper. Just because they have a place name in their name doesn't mean they're "minor local publications". I've got to say, I'm baffled by this response. (I'm fine with removing the "opinion" source, but as it's saying the same thing as the other sources; I don't think this would result in the removal of any content.)

If you'd rather avoid news coverage entirely, even from established national papers, this is a pretty common view about Kerry's campaign and it's easy to find book sources for it.

But either way, would you agree that the text does indeed accurately reflect the cited sources? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Kworb

Note: Second time listing as the first occurrence got no response, appreciate all feedback.

A site normally used to track album and singles positions on iTunes, http://kworb.net/cc/ustotals.html gave some figures which have been included on multiple articles (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) Figures seem to match that of some previously reported, however source its self claims "Aggregate Sales Estimates (United States)", "Exact Soundscan figures have not been incorporated.", "Subtracted sales due to "Complete My Album" are still included." and "Only covers top 200/400 weekly sales for some periods". I'd be strong to suggest it was unreliable, but would like other opinions before I get myself into multiple edit wars with the same editor of these additions. Azealia911 _talk 23:23, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• Not reliable The FAQ/description of the site says "I'm a 29-year-old guy from the Netherlands and this whole website is just my personal playground." It's just a personal, self-published hobby site by "some guy". Not even a remote argument for reliability. CorporateM (Talk) 17:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Lyndon Johnson's political influence on selection of Houston Manned Spacecraft Center?

Source: Koppel, Lily (2013). The Astronaut Wives Club: A True Story. Grand Central Publishing. p. 106. ISBN 1-4555-0323-1.

Article: Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center

Content:

Despite the ability to satisfy these requirements at what was already the temporary home of MSC, the geographically larger Cape Canaveral and nearby Patrick Air Force Base facilities, NASA had an unexpressed public relations interest in involving as many geographical areas of the country in its mission as possible. Considering that, and the fact then President Johnson was a Texan, the choice became clear.

Is this reliable, NPOV fact, or simply this author's opinion? Biased sources should only be used to verify controversial opinions, not supposed facts. Several writers have thrown around aspersions about "Johnson and his cronies", which seem to be related to the 1963 Bobby Baker scandal. Yet no corruption allegations ever actually stuck to Johnson. JustinTime55 (talk) 17:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Covering speculation is not outright forbidden, but in most cases it is very strongly discouraged. Generally it should only be included if it meets WP:EXCEPTIONAL (exceptional is not actually relevant, it's just a similar standard) of being covered by multiple highly reliable sources. Regarding the language, "the choice became clear" makes me cringe. It would be much better to clearly identify it as a speculation, add attribution, etc. CorporateM (Talk) 17:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Houston was selected as the site of the Manned Space Center in 1961; Johnson wasn't president yet. Rep. Albert Thomas of Texas, the then Chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, is generally identified as the main political influence on the selection. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Bellingcat

This seems to be a personal website www.bellingcat.com but describes itself as 'by and for citizen investigative journalists'. It is being used as a reliable source in Wikipedia article MH17 and probably other articles. My question is can anyone set up a website or blog, put up original research there by amateur journalists or bloggers and then reference it in Wikipedia articles? If so it seems a way to get around No Original Research protection - I could just put up my OR on my own website and then quote it as a reliable source.Dbdb (talk) 22:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• Not a reliable source. I see nothing that makes me think this site meets RS. The fact that it says it's by citizen journalists probably is a good indicator that it lacks editorial oversight. The "about" page is blank. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
• Not a reliable source -- it seems to just be user-generated content. Cheers, Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 20:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
• Not reliable, per WP:SPS. This is clearly a self-published advocacy website that consists of bloggers without qualifications. RGloucester — ☎ 20:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - whether or not something is reliable depends on whether, per WP:RS, it has a reputation for "fact-checking and accuracy". Bellincat analysis has been covered in multiple sources, noting the quality of the analysis. It most certainly is NOT "user-generated content". Please familiarize yourself with a subject (like, start here: Eliot Higgins) before offering your opinion. Or [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. So we have positive coverage of the source in The Guardian, Abc, Washingtonpost, Sunday Morning Herald, Deutsche Welle and BBC - and there's more out there. Whether they're reliable or not depends on the particular text that is being discussed. But they're definetly several steps above "user-generated content" or "bloggers without qualifications" or a "self-published advocacy website".

I also feel compelled to point out that this is some disruptive WP:FORUMSHOPPING by User:Dbdb. They asked exactly the same question at NOR noticeboard, got an answered they didn't like, so they came over here. Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes I did raise it under OR because I saw the bellingcat website as OR (as a lot of people here seem to). I was told that I couldn't raise it as OR within the article as the website was only linked to in the article. This is clearly a loophole whereby anyone can publish OR on their own website and then just link it into a wikipedia article, thereby bypassing the OR prohibition. Clearly the protection against that is enforcing RS - that is why I raised bellingcat as not RS. Anyone looking at it can clearly see what it is. You pretesting so much and accusing me of being disruptive does not help your case. I assume you are connected with bellingcat? Dbdb (talk) 01:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• I'm trying not to resent the fact that you came in and started telling people what they haven't read or researched. Screw AGF, right? "Citizen journalists" are still user-generated content at this site. RSN is exactly where this issue should be discussed., so it's the right forum. Additionally, even IF (big if) the source can be used, putting a conspiracy theory from it in the lead isn't proper. IF (again big if) it belongs in the article, the lead isn't where it belongs. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, I was only going by your comments, which do pretty clearly indicate that you haven't read or researched certain things. What do you want me to do, assume that you actually meant/did something else than what you said you did? Sorry, I just took what you said at face value and responded accordingly. And you keep persisting in your misconception/misrepresentation even after you've been provided with links which could potentially remedy that, if you chose to actually read them. It's not "user-generated content". "citizen journalist" is just a descriptive phrase which is irrelevant as to the source's reliability. It's not a "conspiracy theory" - where in hell did you get that one from? Obviously established reliable sources do not treat it as such since they are reporting Bellingcat analysis as legitimate.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• Look, let's simplify this. If the Dutch, US, etc are putting the THEORY forward, then why are you using a citizen journalist site? And if the site itself says it is "by and for" citizen journalists, then how is it not user generated? For citizen journalists (ie the users) by the citizen journalists (the users). User generated. Citizen journalists.....actually, that is relevant as a term. Just like it's relevant when used for the blacklisted NowPublic or Examiner.com. In any case, I'm done here. Enjoy your editing. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:17, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@Niteshift36: Regarding "conspiracy", you're aware the official probe (conducted by the Dutch) consider it the #1 cause of the crash right now? Dutch-Led Probe of MH17 Crash Says Buk Missile Launch is Primary Theory - Wall Street Journal ("...Buk surface-to-air missile launched from rebel-held territory"). Stickee (talk) 22:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• At this point, it's a conspiracy theory. Do some conspiracy theories end up being true? Once in a while. Will this one? Maybe someday. Today it is just a theory. Further, if you insist on putting the theory in the lead, then use the Dutch govt as a source, not Bellingcat. That's the simplest answer. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:24, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

No, it's not a "conspiracy theory". You seem not to understand what a "conspiracy theory". There are two words there "conspiracy" and "theory". The topic under discussion fulfills the second of these but not the first. In other words, yes, it's a "theory" but it's not a "conspiracy theory" but rather the mainstream most plausible and probable theory. Your argument is a bit like saying that the idea that it was the 9/11 hijackers who flew those planes into those towers is a "conspiracy theory" because it's "just a theory" (and it involved some "conspiring").Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:06, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: said "whether or not something is reliable depends on whether, per WP:RS, it has a reputation for 'fact-checking and accuracy'." A reputation for fact-checking and accuracy is necessary but not sufficient for a source to be reliable. The full quote from the Overview says "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." In addition, that's just the opening sentence. I think it is fair to say Bellingcat is self-published, although if someone wants to argue that, I would recommend starting a new thread. But granting it is self-published, the most relevant part of the policy is this sentence from Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Self-published sources (online and paper): "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." (emphasis in original) If the subject matter was academic scholarship or other typical cases of established expertise like lawyers or doctors, then this would be a no-brainer that Bellingcat is not reliable. But the uniqueness of the expertise claimed in this case makes the first emphasis murky. There isn't an established field of social-media image and video analysis. So it would be better to use Bellingcat material from other RS when possible, and with attribution in all cases, rather than declare it is a RS. Mnnlaxer (talk) 17:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• Depends Using Bellingcat itself as a reference may or may not be reliable, but it being cited in RS's (eg NYT, The Guardian etc) makes its use reliable. Stickee (talk) 22:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
• Not reliable Depends, but if a Bellingcat article is cited by a well-established news source, that article can be used as a source together with the news organizations article. If a Bellingcat article is not cited by a reliable news organization, it can be deleted as non RS. Same goes for the Brown Moses blog. On exception is if Bellingcat "print" an article by an established expert in the relevant field (not a self-claimed "expert"). Erlbaeko (talk) 09:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC) (Updated based on discussion. Erlbaeko (talk) 19:44, 16 June 2015 (UTC))
• Can be used for sourcing. If it was quoted by Wall Street Journal, it can be used for sourcing here, either directly or indirectly (through quotes in other sources). My very best wishes (talk) 18:12, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
• Supremely reliable It is not self-published or user-generated content. It is published by a corporation with a fiduciary interest in accuracy. It is subject to the control of expert professional editors. It has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. As much as some WP editors like to invent special extraordinary criteria for sources to meet, it is unnecessary to go any further than this to establish reliability. It's worth going further in this case, however, because Bellingcat absolutely raises the bar when it comes to verifiability. All their sources and reasoning are fully documented and transparent, in the interest of reproducibility. We should wish that all journalists applied a similar paradigm. The Savushkina troll army is out in full force today to talk down Bellingcat, but the data and the reasoning are out in the open for everyone to see. Rhoark (talk) 19:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

This is a parody, right? Mnnlaxer (talk) 05:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I guess you weren't kidding: "I'm beginning to suspect this might be the most reliable source in existence." [16] - Mnnlaxer (talk) 03:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

'All their sources and reasoning are fully documented and transparent' - 'the data and the reasoning are out in the open for everyone to see' - RS quote bellingcat a heck of a lot - no, that is not parody - and who suggests it is parody - an idiot who wants the views of Limbaugh and paul and veterans today and globalresearch everywhere - that is what is contemptible - a complete idiot who wants ignorant rentagobs views promoted all over the shop has the absolute stupidity to mock views way more intelligent than his own. 92.3.10.13 (talk) 14:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC) (struck as blocked sockpuppet)

Do either of you have RS to back up these claims? "It is published by a corporation with a fiduciary interest in accuracy." I'm not aware of this interest. From below, see what the largest English-language newspaper website, the Daily Mail, printed. Besides libeling rich or powerful people and publishing classified info, there is no such fiduciary interest in accuracy. In fact, I don't think you know what fiduciary interest is, because it commonly conflicts with publishing only accurate information. "It is subject to the control of expert professional editors." Who are these expert professional editors? How much are they paid? Where does the money to pay them to edit come from? Only two of the contributors listed have editing experience and they are both undergraduates right now. "It has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking." The Kickstarter campaign to fund it and its first post were less than a year ago. Only two topics it has posted on have received any notice in the MSM. Posts on other topics seem to get a lot less traffic. Since August 2014, there has only been one post on the Ghouta chemical attack. There is still MH17 news coming, and that will pick up when the official investigation issues its report. But what guarantees that the MSM will continue to cover Bellingcat, much less praise it? Declaring a one-year site with a diverse group of free-lancing writers a RS seems very premature, it would be prudent to wait and see what happens. See my "with attribution" comment below. Mnnlaxer (talk) 15:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

It is not, in general, necessary to support editorial decisions (such as whether a source is reliable) with citations to other reliable sources. However, Bellingcat does have a reputation for reliability as shown by the variety of RS's that have profiled Bellingcat and its founder, or used them as sources. My older statement that Bellingcat may be the "most reliable source ever" was hyperbole, however, its fact checking processes seem more visible and robust than all but a few news outlets (such as Der Spiegel or the Economist). Their analyses are probably often sufficiently original to be considered primary sources, in which case it is indeed highly desired to have claims corroborated by a secondary source. That does not, however, mean that Bellingcat is not reliable on its own terms. Rhoark (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

My RS request was sort of joking. But I would like to know if "[Bellingcat] is subject to the control of expert professional editors" is also hyperbole. No matter. I am very interested in this issue because it is so complicated and confusing. So let me try make a couple of points clearly. That RS have profiled Eliot Higgins is almost completely independent of whether Bellingcat or Higgins himself is a reliable source in the eyes of the RS. Yes, they couldn't be publishing easily debunked garbage, but if they are working hard, publishing plausible information, and avoiding big mistakes, then they are in the mix. What makes Higgins and Bellingcat stand out so much and receive so much attention is not closely related to its reputation for accuracy and fact-checking (which is dubious, but I'll grant it for now). Much more important is the 1) novelty, 2) uniqueness, 3) support for mainstream and government narratives, and 4) the Everyman angle of Higgins going from on-the-dole to international player.

In more depth: 1) Feature story writers are always looking for something to write about. No one has done analysis of social media and open sources like Higgins. That's a big deal. News is about new stuff. 2) There is little to no access for western reporting on the ground in Syria or Donbass. The only information that was previously readily available all comes from the involved parties and there is much propaganda and little chance to check it out for themselves. Plus the immediacy and intensity of the videos are like cat nip to viewers, and thus media producers. 3) This one is completely tied up in ideology and bias, so I won't bother. But if anyone thinks it isn't important, you're fooling yourself. 4) Higgins himself is a great story. At home watching the baby one year and jetting off to Ukraine and Jordan the next. Major international attention for what almost everybody does, watch Youtube. Pure gold. And his almost-attractive-but-not-threatening looks. Total Tom Hanks. Plus the Brit accent for the U.S. audience. He's the complete package.

Using Bellingcat as a source in an RS story. Almost all of the big coverage Higgins has gotten is a repetition of his claims. "A forensic study found ..." (they love "forensic") or "A Bellingcat analysis stated ..." or "Higgins found ..." In general, that's good journalism: don't say anything yourself that you could put into a primary source's mouth. It lets the reporter off the hook if it's wrong, gives them the appearance of a neutral observer, and is more compelling coming from someone else. I've got no problem with in-text attribution, as I've made clear on this thread.

Primary source. Bellingcat's reports are not a primary source for the conflicts they cover. They are secondary, as they are not personally involved in the story. When the story is about Bellingcat, they become the primary source. And you have to be careful with primary sources. CYA kicks in. If Bellingcat turns out to be wrong, the reporter and the RS doesn't get any of the blame. It's "well, we're just reporting" blah, blah blah. The related point is that when RS includes Bellingcat's analysis, the RS is not corroborating Bellingcat's work. It is merely passing it on. If there are any stories out there that explicitly say that the RS went back and did the same leg-work as Bellingcat to see if it was correct, please post it here. </rant> Sorry. Mnnlaxer (talk) 20:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

When a source performs novel research (such as image analysis) rather than just reporting, it is a primary source for the research it performed. Rhoark (talk) 15:07, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

You've just illustrated you don't understand the concepts behind WP:Primary and Secondary sources. Analysis of a primary document such as published images is clearly secondary, while reporting what an eyewitness saw is clearly primary. Note "Secondary" is not another way to spell "good" and the opposite. Mnnlaxer (talk)

• Not reliable With attribution (update below) This is basically what major RS do when using Bellingcat themselves. This leaves the decision of whether it is a RS with the reader. And this eliminates individual arguments over specific cases if the decision is "Depends." In general, the issue with Bellingcat is that it is a brand new form of journalism. RS are very interested in latest developments and tech. Higgins himself provides a good human interest story. And the work Bellingcat does is un-reproducible by RS right now. They can't call up the original or their own sources to confirm anything Bellingcat does, because it isn't human source based. There is no way of knowing how comprehensive Bellingcat's survey of videos or photos is. Key facts like when was the BUK video recorded are unknowable. So you've seen neutral to positive stories on Higgins/Bellingcat so far, focusing on the novelty, tech and rags to riches angles. That's about all they can do right now. There has been plenty of criticism of Higgins/Bellingcat, but it is currently on the fringes of RS. This situation is likely to stay this way for awhile, as long as Bellingcat stays in their niche and doesn't make any huge errors. So use the RS citing Bellingcat rather than Bellingcat itself when you can, but in all cases use attribution, e.g. "Bellingcat analyzed pictures of X obtained from social media and concluded that Y." Rather than just "Y." Mnnlaxer (talk) 03:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE: "With attribution" was my attempt at compromise, but it seems the discussion is much more "not reliable" than I expected. My first choice has always been to use RS citing Bellingcat, not Bellingcat itself. If this discussion ends in "not reliable," then Bellingcat shouldn't be cited at all. I'm personally fine with adding Bellingcat as an in-text attribution for the RS citation, but don't feel strongly about it, and I realize that specific discussion is complicated. Mnnlaxer (talk) 15:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Here's another issue with Bellingcat. The most recent post is Analyzing Bin Ladin’s Bookshelf Part 2 which is a repost from Automating OSINT, a commercial service. If anyone posted the one from Automating OSINT, it would be reverted very quickly. But someone could (and would) argue it can be used as a RS because it appeared at Bellingcat. This also brings up the issue of compensation. Are all the contributors on Bellingcat paid per post? Paid by traffic? Not paid? This puts the range of contributors from free-lance journalist, to intern or job seeker, to hobbyist blogger, to self-promoting PR. How do you know which one applies in any given instance? Are there any paid editors? And how is the site funded? Talk about a lack of transparency. Mnnlaxer (talk) 05:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

RS discuss the work of bellingcat all the time so all your huffing and puffing are irrelevant - eliot Higgins sought crowdfunding to establish bellingcat- £47K was raised - crowdfunding enbled bellingcat to license imagery used in one of their latest reports also -july 17 imagery - 92.3.10.13 (talk) 14:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC) (struck as blocked sockpuppet)

Crowdfunding is exactly why this isn't an RS. It is a populist blog, run by activists. I agree with what was said above. If an RS cites a Bellingcat report in a specific instance, it can be included in a Wikipedia article with attribution. However, if RS do not cite a report, it cannot be included. RGloucester — ☎ 16:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

and RS do cite their reports on Ghouta and MH17 and Russian army and materiel in Ukraine etc etc - so this is all just 'subject, the bleedin' obvious' 92.3.10.13 (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC) (struck as blocked sockpuppet)

I think this is reasonable and yes it does apply in this case. One detail though, which is relevant to how this discussion got started - if Bellingcat is quoted by secondary sources and we use it accordingly, there should be no issue to linking to the original Bellingcat post itself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Of course not, as long as the secondary RS is provided. The only problem arrises when Bellingcat is used alone, without attribution, and without secondary RS. RGloucester — ☎ 19:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• Reliable - Bellingcat is an independent analysis group which has been lauded in the press, and is often cited by the press. The Kickstarter is how the group initially funded the company but funding source has nothing to do with reliability. It is an "Opensource" analysis meaning they rely on Opensource information such as videos and photos published on YouTube as the basis for independent investigations of wartime which are otherwise too difficult or dangerous for traditional media outlets to obtain. There are quite a few conspiracy theorists who see Bellingcat as a paid front for intelligence agencies but it's fringe critics. There is one legitimate critical article in Der Spiegel that presumably could be used to provide a counter-POV to the Bellingcat report on MH17. -- GreenC 20:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Funding source is relevant to reliability. The Washington Times kept operating at a loss due to the Rev. Moon's patronage. On many subjects his newspaper was not a reliable source. Once the current funds are gone (and they can't last for long), where is the money going to come from? It is not going to come from intelligence agencies, but there are plenty of ideological foundations and think tanks that would pay for supportive journalism. As for legitimate critical sources, more will appear I predict. Here is another digital photo expert criticizing the latest satellite photo story. [17] He was interviewed in Deutsche Welle. Here is another similar critique [18] of Bellingcat's work and more will eventually get into RS. I can't emphasize enough 1) how premature it is to judge the Bellingcat website as RS right now, and 2) only a small portion of Bellingcat's posts (all by Higgins?) have been mentioned by RS. Mnnlaxer (talk) 04:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• Not ReliableAs the person who raised this I am happy to accept the notion that bellingcat if quoted on a matter, in a(nother) RS, can be referenced on that matter in wikipedia. Conversely if it is is simply some citizen journalist article not quoted in any other RS that bellingcat has chosen (with its rather strong POV) to put on its website then it can't. I only have a slight concern that in the former case the actual RS should be mentioned but is that a fair summary of the consensus? How do I progress this, specifically how do I get non RS bellingcat references removed? (sorry I am new to this). I think it needs resolving as bellingcat seems to be popping up all over the place and there will be others. Dbdb (talk) 01:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

One other point, what about comments on say a BBC page? The BBC, definitely RS, have chosen to publish those comments, which could be the weirdest conspiracy theory. I wouldn't want that theory to then appear in wikipedia as RS, even if the BBC is mentioned. Dbdb (talk) 01:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment sections are never RS. Mnnlaxer (talk) 05:04, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Last point I see there are a few very vigorous and knowledgeable (about bellingcat) defenders of bellingcat. That only confirms me in my view that it is not RS. If we give weigth to that any number of extreme websites may become RS, some not on the same extreme as bellingcat Dbdb (talk) 01:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC).

• Reliability is contextual, but generally not a reliable source, certainly not for any remotely controversial statements of fact. Per WP:V, reliables sources are "third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Likewise, the WP:RS entry for news outlets (the only alternative I can see to qualifying it as a self-published source, which is definitely not reliable) states that only "well-established news outlets" are reliable; it's simply not well-established enough to be citable as a source on its own. Compounding this, more extreme claims require higher-quality sources (and the most extreme claims require multiple mainstream high-quality reliable sources); from what I gather, the claims people are trying to cite to it would be fairly extreme. As others have said, though, when something from it is picked up by a more reliable source and reported on there, we can use that. --Aquillion (talk) 05:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• Not a reliable source, at least not per se and not even when cited by reliable sources. For general criticism, see the section for criticism here and note that it applies to bellingcat, not Eliott Higgins in person. The criticism has been criticised itself, but on formal reasons, not for content. Follow the link here, and you get a detailed analysis of a contribution of bellingcat. This, combined with an interview with an expert - in English, led to the news magazine Der Spiegel retracting the claim of bellingcat and apologising for violating journalistic standards. Sorry, some of it is in German. The salient point being that they would have needed to check more sources than just bellingcat. This is a case of a reliable source, the Spiegel qualifies, citing bellingcat and finding out to be wrong. -- Zz (talk) 10:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

There is a reason why that crap was removed from the Eliot Higgins article. It was BLP-violating POV pushing. And every source gets critized and disagreed with. As for the Der Spiegel what they are doing is not "retracting bellingcat" but rather amending some of their language - roughly they say "instead of saying that Bellingcat "proved beyond a doubt" we should've said that Bellingcat's report strongly suggests..." (paraphrase). It's not nearly as damning... or damning at all actually, as you are trying to make it out to be. And they are apologizing for their OWN owrding, Der Spiegel's, not Bellingcat's. Nice try though.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

You've got that wrong. Der Spiegel has featured a scathing review - by an expert - of Bellingcat's so called analysis. Its headline was "Bellingcat reads tea leaves". Not sure how you could miss this. The link has been provided already. And then the Spiegel apologised for their own violation of journalistic standards which was to presuppose Bellingcat's analysis had been the truth. Some other newspapers - such as the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung - followed suit. -- Zz (talk) 14:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• "...the data and the reasoning are out in the open for everyone to see..." but not to understand. Majority of the work is geo-location from satellite images, or XFIF data from photographs to show photoshopping etc. These are not easily checkable by the average reader. Several other blogs HAVE gone into bellingcat's work in detail, and determined it to be inaccurate or mistaken in the results. Some of these were written by people with verifiable expertise in digital imaging, which Higgins lacks. I have seen bellingcat quoted on numerous news sites, invariably when it confirms their narrative. It is not reliable evidence, but opinion based on highly technical calculations most people cannot verify. Not RS at all.KoolerStill (talk) 17:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

That is an interesting theory of what it means to be verifiable, but is difficult to square with scientific or mathematical sources, which are also possible to verify while being difficult to do so. Rhoark (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I cannot personally check and verify calculations in nuclear physics. But I'd think more than twice before accepting the figures of an author who has been repeatedly shown to be wrong/misleading/fraudulent by people who do have the qualifications to do so. Would you consider The Onion a reliable source? A site claiming to prove Cold Fusion? KoolerStill (talk) 19:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's just a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's WP:V policy, mixed in with some WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• Reliable, but must be used with care. Bellingcat, as described here, is an investigative journalism resource. That kind of research is never "the truth", and it is frequently unreliable. That does not make unreliable the source per WP:V. My very best wishes (talk) 05:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

• Did you forget that you already voted on June 11th? Tarc (talk) 22:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• Not reliable. Bellingcat has been accused of being biased and was several times heavily criticized by experts. If his stories have been picked up by the main stream press, his reports may be mentioned but not used as sources that actually "prove" something. --Maturion (talk) 17:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• Not a reliable source unless well cited by secondary RS. As already noted by other editors, Bellingcat is WP:SELFPUBLISHED and relies on 'sightings' (et al) by the general public. The only circumstances under which it can meet RS is where multiple sources have cited its opinions and findings. Even there, if its findings are being widely reported, any reports need to be proscribed by WP:INTEXT attribution. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• Not a reliable source unless well cited by secondary RS, and attributed by us if attributed by the secondary RS, which in most cases would make its use questionable or redundant.Pincrete (talk) 17:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• Reliable with attribution: Reliability is always in context. The fact that its analysis has been widely cited by mainstream sources is a good indicator of its reliability. Because of the difficulty in obtaining access to, say, conflict zones in Ukraine, media often simply report the claims of various sides. This kind of digging is essential to journalism. However, it must be used with care, always keeping in mind context. Especially controversial claims should not be solely sourced to it. Kingsindian ♝♚ 20:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

What is different about media simply reporting the claims of Bellingcat? And almost all of Bellingcat's claims are controversial. Mnnlaxer (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

That is a good point, and I don't have a good answer. Perhaps this form of journalism is too new and radical to be included on WP just now. Kingsindian ♝♚ 08:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

This is nothing new. They simply publish investigative journalism reports. However, there is a concern how knowledgeable and reputable their reporters/investigators are. If a number of sources/journals more reliable than Wikipedia (see discussion above) quote Bellingcat reports with appropriate attribution and care, there is no any reason for not using them here.My very best wishes (talk) 21:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• Not reliable other than to cite basic info about itself. Otherwise this is just a blog written by unqualified contributors. Tarc (talk) 22:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Examiner - cocktails

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Island_Iced_Tea

examiner.com/article/long-island-iced-tea-1

This drink is believed by scholars and non-scholars alike to be created by Robert "Rosebud" Butt at Hampton Bays Inn in Long Island in the 1970's. This is not true at all, early printings of this drink appear as early as:

New picture cook book by Betty Crocker in 1961

American home all-purpose cookbook by Virginia T. Habeeb in 1966

Punch: Volume 256 by Henry Mayhew, Mark Lemon, Tom Taylor in 1969

This drink has an overwhelming amount of variations which we will talk about individually later. The first of these variations is the culprit in the confusion behind this drink, it was the Texas Tea; which came about sometime after 1980 seeing as even in Texas it is still called a Long Island Iced Tea in 1978:

Texas Monthly - May 1978 - Page 2 Vol. 6, No. 6

"Fine happy hour Mon thru Fri 3-6:30 pm Try the Long Island Tea drink"

There also seems to be some confusion over the ingredients in this drink. By 1985, most of the country was still making Long Island Iced Tea's correctly as we see here:

Time: Volume 125, Issues 18-25 by Briton Hadden, Henry Robinson Luce in 1985

"Long Island Iced Tea (vodka, gin, tequila, rum and triple sec) are successful examples."

Here are a few examples a few years later showing the misunderstanding:

New York Magazine - Feb 8, 1988 - Page 40 Vol. 21, No. 6

"Long Island iced tea (rum, tequila, vodka, and Triple Sec)"

Blithe spirits: a toast to the cocktail by Jill Spalding in 1988

"Long Island Iced Tea contains no tea, iced or otherwise. Also know as New York Iced Tea, it is made from equal parts of rum, vodka, gin, triple sec, lemon juice, orange juice, and a splash of cola"

Until recently, this was a Long Island Iced Tea to many and a Texas Tea was the addition of Tequila. Texas Tea does call for tequila, but gold tequila, because silver tequila should already be used. Here are some references regarding the vessel this drink is to be served in:

Fairplay: Volume 297 in 1986

"I have no wish to upset Mr Havens, the more so since he was kind enough to introduce my wife to the delights of Long Island Iced Tea, a wicked cocktail containing six explosive spirits served in a pint glass."

Nightmover: How Aldrich Ames Sold the CIA to the KGB for $4.6 Million by David Wise in 1996

"They're called Texas iced tea or Long Island iced tea in the US, They're served in a beer mug."

This drink dates between 1954 -1960 and originated in or near New York City, it originally contained as of then:

Shake these ingredients:

Vodka

Gin

(Light) Rum

(Silver) Tequila

Triple Sec

Fresh Lemon Juice

Simple Syrup

Strain into a Pint or Beer Mug filled with crushed ice (Crushed ice is mentioned as early as, Thinking rich: a personal guide to luxury living by David Shilling in 1986)

Top with: Charged Coca-cola

Lemon Wedge Garnish

will I have to do this 250 times?

I am a cocktail historian who has published over 60 books about cocktails and cocktail history. I have also published over 250 articles on the same subjects. They have no been allowed because it is blacklisted, but I don't understand why?

Its a reliable source, not anybody can just sign up and post to examiner, you have to be an expert in a certain field. Seeing as ive published more on the subject than anyone alive or dead ever has, its safe to say I am the worlds leading authority on the subject.

Not only that, it gets worse, MY INFORMATION IS USED ON ALL THE COCKTAIL PAGES WITHOUT MY PERMISSION!!!@$@

I found the references so I should be given credit, they were published by me well before anyone else and not by a BLOG! does anyone get this. this would piss anybody off. I am suggesting that my articles be allowed to be contributed to the cocktail pages I have studied. Or at the very least GIVE CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE.

There are so many descrepancies with all these pages, but until you lift the ban on that website they will remain. Why is it that its banned to begin with and BLOGS fucking BLOGS are allowed? ANYONE CAN WRITE A BLOG, please explain.Themastermixologist (talk) 06:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

1. Why is it banned? Please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_39#Examiner.com
2. Blogs are rarely allowed. Please see WP:SPS
3. If you want to cite one of your own 60 print books or articles, see WP:SELFCITE for guidance.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Pledge to Peace

In the 1983-Present chapter of the Prem Rawat article, I'd like to add a statement after: In 2011, he spoke again in Brussels at the conference, "Peace and Prosperity. Founding Values of the European Union."[94]: There he introduced the „Pledge to Peace“, which was signed by Rawat and Pittella as well es by delegates of public and private organisations. The signatories obligated themselves to report on their efforts for the promotion of peace at the annual international „Day of Peace“, held by the UN on September 21st. and offer a number of sources for that, part of which is in Italian. One editor demands all sources are supposed to be in English or, if not, translated, but I understand guidelines say, that is required only when sources are quoted or cited (see the dispute on the article's talk-page). Is the statement still valid? Here are the sources:

http://www.pledgetopeace.eu/the-pledge.html

http://www.cerisdi.org/firmatari-del-pledge-to-peace-signatories-of-the-pledge-to-peace/

http://magazine.azsalute.it/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/AZS-Mag2015-WEB.pdf

http://www.pledgetopeace.eu/blog/the-pledge-to-peace-is-presented-at-the-house-of-parliament-in-the-uk

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/european-parliament-welcomes-back-ambassador-peace-prem-putnikovic?trk=seokp_posts_primary_cluster_res_photo

https://ilquotidianodipalermo.wordpress.com/2015/05/28/prem-rawat-a-palermo-per-firmare-il-pledge-to-peace-e-incontrare-i-detenuti-del-pagliarelli-visita-a-sorpresa-allars/

http://www.monrealepress.it/mp-palermo-i-medici-siciliani-firmano-il-pledge-to-peace-8001.asp

http://www.lasicilia.it/articolo/carceri-pagliarelli-di-palermo-sottoscrive-pledge-peace

http://www.vivimazara.com/portale/eventi-e-appuntamenti/mazara_cm_-prem-rawat-ed-il-sindaco-cristaldi-rilanciano-il-messaggio-del-pledge-to-peace.html

http://www.lasiritide.it/article.php?articolo=5043

Thank you!--Rainer P. (talk) 17:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Krank.ie

Noticed this being used as a sourced to introduce negative reception to Dragon Ball Super, however looking at the website and its About page, it doesn't appear to be anything more than a self published website. A search through known reliable sources in the field of anims and manga does not come up with any positive hits[19] to indicate that the site has had any work republished. A look though their website shows that they haven't posted anything related to the topic area until this month. Counting Dragon Ball Super, there are 6 articles using Krank.ie as a source. —Farix (t | c) 17:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Primary source being used as a secondary source

Popsci is a sydication of Zocal which is being used as a secondary source but is is a first hand account and there is no Analysis of the first article. The article it is being used on is Vector Marketing. I proposed to remove the source on the talk page. I believe it should be removed because it is a self published primary source and it makes claims about a third party without being analysed.

Yeah, there's a lot wrong with using that source for that sentence. Since there are several other sources for that sentence, I went ahead and removed it. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 22:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

It is published on Popsci; it is not a self-published source. @ONUnicorn: can you explain in a little more detail on the "lot wrong" part? Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 00:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

1. The sentence it is being used to support is "Vector Marketing is a multi-level marketing company that builds its sales force through advertising via newspapers, direct marketing, word-of-mouth, posted advertisements, letters and various media on the internet." The article in question, titled "Did I Participate in a Pyramid Scheme?" is not about Vector Marketing, rather it is about a different MLM, one which ostensibly sold legal insurance. It is only tangentially about MLMs in general. This is somewhat misleading to the reader.

2. The article in question mentions Vector Marketing exactly one time, in passing. The sentence where Vector is mentioned reads, "Since the mid-20th century, a multitude of companies employing variations of this business model have established themselves, with some of the better known being Amway, Avon Products, Herbalife, Mary Kay, Tupperware, and Vector Marketing." That's all the article has to say about Vector.

3. Although the sentence in the popsci article does support the assertion in the WP article that Vector is a MLM, it doesn't support the rest of that sentence (about the methods through which Vector builds its sales force). However, the sentence is supported by 3 other sources. One from the Oakland Press mentions Vector in exactly the same context as the popsci article, in a list of similar business structures. However, that article does more than the pop sci article to distinguish MLMs that sell a product (like Vector and Mary Kay) vs. pyramid schemes that sell the business of selling (like the author of the Pop Sci article was involved in). The Carolinian article directly supports the posted advertisements portion of the sentence, as well as it being a MLM. It is also solely about Vector. Likewise the Wall Street Journal article is about Vector, although a quick skim through it leads me to wonder why it's being used to support that sentence as it doesn't say anything about Vector's business structure or recruitment methods. Someone might want to move that one to a sentence it actually does support. At any rate, the Pop Sci article doesn't support anything that's not already supported by the the Oakland Press and Carolinian articles and so at best it is redundant. At worst, it is misleading (see point 1 above).

4. Although it is published on Popsci, and Popsci isn't exactly an unregulated blog, it wasn't originally published there. It arrived there from Zocalo Public Square, which still is not exactly an unregulated blog, and does exert editorial control over the content, making it probably more or less a RS, but I still feel that, given the way it lumps product focused MLMs together with pure Pyramid schemes and the fact that the sentence cites two better sources for essentially the same information, it's better leaving this source out. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 03:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

American Mercury et al

At the article Leo Frank several editors are pushing questionable sources (see Talk:Leo Frank#Reliable secondary sources arguing Frank's guilt). This is the list provided:

1. Mary Phagan Kean The Murder of Little Mary Phagan, 1989.

2. Bradford L. Huie (Leo Frank Trial Analysis Introduction, Leo Frank Trial Week One, Leo Frank Trial Week Two, Leo Frank Trial Week Three, Leo Frank Trial Week Four, Closing Arguments of Frank Arthur Hooper, Luther Zeigler Rosser, and Reuben Rose Arnold, Arguments of Prosecutor Hugh M. Dorsey, One Hundred Reasons Leo Frank is Guilty)

3. Elliot Dashfield (Leonard Dinnerstein's Book "The Leo Frank Case", A Pseudo-History)

4. Mark Cohen (Who Really Solved the Leo Frank Case? and Did Leo Frank Confess?)

5. Scott Aaron (Atlanta, Southern Jewry and Leo Frank)

6. Jasper Dorsey (Marietta Daily Journal, Friday January 20, 1984 "If Trial Were Today, Frank Would Still Be Found Guilty").

7. Tom Watson Brown Notes on the Case of Leo Frank and its Aftermath Emory University, Georgia.

− Numbers 2, 3, and 4 are from the website for The American Mercury. At American Mercury#Revival this is identified as an antisemitic site with sourcing to the Southern Poverty Law Center and Anti-Defamation League. These designations notwithstanding, the three authors listed have no apparent academic credentials and are likely pseudonyms. Number 5 is from a site operated by Kevin Strom who the SPLC identifies as " a bookish neo-Nazi with a fondness for child pornography". Numbers 1, 6, and 7 are written by non-academics who are blood relations of principles in the original Frank case. Of the three, Kean's is the closest to a legitimate source and is probably reliable for most factual matters, but her work has not been reviewed by any academic journals that I could find on JSTOR.

Comments from others on these sources would be welcome. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Fact checking, critical thinking, commonsense, reason and logic are the primary apertures that we apply when determining verifiability, accuracy, veracity, and objectivity.The American Mercury is a reliable source. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 15:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

How do you judge that the American Mercury is a reliable source? It also appears to be self published but it is not clear from their website who actually runs the site today. We also have no idea what credentials the authors of the articles (Huie, Cohen, and Dashfield) are? The person wanting to use this as a source should be able to address these questions. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:30, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

From H.L. Mencken to Karl Hess, from William Bradford Huie to Harold Lord Varney, we stand for a tradition that we believe exemplifies what is best in American journalism. When I contacted the American Mercury staff they also told me Rita Potter who just recently passed away at 98 was one of the central figures in revitalizing the magazine. She had played a significant role in the magazine back in its hey-day. If a magazine requires scrutiny by editors (in the example of Leo Frank case articles for accuracy and scholarship), it's obviously not a self-published magazine like some online blogs where anyone and their mother's uncle can publish whatever they please. It appears the articles about the Mary Phagan / Leo Frank case had to go through a rigorous process in order to be published on the site, because they are based on scholarly research, analyzing and contextualizing primary and secondary sources. I went ahead and fact checked the Frank articles by looking at the official legal records from the Georgia Supreme Court and contemporary newspaper articles reporting on the case from Atlanta. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I readily acknowledge that you claim these sources are great reads. What you're obligated to establish that anybody in the scholarly community consider them reliable. You really think your opinion that Mark Cohen writes good reviews on Amazon qualifies him to be treated as a reliable source for wikipedia? As far as the antisemitic nature of the sites, this [20] from the SPLC and this [21] from "Forward" make the case. You have been asked repeatedly to establish the reliability of these sites, but you can't tell us who controls the websites or what credentials the authors have. You are the one wh0 has the Burden of establishing the legitimacy of these sources. I've told you why I don't believe they are reliable -- you only response has been to blow smoke by attacking me. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Tom-No, Many modern books and articles about the Leo Frank case written after 1990 cite Mary Phagan Kean in their bibliography / references section. CNN interviews Mary Phagan Kean. The documentary People v. Leo Frank interviews Mary Phagan Kean. Numerous articles about Leo Frank case written after 2000 interview or cite Mary Phagan Kean.

Augusta Chronicle-Herald, May 15, 1983, statement by Justice Randall Evans Jr.:

"The suggestion that a governor or Board of Pardons and Paroles may pardon a deceased person is completely ridiculous. The Constitution of Georgia provides that 'the legislative, judicial, and executive powers shall forever remain separate and distinct.' The executive department has no power whatever to reverse, change, or wipe out a decision by the courts, albeit while the prisoner is in life he may be pardoned. But a deceased party can not be a party to legal proceedings (Eubank v. Barber, 115 Ga. App. 217-18). If Leo Frank were still in life, he could apply for pardon, but after death neither he nor any other person may apply for him. As the Supreme Court of Georgia held in Grubb v. Bullock, Governor, 44 Ga. 379: 'It (pardon) must be granted the principal upon his application, or be evidenced by ratification of the application by his acceptance of it (the pardon).' Leo Frank's case was finally terminated absolutely against him by the Supreme Court of Georgia on June 6, 1914.

He lived thereafter until August 16, 1915, and never did apply for pardon. It is too late now for any consideration to be given a pardon for Leo Frank. Pardon can only be granted to a person in life, not to a dead person. To illustrate the folly of such proceedings, could someone at this late date apply for a divorce on behalf of Leo Frank? The blood of a little girl cries out from the ground for justice. I pray the sun will never rise to shine upon that day in Georgia when we shall have so blinded ourselves to the records, to the evidence, to the judgments of the court, and the judgment of the people, as to rub out, change, and reverse the judgment of the courts that has stood for seventy years! God forbid!"

Obviously there are many prominent people who support the guilt of Leo Frank, the consensus of researchers is that Leo Frank's guilt or innocence is divided. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 01:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

leofrank.info looks self-published. I see no reason the other sources ought not to be considered reliable. Looking at the talk page, it looks like both sides of this argument have gone astray in trying to argue their sources are the right ones, instead of collaborating on wording that reflects the full range of views in reliable publications. Rhoark (talk) 14:40, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

The articles appearing on The American Mercury are not self published. They are submitted by various authors for publication, and are subject to approval by The American Mercury before they are granted publication. The American Mercury exercises editorial control of the material it allows to be published, and openly states that published materials which are parodies or fiction are clearly marked as such. As per their stated policy on The American Mercury "About" page, as far as content is concerned:

"We actively seek out new writers and editors of excellence who believe in free thought and free communities. The new American Mercury was created in 2010 by a group of volunteer writers and editors, among whom are some who collectively worked with the contributors and management of the print Mercury for over 40 years."

"From H.L. Mencken to Karl Hess, from William Bradford Huie to Harold Lord Varney, we stand for a tradition that we believe exemplifies what is best in American journalism."

Accordingly, I say The American Mercury should certainly be considered a reliable source. 68.10.143.69 (talk) 19:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

(Restoring deleted quote from source. Why was it removed?) 68.10.143.69 (talk) 20:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

You say authors "are subject to approval by The American Mercury." So who are the people who run American Mercury? What are their qualifications? If they self describe themselves as "a group of volunteer writers and editors", then this appears to clearly meet the description of self published. And who are these "new writers and editors of excellence" who wrote these specific articles? What are their qualifications? It's strange how many single issue IPs and first time editors comment on this issue. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Tom (North Shoreman), please review WP:SOURCES. You have created a personal benchmark by which you define what is and isn't a 'legitimate source'. There are no requirements that every single source must be from a peer reviewed publication written by an academic. There are no requirements that a source can not be written by a 'blood relations of principles'. I would think books written by contemporary eyewitnesses would hold some value and can't be discarded just because they lack a post graduate degree. You wrote above regarding one of the sources "her work has not been reviewed by any academic journals that I could find on JSTOR". That is not a requirement but again you have created your own benchmark, which you are using to limit sources. Please remember that WP:NPOV and WP:IMPARTIAL should be maintained. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 00:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

You say, "I would think books written by contemporary eyewitnesses would hold some value and can't be discarded just because they lack a post graduate degree." In fact, neither Watson or Kean were even alive when the events occurred so your comment is irrelevant. As far as my "personal benchmark", you are also well off the mark. As WP:Scholarship makes clear, "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." As I've said, I can't find where anyone in the "scholarly community" has vetted or reviewed Kean's work. Besides, as WP:BURDEN indicates, "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". So in this case, I am asking for you folks to provide evidence that any of these sources are reliable. For most of the sources in question it is not a matter of the "lack of a post graduate degree" as you misstate my position, but the lack of any evidence that authors such as Huie, Cohen, and Dashfield have any qualifications, have written anyplace other than the website in question, or are anything other than pseudonyms. Blow all the smoke you want, but these are questions that have been asked repeatedly with no answers. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Tom (North Shoreman), the WP:Scholarship section frequently uses the phrase 'articles about scholarly issues'. Would a biography be considered an example of an article about a scholarly issue, or would an article about mitosis (for example) be the focus of the Scholarship section. In any case even there it says that for articles about scholarship issues it's fine to use non-academic references (5th sentence of 1st paragraph). My comment about Watson and Kean are relevant, since you don't like either because of 'blood relations of principles'. Can you point to some guideline that supports your view that such relations disqualifies a source? Going by the list found at WP:SOURCES, which shows exactly the types of non-academic sources that are welcomed, it's evident that the 3 sources below each demonstrate verifiability.

(1) Kean, Mary Phagan (Georgia Almanac, curated by U of Georgia states that this source is important as it 'gives a unique family perspective on the case' and uses this book as a reference. [[22]] Published by New Horizon Press, a reputable, award winning 20+ year old publishing company).

(6) Dorsey, Jaspar (Jasper Dorsey, Marietta Daily Journal columnist. MDJ has been Cobb County print newspaper since 1866 with center-right leaning).[[23]]

(7) Watson Brown, Tom (Tom Watson Brown, Harvard and Princeton Educated great grandson of Watson, the Georgia congressman/senator/newspaper publisher anti-Semite who repeatedly called for and participated in the lynching of Frank. Self made billionaire philanthropist behind Mercer University Press, one of the most prolific academic publishers in the nation. Publisher: Emory University. [[24]]) Cheers! Meishern (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Can we please add number eight to the list = 8. Augusta Chronicle-Herald, May 15, 1983, statement by Justice Randall Evans Jr. (see The Murder of Little Mary Phagan by Mary Phagan Kean pp. 297-290). Also Concerning Scott Aaron http://www.leofrank.info a website absolutely arguing against racism, bigotry, prejudice, anti-Gentilism and anti-Semitism, if Kevin Alfred Strom is supposedly being accused of being behind the site, doesn't that mean the site isn't self-published. Scott Aaron is not Kevin Alfred Strom. So that would not make it self-published. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 20:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Kevin Alfred Strom is identified here as a man whom "the SPLC identifies as 'a bookish neo-Nazi with a fondness for child pornography". Has anyone here ever bothered to read "Kevin Alfred Strom’s Address to the Court" where, among other things, it is revealed that his estranged and relentlessly vindictive wife was responsible for planting child porn on his computer AFTER he was driven out of their home and thereby lost control of it? Have they considered at all that after this revelation, the judge handling the case ORDERED that Kevin Strom's name was NOT to be identified as, or placed on a list of sexual offenders? This accusation made by the SPLC, and repeated here by North Shoreman is a clear defamation and libel of Kevin Strom.

Defamation of anyone on Wikipedia is not tolerated, and according to WP:LIBEL, "It is Wikipedia policy to delete libelous material when it has been identified." I have previously tried to remove this libel per Wikipedia policy, and was subsequently BLOCKED for doing so.

It is clear that Mr. Strom is being targeted here because of his educated views on Leo Frank, the convicted murderer of a young girl. So are these kinds of dirty tricks (libel; defamation) ok with you guys? I say the offending text should be removed per Wikipedia policy. What say others on this? 68.10.143.69 (talk) 17:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Tom Northshoreman -- on the Leo Frank talk page at the new section (late-June/ early-July 2015) "Let's archive most of this page please" -- just used an ugly personal attack calling me the homo-erotic slang "Your Boy" to indicate that "I'm a prepubescent gay child in a homosexual relationship with an older man". Where I come from when you call someone "Your Boy" it means you are the bottom (the sexually receiving female role in homosexual language and relationships) and the the person you are the "Your" of (in this case Meishern) is the homosexual daddy the sexual giver (or sexually giving male role in homosexual language and relationships). So because someone or anyone disagrees with Tom Northshoreman's wildly-over-the-top POV warrior activism, they are now (late June 2015) accused of being a homosexual teenager in a statutory rape relationship with an adult man. No personal attacks is an escutcheon of wikipedia. This is more proof Tom-No has NO legitimate argument. Instead of using logic, common sense, and appeals to reason when fact checking the listed items below, Tom Northshoreman is making ugly adhominem attacks. This is how low, the "dirty tricks" as you say, are becoming. What I need from you IP is for you to hunt for reliable sources that suggest Leo Frank was guilty, since that is what this topic is all about here. Tom-No is arguing that the sources sustaining Leo Frank's verdict of guilt are not reliable. I am arguing that theses sources are in fact reliable.

1. Mary Phagan Kean The Murder of Little Mary Phagan, 1989.

2. Bradford L. Huie (Leo Frank Trial Analysis Introduction, Leo Frank Trial Week One, Leo Frank Trial Week Two, Leo Frank Trial Week Three, Leo Frank Trial Week Four, Closing Arguments of Frank Arthur Hooper, Luther Zeigler Rosser, and Reuben Rose Arnold, Arguments of Prosecutor Hugh M. Dorsey, One Hundred Reasons Leo Frank is Guilty) American Mercury

3. Elliot Dashfield (Leonard Dinnerstein's Book "The Leo Frank Case", A Pseudo-History) American Mercury

4. Mark Cohen (Who Really Solved the Leo Frank Case? and Did Leo Frank Confess?) American Mercury

5. Scott Aaron (Atlanta, Southern Jewry and Leo Frank)

6. Jasper Dorsey (Marietta Daily Journal, Friday January 20, 1984 "If Trial Were Today, Frank Would Still Be Found Guilty"). Quote "The evidence there also shows Frank's religion had nothing to do with his conviction. He would have been convicted had he been a Presbyterian minister. He would also be convicted today."

7. Tom Watson Brown Notes on the Case of Leo Frank and its Aftermath Emory University, Georgia.

8. Augusta Chronicle-Herald, May 15, 1983, statement by Justice Randall Evans Jr. (see The Murder of Little Mary Phagan by Mary Phagan Kean pp. 297-290)

9. The Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles ruled there was no sufficient evidence to prove Leo Frank was innocent, 1982-1986.

Although Leo Frank was not officially absolved of Mary Phagan's murder, the consensus is divided as to Leo Frank's guilt or innocence. Alas, right now the lede is stating that the consensus is that researchers believe Frank to be innocent (which is wrong). GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 02:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

2-5 unreliable; 1, 6-9 reliable The contemporary reincarnation of The American Mercury is indeed anti-Semitic and unreliable, and leofrank.info is self-published. However, Phagan-Kean's book, while not of the caliber of authors like Oney and Dinnerstein, is nonetheless a reliable source. The Marietta Daily Journal is also a reliable source, as is the primary source from Brown, the Augusta Chronicle-Herald, and the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles' decision. Tonystewart14 (talk) 02:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments about The American Mercury. I see it's used twice at J. Peters. Doug Weller (talk) 17:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The American Mercury is not indeed anti-Semitic or unreliable. I am listing items 2, 3, 4. Please read them and give me specific examples or sentences of these articles promoting anti-Semitism or Neo-Nazism as the Antigentile activists groups ADL / SPLC claim. Here are the items.

2. Bradford L. Huie (Leo Frank Trial Analysis Introduction, Leo Frank Trial Week One, Leo Frank Trial Week Two, Leo Frank Trial Week Three, Leo Frank Trial Week Four, Closing Arguments of Frank Arthur Hooper, Luther Zeigler Rosser, and Reuben Rose Arnold, Arguments of Prosecutor Hugh M. Dorsey, One Hundred Reasons Leo Frank is Guilty)

3. Elliot Dashfield (Leonard Dinnerstein's Book "The Leo Frank Case", A Pseudo-History)

4. Mark Cohen (Who Really Solved the Leo Frank Case? and Did Leo Frank Confess?)

Please give specific examples in these items 2, 3, 4 that promote hitler, national socialism, and racist/religious-bigotry Antisemitic conspiracies. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 19:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

That would be original research, not our role. I'll quote from our article though, which has sources: "The "new" American Mercury was criticized by the Southern Poverty Law Center in the Winter 2013 edition of their magazine Intelligence Report, which called it a "Leo Frank Propaganda Site" and described it as "a resurrected and deeply anti-Semitic online version of H. L. Mencken’s defunct magazine of the same name". The Anti-Defamation League calls it "an extreme right-wing site with anti-Semitic content", while The Jewish Daily Forward refers to it as "H.L. Mencken’s historic magazine, resurrected online by neo-Nazis several years ago", which "has published several revisionist articles to coincide with this year’s anniversary". All three mentioned its role in publishing "revisionist" material relating to the lynching of Leo Frank. Doug Weller (talk) 20:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

You might want to brush up on what revisionism means, because you obviously do not know what it means. Revisionism in this sense usually means going against what was established as fact and in this case the U.S. appellate courts found that Leo Frank had a fair trial and therefore they did not alter his verdict of guilt. Authors who support the legal system's decision on Leo Frank's established guilt, are not the revisionists. The revisionists are the ones who are coming along and making up all sorts of lies, like Leonard Dinnerstein. An academic activist and fraudster who fabricated (academic misconduct) the anti-Semitic hoax about people chanting "hang the Jew" at the trial jury during open court. The ADL / SPLC / Forward do not have the power to determine that something is anti-Semitic because they don't like the conclusions some scholarly articles make. The remaining items still in question (American Mercury scholarly articles) actually argue against anti-Semitism being behind Frank's indictment and conviction. None of the American Mercury articles about the Leo Frank case itemized above say anything anti-Semitic, I still haven't heard from anyone a specific example of what is anti-Semitic in those articles. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 03:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

He also needs to brush up on the meaning of Wikipedia:NOR, as it applies only to article content, and has nothing to do with discussion pages like this. Not only that, he employs a circular reference by using the content of a Wikipedia article to disqualify your reliable sources, when Wikipedia policy itself clearly states that Wikipedia articles are not reliable.

In any event, making any reference to the ADL and the SPLC in an attempt to disprove reliability of a source is merely an "appeal to authority", which in itself is a logical fallacy. The ADL and the SPLC both have their own rigid agendas, which are clearly exclusive of common sense, logic and reason, not to mention fact-checking and accuracy, and cannot, therefore, be used as a source of evidence to prove any fact in this dispute. Both use innuendo, ad hominem and outright dishonesty to push their agendas, and are very often wrong in their spurious claims.

Thus the reliance upon the word of these supposed authorities entails the assumption that these sources are infallible, or never wrong. This assumption is patently false. 68.10.143.69 (talk) 00:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Quote from the Leo Frank talk page:

Using "Antisemitism" As a Smear Word

"Antisemitism", or any of its derivatives, when used in the context of a smear word, is an ad hominem solely intended to squelch any and all criticism of the behavior of any jew or jews. It matters not how despicable the behavior criticised or complained of may actually be, or how much the behavior actually deserves criticism, the only fact that matters, according to the person using this smear word, is that the criticism of the critic is directed toward a jew or jews. It is a kind of a weasel word; a non sequitur whose sole purpose is to plant the idea in the mind of the reader that they should disregard the substance of the criticism, no matter how valid, and brand the critic as some kind of mindless, drooling, blood thirsty bigot who wants to kill six million jews, all in order to render any jew or organization of jews immune to criticism.

For example, see the following YouTube video: [redacted, copyvio link]"It's a Trick, We Always Use It (calling people anti-Semitic)"]

It is the ADL's bread and butter, and it is being used on the talk page of this very article as yet another tool the pro-Frank editors use here to push their POV agenda.

Any person using this word in this context is really no different than Luther Rosser, calling Jim Conley "a dirty, filthy, lying nigger".

End quote. This is exactly what is going on here, where bare accusations from two organizations which many critics have called "jewish supremacist hate groups" are being invoked in an attempt to smear and disqualify certain reliable sources simply because those sources provide complete, detailed, and accurate information on the case of Leo Frank. Such irony is astounding. 68.10.143.69 (talk) 22:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The ADL / SPLC or Forward for that matter, shouldn't have the power to determine history, or what is reliable and not reliable on Wikipedia. All these member groups of the anti-Semitism lobby have to do then, is say that anything not agreeing with their position is "anti-Semitic" and "neo-Nazi", with the result it gets excluded from Wikipedia. That's absurd that Jewish activist groups or members of the anti-Semitism Lobby would have the power to decide what is reliable or not. Who gave them the power to determine what is reliable or not on Wikipedia? Who gave them the power to determine what is allowed to be used as a source on Wikipedia or not? There are many scores and dozens of secondary sources out there now writing negative things about the ADL / SPLC, exposing them for being frauds. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 03:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment This section looks like chaos. It doesn't follow the banners at the top of this page, almost all the comments are by editors from the article, and so far no one has shown that any of the sources are reliable according Wikipedia policy WP:SOURCE. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

References

Are you losing the debate?

Shout "ANTISEMITISM!"

To silence your opposition, which ends the debate, allowing you to claim victory, even if you're wrong.

(Not "A Public Service Message From The ADL and SPLC", but may as well be.) 68.10.143.69 (talk) 00:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

So basically if anyone deemed reliable (like some members and groups of the anti-Semitism lobby like adl and splc for instance) and labels something "anti-Semitic" or "neo-Nazi", the item in question is automatically invalidated, made "unreliable", thus can no longer be used for the writing of history at Wikipedia. Did I get that correctly? or Weasel word next? So Therefore Wikipedia's content (according to some editors here) is based on not having any sources, references or citations labelled these red herrings (anti-Semitism and neo-Nazi). So if the ADL or SPLC or Forward decides to label something anti-Semitic or neo-Nazi, the item becomes "unreliable" here and can no longer be used on Wikipedia. That's not globewide level academic scholarship, that's history being defined by those who can smear, defame and slander someone with redherring terms (anti-Scholarship). Seems pretty twisted logic about how Wikipedia should evolve its living knowledge base! Some groups get to "invalidate" authors, newspapers, magazines, media etc.. not based on logic, reason, and common sense, but because its perceived as being against someone else's ideology and politics. Those items on the American Mercury about the Leo Frank Case should be judged by their lexicon, scholarly substance, accuracy, logic and appeals to commonsense, as they do. I'm still waiting for examples of a sentence from these articles listed above about the Frank case at the American Mercury that are anti-Semitic.

2. Bradford L. Huie (Leo Frank Trial Analysis Introduction, Leo Frank Trial Week One, Leo Frank Trial Week Two, Leo Frank Trial Week Three, Leo Frank Trial Week Four, Closing Arguments of Frank Arthur Hooper, Luther Zeigler Rosser, and Reuben Rose Arnold, Arguments of Prosecutor Hugh M. Dorsey, One Hundred Reasons Leo Frank is Guilty) American Mercury 3. Elliot Dashfield (Leonard Dinnerstein's Book "The Leo Frank Case", A Pseudo-History) American Mercury 4. Mark Cohen (Who Really Solved the Leo Frank Case? and Did Leo Frank Confess?) American Mercury. If anything these are more scholarly than most of the articles written about the Frank case. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 02:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I doubt that you would agree that a sentence was anti-Semitic, and I've already commented on your request above. I will point out that we have no idea who "Bradford L. Huie" actually is, so we have an anonymous writer on a website. Nope, not an RS. And Mark Cohen's article "Who Really Solved the Leo Frank Case?" also published in the racist National Vanguard.[25]. Absolutely not reliable sources. Doug Weller (talk) 14:25, 8 July 2015‎

GBH was blocked, and hopefully this is over. However, for those wondering about his use of the term "anti-Gentilism", see [26] and [27]. Doug Weller (talk) 09:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

So is that how things are done here on Wikipedia? You just find a way to block your intellectual opponents so you don't have to engage in discussion of the real issues? I'm reading some pretty good arguments here in support of these sources, and I agree with all of them. So will I be blocked now for saying that, or will I just be ignored?70.161.173.90 (talk) 06:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I find it interesting, in an extremely ironic way, that a number of editors here have little, if anything, to say about the sources in question as regards their suitability according to applicable Wikipedia policy and guidelines in terms of fact-checking, accuracy, editorial control, etc., but oppose their reliability either primarily, or solely upon grounds of whether or not said sources can be opportunistically vilified by other questionable sources merely for expressing an allegedly unacceptable, but even as of yet unproven, bias, or particular point of view. But for the sake of clear policy, let's assume they ARE biased. So what?

According to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, as to biased or opinionated sources:

Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.

Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking.

According to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, as to bias in sources:

A common argument in a dispute about reliable sources is that one source is biased and so another source should be given preference. The bias in sources argument is one way to present a POV as neutral by excluding sources that dispute the POV as biased. Biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone, although other aspects of the source may make it invalid. Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the writer's point of view.

Attributing and specifying biased statements

Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with attribution. For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" expresses an opinion and cannot be asserted in Wikipedia as if it were a fact. It can be included as a factual statement about the opinion: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre." Opinions must still be verifiable and appropriately cited.

Another approach is to specify or substantiate the statement, by giving those details that actually are factual. For example: "John Doe had the highest batting average in the major leagues from 2003 through 2006." People may still argue over whether he was the best baseball player. But they will not argue over this.

According to Wikipedia:Neutrality of sources, as to non-neutral sources:

One of the perennial issues that arises during editor disputes is how the neutral point of view policy interacts with the reliable sources guideline. Arguments often arise which contend that a given source ought to be excluded as unreliable because the source has an identifiable point of view. These arguments cross a wide variety of topics and stem from a common misunderstanding about how NPOV interacts with RS. The neutral point of view policy applies to Wikipedia articles as a whole: articles should reflect an appropriate balance of differing points of view. The reliable sources guideline refers to a source's overall reputation for fact-checking and reliability--not the source's neutrality. Reliable sources may be non-neutral: a source's reputation for fact-checking is not inherently dependent upon its point of view.

A frequent example that arises in this type of discussion is The New York Times, which is the leading newspaper of record in the United States yet which is sometimes said to reflect a left-wing point of view. If that presents a problem within article space, the problem is not reliability. The appropriate Wikipedian solution is to include The New York Times and also to add other reliable sources that represent a different point of view. The Wall Street Journal and National Review are reliable sources that present right wing points of view. Left-leaning The Village Voice might also be cited. The appropriate balance can be determined from the undue weight clause of the neutrality policy. Overall, good Wikipedian contribution renders articles objective and neutral by presenting an appropriate balance of reliable opinions.

It requires less research to argue against one reliable source than to locate alternate reliable sources, which may be why neutrality/reliability conflation is a perennial problem.

This phenomenon is global rather than national. For instance, with regard to Middle East politics the Jerusalem Post presents a view of events that is distinct from Al Jazeera. Generally speaking, both sources are reliable. When these two sources differ, Wikipedian purposes are best served by clearly stating what each source reported without attempting to editorialize which of the conflicting presentations is intrinsically right.

So, do we have any real evidence here that the sources in question fail in terms of fact-checking, accuracy, editorial control, etc., or are we to base this decision only upon disparaging invectives? 68.10.143.69 (talk) 22:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

One further thought on this - The Wikipedia policy cited above specifically mentions Al Jazeera as a reliable source. Now, what do the ADL and SLPC have to say about this particular source? Do they allege or maintain that this source is also "antisemitic"? If so, then the point is made. 68.10.143.69 (talk) 23:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I suggest people don't waste their time engaging with 68.10.143.69 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which has been blocked as a sock of GingerBreadHarlot. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GingerBreadHarlot. If new IPs should appear here with recognizably the same agenda, they may reasonably be viewed with suspicion too. Bishonen | talk 09:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC).

Doing a cursory search on the Internet, there are hundreds of articles saying SPLC and ADL are not reputable organizations. How can we rely on these two organizations who make a living on fear mongering about antisemitism? Abraham Foxman the longtime leader of the ADL tried to block a mosque from being built in downtown NYC, claiming it was "too close" to the WTC and that it would prevent "healing". Foxman has also tried to stop the U.S> congress from recognizing the genocide of 1.5 million Armenians by the government of Turkey. SPLC calls anyone who is against gay marriage for religious reasons "extremists". These two organizations have acted in disreputable ways and should not dictate what is a reliable source or not.Hallmonitorwithbraces (talk) 10:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC) — Hallmonitorwithbraces (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Brand new editor coming here for their first edit ever? And not even discussing the subject of the thread. Doug Weller (talk) 11:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Blocked as a sock of GingerBreadHarlot, see (again) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GingerBreadHarlot. Bishonen | talk 15:19, 15 July 2015 (UTC).

The Daily Mail

Could I please get some help at the Bernie Sanders article where an editor insists on using the The Daily Mail as a source in the Personal life section. See the "Sources" section on the talk page where the editor defends the Mail saying, "The Daily Mail is a respected, fact checked newspaper" and when I supplied info from this site he replied, "The Daily Mail is based in the UK which has very strict libel laws, much stricter than American law. They check facts. Unless you can come up with a secondary source that says the Daily Mail is a discredited newspaper because it relies on "fabrication and distortion," then it's still just opinion." Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 03:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The suitability of the Daily Mail as a source has been a subject of much discussion on this noticeboard - and there is a strong current of opinion to the effect that it does not have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" - and that to the contrary, it seems to have something of a reputation for questionable content, if not outright fabrication (see e.g. [28]). As always though, it depends what it is being cited for. Can you provide the link in question, together with the disputed content? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The link: [29] The info:Sanders married his college sweetheart Deborah Shiling in Baltimore on September 6, 1964. They had no children and divorced in 1966 after eighteen months of marriage. His son, Levi Sanders, was born in 1969 to Susan Campbell Mott in St. Johnsbury, Vermont. [146] Gandydancer (talk) 03:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Where does 'Susan Campbell Mott' come from? The Mail refers to her only as 'Susan Mott' and 'Susan Mott Glaeser'. I note also that it states that "Daily Mail Online has been unable to find any record of Sanders marrying Mott" - which may well be true, but isn't a statement that Saunders and Mott were never married. Though whether they were on not, along with all the other details given about Sanders past relationships seems to be of questionable significance if the Daily Mail is the best source for it - if is of real significance, why aren't the U.S. media reporting on the matter? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Andy, "Susan Campbell Mott" comes from [Politico], currently reference #40. I added that as a better source than the Mail for Sanders' early life and cited it for several things. A Sanders spokesperson confirmed the Politico assertions. Someone removed it from this section because the Mail had the first wife's maiden name, and then went on to use it for his son's exact date of birth and the name of the little town where the son was born. Really unnecessary. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. Why don't we just ban the daily mail as a source and be done with it? If something is real, what are the odds of only the Daily Mail covering it? I say we ban it and make the user find a better source. Should I post an RfC asking that? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

We can't ban the Mail. What would I use for toilet paper? -Roxy the non edible dog™ (resonate) 12:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I am not in favour of a ban, but something needs to be done. After having spent time doing research and making an edit, it is very dis-heartening for another editor to simply delete your work and say something like "no intelligent person trusts the Daily Mail as an RS". My own preference is that it should be tagged with "better source needed" and if no better source is provided (e.g. within a week), it gets deleted then. In effect, the Daily Mail is already banned by consensus of the people on this page, but there needs to be a clear communication of that to those actively editing articles.DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

DrChrissy, the thing is...when the Mail is used in a BLP, just the fact that it's listed in the sources suggests that someone is up to no good, IMO. If I had a BLP here, I sure would not want to see a Mail source used. And if it is left up for a week, how many thousands of people are going to see it in a popular article? Too many, IMO. I'd like to see it banned. Gandydancer (talk) 13:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Completely inappropriate for such claims about a living person. There are many actually reliable sources that discuss Sanders life and those are the ones that should be used. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Gandy. As it often does, I think it depends on the context. I tried to use the Daily Mail when reporting on the number of dogs eaten at a festival. I saw several blogs (obviously non-RS) with the number of 10,000. I then saw the Daily Mail stating the same number. I remembered reading that newspapers are considered to be RS secondary sources, so I made the edit. I was then pounced upon as if I had written something that was going to shake the project to its very foundations. I actually care very little if the Daily Mail is banned - I think the notion that if it is reliable information it will be reported elsewhere, is very convincing. So let's get on and ban it but, above all, let the community know this. Is there a list of banned sources somewhere?DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'd like to see them ban assholes too--like editors that get their rocks off by letting newbies know how stupid they are. There was no way that you could have known that the "Mail" was not a good source. In the RS guidelines it is written somewhere that it should be used with caution, but looking for it just now I can't find it. If I remember correctly, the guideline is not at all strongly written. It should be. :D Gandydancer (talk) 16:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

It was a couple of editors who never resist the chance at a dig. I also can't find anything specific about the Daily Mail in the RS guidelines. What do you (and others) think about a list of the most popular newspapers and score them according to a traffic-light system, i.e. Green=can be used without concern, Amber=only to be used with caution, and Red=should not be used under any circumstances (effectively banned).DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

This is an example of what I am suggesting.

Newspaper name	Country	Rating	Comments
The Daily Perfect	UK	RS compliant	Use without hesitation
The International Truth	US	RS compliant	Totally trustworthy
The Daily Mail	UK	RS compliant in some contexts	Use with great caution - totally unacceptable for biographies
The Daily Express	UK	RS compliant in some contexts	Use with great caution. Very poor reputation for fact checking
The Weekly Made-up Chronicle	US	non-RS compliant	Do not use without opening Talk thread to discuss
The Daily Sleaze	UK	Non-RS compliant	This source should not be used anywhere on Wikipedia

DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Nope. There are no sources we classify as 'totally trustworthy' for everything. It always depends on what they are being cited for. This is a perennial proposal, and has never gained much traction - I suggest you do a little research if you want to understand why. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Please don't take things so literally. I would not believe for a nano-second that I would have got the wording or other details correct in this draft example. If this is a perenial problem, than it needs sorting out. Why are we unable do discuss newspapers as RS, come to consensus and inform the community. What are the barriers to that?DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Because the consensus is that whether a sources is reliable or not depends on what it is being cited for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

But the way it works in practice is that editors see the source and make an immediate judgement on that. If the source is a generally reliable one, e.g. the Independent, they will probably not give it a second thought. If it is the Daily Mail, editors will give it a second thought. (I believe filters are being used to automatically monitor sources used) What we need to do is alert editors that better newspaper sources may be available. The table could also include links to discussions about individual newspapers so that rather unhelpful editors don't leave edit summaries like "go and do some research"... There are 193 archives on this page. Do we really expect people to trawl through them to find out whether a newspaper source is likely to be challenged? I don't see a reason for objecting to this transparency.DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think a list of ratings would work, but perhaps a textual description of the common consensus on when eg. the Daily Mail can be used would be useful -- something that gives us room to express a degree of nuance and context rather than just a grade. Maybe just an essay covering the common consensus on perennial topics from this board -- not something binding, but something that people can point to to give a basic background. It would at least save people the trouble of digging up explanations for why they don't feel that XYZ lacks a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy again and again and again; while context changes and is important, if a source eg. doesn't publish retractions, has little editorial oversight, has made many infamous mistakes in the past, etc, those things are likely to always be relevant in RSN discussions and could be worth gathering in one place. --Aquillion (talk) 21:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I think it probably makes sense to have a list of sources that should generally be avoided in biographies, reflecting consensus. There really hasn't been a clear statement about the Daily Mail that I have seen so far, but it is clear from practice how it is viewed. Unfortunately, I think this list is slowly growing - other newspapers are cutting costs by removing journalistic staff, reducing their ability to check stories, and becoming infected with the buzz feed mania of publishing anything as long as it gains clicks (reprinting stuff they saw on reddit seems particularly popular at the moment for a number of publications). The standards for other papers such as the Independent are obviously sliding badly.--ℕ ℱ 21:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with both the comments above. The traffic light system strongly indicates visually that RS is not black and white and we can easily add in comments to the table to indicate nuances or where certain subjects are well/poorly represented by the newspaper. Ratings are not essential, but what is essential is that editors should have an easily accessible portal to decisions/consensus that have been arrived at previously. At the moment, it feels like clandestine decisions are being made in smoky rooms and the first an "average" editor knows about this is a "Gotcha" slapped on one of their edits. This table would not require a lot of work to set up. There are not very many high-circulation rate newspapers in the UK, and probably the same for the US. Editors here seem to have their opinions on the vast majority of them already, so it would simply require entry into the table and perhaps an RfC for others.DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:25, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Substituting red and green for "black and white" doesn't really fix the problem with your proposal. Like all the other good-faith proposals which attempt to assign an intrinsic reliability score of some sort to particular sources rather than evaluating their use in the context of the statements they are being used to support, your suggestion is fundamentally broken.

And honestly, the cases that come to this noticeboard and produce the most discussion tend to be "edge" cases—the cases which are most complex or sensitive; where the usual rules of thumb need to be examined most closely; where peculiarities of circumstance or content make usually-reliable sources not, or where generally-unreliable sources are. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree that traffic light colours help nothing, and the cases presented here are often difficult. However, the rules of thumb which you mention would be very useful. There is insufficient clarity as to what the rules of thumb are. The frustration I've often found is when I look to this noticeboard for guidance on the general position, I find mainly umming and ahhing about edge cases rather than a good straighforward ready reckoner. Exceptional cases make bad law. --ℕ ℱ 16:25, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I was just about to post a very similar message to the above regarding the rules of thumb. Thank you. At the moment, editors are given no indication that some newspapers are generally considered RS whereas others are generally not.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The thing is, if you have something that is "obvious" to experienced editors, then you will get a quick and unambiguous answer if you ask here, and very little time is wasted. If you have something that isn't an "obvious" case, then a list of rules of thumb or a Magic Table of Reliable Sources isn't going to give an unambiguous (or even a correct) result; a discussion is necessary.

If we instead create a Magic Table of Reliable Sources, then we're going to forevermore be stuck with two levels of argument whenever a new reliability dispute arises: the original discussion over whether or not a source is reliable as used, and messily intertwined argument over whether or not the entry in the Magic Table needs to be changed. In other words, we exchange a potential small benefit in the 'easy' cases for a tremendous nuisance in the 'difficult' cases. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

the trade off is making the 99.999 percent of cases that never make it to the noticeboard easier and more consistent, with a possible inconvenience in the 0.001 percent that do make it here. That doesn't sound like such a bad idea. Your made up statistics may differ. --ℕ ℱ 17:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

How about a list of popular newspapers with editors' comments beside each of the invisible rules of thumb that have not been published yet. No vote, no score, simply comments that other "inexperienced" editors can easily read and judge for themselves whether the source is likely to be judged as RS compliant or non-compliant. I don't agree that we will be stuck for evermore - newspapers evolve and can become much better or much worse. We discuss evolution of sources all the time.DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Interesting - sort of like an indexing system that can have links to previous discussions - I would personally find that better than having to search and wade through a lot of irrelevant search results. --ℕ ℱ 18:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, just like that. With one or several summary statements that we agree describe the consensus that has been reached.DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

sigh..."summary statements that we agree describe the consensus"—you're still asking for the Magic Table. You guys are welcome to create whatever you want, of course, but I suspect that you'll find it doesn't act as much more than a distraction (since each 'consensus' will be based on specific circumstances), and won't carry any weight in these discussions. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok - a different tack. People must be using criteria to make these judgements. I have opened a new thread below addressing this question so please feel free to state the criteria you use in these decisions.DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Swedish publication: Reliable source or tabloid?

Is Aftonbladet particularly http://www.aftonbladet.se/nojesbladet/klick/article21099559.ab a reliable source for personal relationships about living people or is it a gossip tabloid that should be expunged? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh... something like the Daily Mail, I would say. You know, what Wikipedia calls "middle-market". Considerably more respectable than The Sun. Their Nöjesbladet is very gossipy, yes, but not the worst kind of gossip, and I think generally reliable gossip. I'm baffled by why an encyclopedia purveys such information at all, but I'd better not get started on that... given that we do, I think Aftonbladet is an OK source. Bishonen | talk 21:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC).

In most cases, such sources qualify as "reliable"... but that does not mean we are required to mention what they say. UNDUE comes into play here, if the information they give (gossip) is too trivial to mention in the first place. Blueboar (talk) 13:08, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

It would help to know what content it is being sourced for. CorporateM (Talk) 20:36, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

My personal stance: I avoid using Aftonbladet as a source for anything, and would definitely not use it in a BLP. (The same goes for Expressen.) They are known for having little or no fact checking. --bonadea contributions talk 08:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

The Daily Mail Redux

Resolved

Another editor has brought a discussion about use of the UK's Daily Mail as a source, but the whole situation has not been presented and the thread above has grown long and off track, so I am presenting the full situation here.

Bernie Sanders apparently does not like to discuss his private life and that's his right, but he running for president and people are naturally curious about him. One of the unintended consequences of Bernie's reluctance to be a bit more forthcoming is that there are various and sundry mentions of his first marriage, his son Levi, and the often confusing statements that his first wife's name was unavailable and the erroneous information that his oldest child, Levi, was born during his first marriage. That's not at all true. This particular DM article does take pains to clarify misconceptions from other publications and it does it by using public records, and this is clearly stated in the article.

The Daily Mail's reporter in Vermont searched the public records and spoke with Bernie's first wife, Deborah Shiling, now Mrs. Messing, and she made it plain that Levi was not from her marriage to Bernie. This particular article then goes to mention that Levi was born to Susan Mott and Bernie and in 1969. Perhaps out of respect for Bernie's privacy concerns, or some other reason, the usual U.S. sources aren't showing this.

This is the link to the article, you can read it for yourself and be the judge.

You can see the article states clearly that the information is based on public records. The article seems well-written. Certainly, I'll continue to search out U.S. reliable sources, but in the interim, it seems fine to use it because it is based on public records and it does help to clear up misconceptions in Bernie's history and after all, WP is an encyclopedia. Readers come here to find just such clarifications. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

"Based on public records" means nothing when it comes to the Daily Mail. They're notorious for fabricating sources; unless you've actually verified the matter in question against said sources, you can't consider anything they say reliable. As someone says in the mass above, the odds of a story being genuine and not a single reputable media outlet covering it is minimal; the Mail and MoS are not the kind of newspaper which uncovers the Pentagon Papers. – iridescent 21:18, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The article already contains most of this information, taken from a politico source. Why is the daily mail necessary? Am I missing something here? Also when the press shows respect for the privacy of a living person, Wikipedia should be doing the same.Bosstopher (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Also note that the CNN.com "Fast Facts" page now has Levi identified as Sanders's son with Susan Mott, evidently having corrected the previous, erroneous listing mentioned in the Politico article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Previously it didn't have that information. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

This raises a more philosophical question that's been on my mind. For the purposes of verifiability or reliability, policy does not require a source to cite further sources of its own, or have any sort of bibliography. Even though its not required it seems to me like WP:COMMONSENSE that if a source does "show its work" that makes it more verifiable/reliable than it would otherwise be. Could this not be admissible evidence when reliability is questioned? Rhoark (talk) 01:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Speaking generally, at that point you're then taking the reliability assessment one step deeper—asking whether or not the cited document is reliable, rather than the subsequent publication that does the citing. One needs to be very careful about how a cited document is used and represented, as well. Suppose Joe Bloggs writes a blog post declaring that the Moon is made of cheese. If the Podunk Gazette then wrote an article saying that "Joe Bloggs thinks the Moon is made of cheese." and linked back to Bloggs' post, that would be very different from a Podunk Gazette article that declared "The Moon is made of cheese!" and linked to Bloggs' post.

We also get into the messy intersection of WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. A fringe blogger who stitches together a bunch of primary sources to prove that, say, Kennedy was assassinated by a time-traveling Osama bin Laden probably shouldn't be considered reliable just because his bit of egregious improper synthesis heavily cites other documents. In a related vein, we often run into serious WP:WEIGHT problems out on the fringes of scientific literature, where a pet theory (often accompanied by a conspiracy theory about how Big Pharma or Big Astrophysics are suppressing medical or cosmological discoveries) shows up with lots of footnotes in a low-impact journal; a small handful of vociferous True Believers will demand Wikipedia coverage and Equal Time.

In other words, "showing their work" doesn't hurt, but it's not a strong positive signal either. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

TheRichest.com's Net Worth section

I would like guidance on whether or not the Net Worth section of TheRichest.com could be used as a reliable source. I think it constitutes a reliable source, but I'd like input on it anyway. The website's description of the Net Worth section is:

"A net worth is determined by a combination of one’s assets, which include items of value associated with that individual. Their net worth’s are not permanent, some are headed to a higher status, some remain stagnant and others may be headed towards bankruptcy. Whether they are a celebrity, CEO, athlete or a politician, these profiles are created because they are of interest to the public."

I'm currently using it as a source on the Breaking Benjamin article (this one specifically; I use it throughout the article, it's citation Anon. n.d.(a)). Despite the fact that TheRichest is a popular pop culture outlet, it doesn't have an article on Wikipedia. This, in combination with its lack of an about page, is primarily what made me second guess it. Any input is appreciated. Jacedc (talk) 03:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I found one thing that may be able to help in its evaluation: In order to become a contributor, one of the criterion is being accepted by their editorial team, which suggests editorial oversight. However, another one is "Be a skilled, competitive writer who can cover shocking/controversial topics in list format." which in my opinion gives the website a tabloid-like feel. Jacedc (talk) 04:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Facebook

Do we have a Template:Cite facebook or something similar for those extremely rare occasions when citing a Facebook post is appropriate? I know we have Template:Cite tweet, so I would think we would have a Cite facebook, but I can't find it.~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

We don't, but I'd Support the creation of one. One instance I encountered where it was appropriate is that a reliable third-party source confirmed the nature of a Facebook confirmation by a certain individual but paraphrased and didn't include the exact quote. So I used the Facebook post in conjunction with the web posting in order to get an independently-confirmed exact quote. I'm sure there are other instances where Facebook citations would be appropriate. Jacedc (talk) 04:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment update: sourcing of 2012 Koch-organized funding of Americans for Prosperity

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Americans for Prosperity#Request for comment: $44M of $140M raised by Americans for Prosperity in 2012 election cycle from Koch-related funds. Comments from editors with some familiarity with sourcing is respectfully requested.

• A version of the one-sentence content addition proposed by this RfC was submitted on this noticeboard for comment 20 June, please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 191#Americans for Prosperity funding proposed addition from Washington Post.
• Notice of this RfC was posted here 9 July, please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 193#RfC notice: The Washington Post on 2012 Koch-related funding of Americans for Prosperity.

This is an update and a request for wider participation. Several commenter have cited an issue which has arisen since the 20 June post here: the main source is a pair of reports in The Washington Post, supported by FactCheck.org and the National Journal. In the RfC discussion, some commenters have noted that the latter two sources explicitly cite the former and invoked a "one source" argument in their opposition to inclusion. Attention from editors with some previous experience explaining WP:USEBYOTHERS is respectfully requested. Excerpts from the sources are provided in the statement of the RfC question for your convenience. Please help with this request for comment. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 14:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Is an entry in Who's Who (UK) evidence of notability

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Mitchell (Scottish entrepreneur), it's been asserted that an entry in the British Who's Who (UK) is commonly accepted as evidence of notability and that the subject should considered notable because he has a 145-word entry here.

But under WP:GNG, notability requires multiple reliable independent secondary sources. An autobiography, for example, would not contribute to notability even if published by respected publisher. You can't become notable just by talking or writing about yourself, no matter where you get it published. You have to get other people to do it.

And that's the rub in this case. From [30], Each biographee supplies the original information for their entry and is then sent an annual proof for updating. Our editors also monitor the press and other sources of reference for day-to-day changes and additions. The information contained in a Who’s Who entry is essentially autobiographical, its integrity and accuracy ensured by constant independent research. The subject's entry's only 145 words. We didn't find much else in the press or other sources and I doubt they did, either. So it seems likely that what they published was written in entirety by the subject and received zero independent fact-checking to see that whatever the subject claimed could be supported by other sources.

At the AfD, I asked if there anyone could cite a consensus here at WP:RSN regarding British Who's Who entries as evidence of notability. If there is one, I intend to accept it, not relitigate the issue, but I would appreciate a pointer to the relevant discussion. Thank you. Msnicki (talk) 17:25, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

clearly, the existence of an entry in the well established British Who's Who can be a helpful but insufficient condition to establish notability. Also, not the case here but beware Who's Who scams. --ℕ ℱ 18:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

First of all, you are in wrong nioticeboard. Nobody disputes that British WiW is a reliable source.

That sais, If a modern person is notable to get themselves into WiW without string attached, there should be plenty reliable sources. However we are talking about a 1871-1934 person and we must judge more carefully. In this particular case nothing in the article suggests the person's notability, sources close to none, and hence WiW cannot help. Please keep in mind that notability are guidelines. They may suggest that a person may be notable, and AfD is the place to decide this. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, an entry in WW (which is certainly a reliable source - I don't think any serious student of British biography would dispute that) is a good indicator that someone may be notable, but it shouldn't be used as conclusive proof of notability. Many individuals, for instance, were included in earlier editions just because they were members of the landed gentry. Such people were notable in those days, but would probably not be considered inherently notable today. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

The matter was inconclusively discussed at WT:Notability/Archive 12#Independent+non trivial? Debretts, Whos Who etc. I rather agree with the other people responding here. I think an entry provides evidence of notability but the evidence is not necessarily conclusive. Also, we need enough verifiable information for an acceptable article, which Who's Who may not provide by itself. Anyway, even multiple reliable references only lead to a presumption of notability and editors may ultimately think the subject does not warrant an article. Thincat (talk) 17:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Using Bandcamp for sources in musician BLPs

I've seen arguments over whether or not Bandcamp can be used as a reliable source for a discography, with the argument that it meets the criteria of WP:SELFPUB. (eg: Talk:Ceschi) I disagree, however, on the simple premise that an artist's self-published website should not the arbiter of what is determined to be of encyclopedic importance. If a release is important, it will be listed in Billboard or Rolling Stone. Discuss. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Does this constitute as Primary Source?

Hello,

I am the Executive Assistant for this company: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SHINE_Medical_Technologies. As you can see it is up for deletion. As you can also see I have a WP:COI statement on the talk page. As I am re-doing the article, I am wondering if this is considered a primary source because the interviewer called the CEO and took direct quotes: http://www.auntminnie.com/index.aspx?sec=sup&sub=mol&pag=dis&ItemID=109211

Thank you for your help. Humbly, PattiMoly99 (talk) 21:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Primary for the CEO's statements; secondary for any claims about the company made by the interviewer. Not WP:MEDRS in either case. Rhoark (talk) 21:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

famousscientists.org

Is that really a reliable source for information on famous scientists? Maybe I am overreacting, but articles like "Top 10 Scientists’ Beards" and "7 Scientists Who Died Violently" don't feel very scientific. The articles look well-written (by whom?), but I would appreciate some additional opinions on their reliability. I am currently not looking at a specific problem, just asking for a general assessment. GermanJoe (talk) 17:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

The author or authors of the work have not been identified, so there is no way to know if they are experts or have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. I imagine that anything you find on that website can be found elsewhere in reliable academic sources. - Location (talk) 18:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, @Location:. Digging a bit deeper, I found that most of the usages have been spammed in December 2011, and a few good faith references were added over time. I have removed those usages as clearly against WP:RS and WP:EL. GermanJoe (talk) 18:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Online source for biographical information?

Does anyone have suggestions for a good free online source (or sources) for biographical information about celebrities? I usually end up doing newspaper searches for obituaries, but that is a hit-and-miss type of activity. It would be nice to have one source to which I could go regularly to obtain information if I am writing an article or verify information if I am editing. (Of course, it needs to be reliable enough to use for Wikipedia citations.)Eddie Blick (talk) 00:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

TVbythenumbers reliable?

One user's recent edit updated Naked and Afraid's viewers' numbers in several charts. The editor added this website as a source throughout the page. Before reverting his good faith contribution, I wanted to get confirmation that the website used for support is not a reliable source. Let me know your thoughts. Thanks. Meatsgains (talk) 02:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm genuinely confused as to how this has become an issue. TVBythenumbers is widely used across every TV show page on Wikipedia and is universally accepted among like every editor on this website to be reliable. I made the effort to fill in the missing ratings and sourced from what is known to be a reliable website and find this on my talk page? Thankyou lol. I'm not going to say anything more than this. Though to be fair, TVBythenumbers was used long before I sourced the latest ratings on the page. There's like 3 seasons worth of ratings sourced from there, so singling out my edits seems a little strange.Haqua121 (talk) 10:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm questioning the reliability of the source, not specifically your edit. Can you provide other TV show pages using TVbythenumbers as a source? Meatsgains (talk) 16:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Sure, there are 1000s if not more show pages on Wikipedia that use it. Just type in your fav ABC, NBC, Fox, CW, CBS and or Cable series and sure enough all the ratings will have TVBythenumbers attributed to them. I hope that helps. Haqua121 (talk) 18:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Lumia Icon and 1520

Are the following sources reliable, and do they support the inclusion of Nokia Lumia Icon and Nokia Lumia 1520 in the "related" field in each others' infoboxes?

• http://www.wpcentral.com/lumia-icon-review
  • "For all intents and purposes, the Lumia Icon is a Lumia 1520 jammed into a smaller, more nimble device."
• http://www.phonearena.com/news/Nokia-Lumia-Icon-vs-Lumia-1520-vs-Sony-Xperia-Z1-specs-comparison_id52493
  • "Nokia Lumia Icon is finally upon us as a Verizon exclusive, and with it the prayers of Lumia 1520's awesome specs but in a more manageable body, have seemingly been answered."
• http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/02/verizons-new-windows-phone-flagship-the-nokia-lumia-icon-reviewed
  • "It's like they took the other flagship, the Lumia 1520, and shrunk the screen."
• http://www.windowscentral.com/green-nokia-lumia-1520-reportedly-coming-att
  • "Right now the most advanced Windows Phone device is a tie between the Nokia Lumia 1520 and Lumia Icon. They pack nearly identical tech, just in different packages."
• http://allaboutwindowsphone.com/news/item/19300_Verizon_exclusive_Nokia_Lumia_.php
  • "In technology terms the Lumia Icon is essentially a smaller sized version of the Lumia 1520"
• http://lumiaconversations.microsoft.com/2014/02/14/see-hear-youve-missing-nokia-lumia-icon
  • "The new Nokia Lumia Icon, like its slightly larger cousin the Nokia Lumia 1520 ..."

Indrek (talk) 07:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Ars Technica probably is, I don't think much of the others. Guy (Help!) 07:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Agree on Ars Technica as only good source from those listed. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 19:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Looking for another set of eyes and opinion on sharylattkission.com as a reliable source

I see a source at https://sharylattkisson.com being used on Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 in a way that seems contrary to what most of the press is saying and when I went to the site, I had concerns about using it as a reliable source. But I always like to give the benefit of the doubt, so I'd love to have more eyeballs go look at the site and see if they agree. For me it's a self-published site without any understanding of the publishing policies and would probably fail WP:RS AliveFreeHappy (talk) 19:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• Acceptable - the author is an established person in the field of journalism and politics (bio shows career in major media, two books from respected publisher), so it passes by that part WP:UGC. It also passes because the article text is simply attributing something as being what her opinion is about it, so passes due to WP:SELFSOURCE. The article does portray her view of the Washington Post next to a Tampa Politifact view about the out-of-context point which ties to a transcript of the exchange -- so her opinion is not standing alone or wildly exaggerated authority either, although that's more balance than RS. To me it seems the cite to her webpage about what she said is pretty clearly acceptable in this case. Markbassett (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• Sharyl Attkisson's work for CBS would generally be regarded as a reliable source, but her self-published post-CBS writings are not usable on wikipedia (except under WP:ABOUTSELF exceptions), since her credibility has been questioned by multiple sources, eg [31]. Though the issue is moot since the source is not usable, note also that the wording "Investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson detailed how" falls afoul of WP:SAY. Abecedare (talk) 22:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Skagway, Alaska

Regarding your history section of the history of Scagway, Alaska, my father and I are primary sources, living direct descendants of William Moore whom this site notes as the sea captain and host to miners and travelers in the area. Currently, there stands the Moore Family Cabin that served miners while they searched for their treasure. The issue with your written piece is that William Moore's son is "Ben;" this is in error, as his son's name was William Hunter Moore, my grandfather (not Ben). We request a change and update to further add credibility to your information. IMG_3007.JPG I've attached a copy of s genealogy chart for further reference, but you may contact Jon Arthur Moore, William's son, if you need further evidence of originality. 1 (775) 622-2631 Thank you. Cheryl Moore — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.249.221 (talk) 21:23, 23 June 2015‎ (UTC)

Looks to have been resolved. We can close this discussion. DaltonCastle (talk) 02:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Therapeutic Uses of Ubiquinol

Hi, I have added a section in Ubiquinol about its therapeutic uses. My previous edits were reverted by User:Alexbrn for using primary sources, so based on his remarks I added new content with secondary sources that base on a wide range of primary sources and are published by well known publishers. This source [32] for example is based on 28 references! it is pretty much secondary. I have been reverted again without explanation of why any of my sources are not reliable. The only reason given is "poorly sourced". The editor is not willing to discuss so I am seeking input from other editors on sources. I have used the following sources in this edit:

Ubiquinol has been used and tested in a therapeutic context in a variety of patient populations, primarily in patients with congestive heart failure or on statins. The increased bioavailability theory of ubiquinol has been cited as the reason behind some studies having shown ubiquinol providing a greater than three-fold increase over ubiquinone in mean plasma CoQ10 levels in a population of congestive heart failure patients(1) (2) (3). Statin medications block the body’s production of cholesterol via the same metabolic pathway that creates CoQ10, resulting in the unintentional side effect of lowered CoQ10 during statin-therapy. This has led many physicians and researchers to call for supplemental ubiquinol therapy during course of statin therapy. (4) (5) (6)

1. Faloon, William. Conventional CoQ10 Fails Severe Heart Disease Patients. Life Extension Magazine February 2008. http://www.lifeextension.com/magazine/2008/2/conventional-coq10-fails-severe-heart-disease-patients/page-01
2. Payne, Anthony G. Natural Health Support Measures for Congestive Heart Failure. Healingcare4u. http://www.healingcare4u.org/CongestiveHeartFailure.html
3. Health Research Direct. Latest Studies: Nutrient Reverses End-Stage Congestive Heart Failure Symptoms. October 28, 2011. http://healthresearchdirect.com/2011/10/congestive-heart-failure-symptoms-improve-with-ubiquinol/
4. Allen RM, Vickers KC. Coenzyme Q10 Increases Cholesterol Efflux and Inhibits Atherosclerosis Through MicroRNAs. Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology. 2014; 34: 1795-1797
5. Cohen S. Abnormal Heart Rhythm? The Heart-talk you and your doctor need to have. Huffington Post. May 2, 2011.
6. Werner, J. Statin side effects on ubiquinol. Natural News. October 13, 2014.blogs.naturalnews.com/statin-side-effects-ubiquinol-levels/

Please tell me if they are reliable or other wise what is wrong with the in that case what is needed. I can make constructive contributions only if I have specific objections to my edits not editors who revert and are not willing to discuss. --Committed molecules (talk) 11:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

As has been said to you in the Article Talk page, health content needs to be sourced to WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. These sources aren't. They're on a spectrum between respectable primary research and some are the worst kind of fringe crap we try hard to avoid (e.g. NaturalNews). Alexbrn (talk) 11:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I do not know why you are calliing it and every source in general as crap without logic but even if I agree with you on natural news, please tell me how is this one crap? Or Huffington Post? They are not primary references themselves. They are based on primary references which is why they are secondary. I will like a comment from a sensible editor on the reliability of the sources. I have presented six sources for my update. --Committed molecules (talk) 11:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I said they're on a spectrum. To quote MEDRS: "Ideal sources for biomedical material include general or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published secondary sources, such as reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies". The point is "Life Extension Magazine" (which appears to be a sales front for the supplements you're boosting) is waaay adrift of the sort of respectable mainstream academic sourcing that is described. Alexbrn (talk) 11:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with Alexbrn. These are insufficiently good sources for the claim. If the studies have indeed been conducted, they must be published in scientific journals. Find and use them. My very best wishes (talk) 12:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
• Committed molecules, you are writing here as though you have not read MEDRS which is the guideline for sourcing health content in Wikipedia. This place is not a wild west; you need to read and understand the policies and guidelines and follow them. Please read it, and take it on board. Thanks. None of those sources are OK per MEDRS. Jytdog (talk) 12:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

somethingpositive.net for Something Positive

SP is a borderline notable webcomic, with a relatively large article sourced almost entirely (though never inline) from the strips themselves. I'm pretty sure this shouldn't be a thing, as RS guideline says self-published self-referencing sources should only be used if "The article is not based primarily on such sources." & "Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided.", however removing the unsourced info would mean blanking pretty much the whole thing outside the lede, which I'm sure an admin would revert regardless of policy if carried out by an IP. 92.26.141.6 (talk) 20:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• What's the evidence this is even notable? I found no reliable sources online whatsoever. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 22:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

That article is atrocious. Virtually all of it is cited to "comic of <date>". The only reliable external sources are award nomination listings, not one single substantive independent source is cited. Guy (Help!) 10:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Muslim population growth

Note: Jjkajaja has repeatedly edited their original post here instead of making new replies to comments. The original and unmodified post can be viewed here. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: Corrected some mistakes though still the same argument. Jjkajaja (talk) 22:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Beginning of the second paragraph in the lead starts with "According to the World Christian Encyclopedia, the fastest-growing branch of Islam is Ahmadiyya". What my concern is that using Christian source on Islamic article about Ahmadiyya. It is like using a Islamic source on USA subject article about about American Communist party so I have yet to see this anomaly. Ahmadiyya is a controversial subject within Islam as Ahmadis are considered heretics by mainstream Islam. Using a Christian source is just fanning the flames. Jjkajaja (talk) 19:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The fact that it's a Christian sources does not make it unreliable. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Based on its article, World Christian Encyclopedia looks to meet our guidelines on reliable sources. It's published by Oxford University Press. —C.Fred (talk) 19:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I also mentioned other reasons. You have to look it in the context I mentioned it in. Jjkajaja (talk) 19:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Because of the controversy of the status of Ahmadis, it is probably good that a non-Islamic source is used; there's less chance of bias related specifically to Ahmadis. Since the article does not contrast Christians to non-Christians, I see no reasons not to use WCE. Other concerns, such as whether Ahmadiyya should count as an Islamic movement (it self-identifies as one) are beyond the scope of this noticeboard. —C.Fred (talk) 19:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

WCE is not a neutral source in this situation and context. Muslims and Christians have a long history of conflict. Jjkajaja (talk) 19:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Quoting our article: 'One study found that the WCD's data was "highly correlated with other sources that offer cross-national religious composition estimates" but the database "consistently gives a higher estimate for percent Christian in comparison to other cross-national data sets".' Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion seems to think the source is reliable, with that one qualification. —C.Fred (talk) 19:46, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The "Christian source" argument has already been addressed and dismissed, but to elaborate more: The encyclopedia is labelled Christian in the sense that it is of interest to Christians, not out of ecumenical alignment. It is published by a secular printing press. Your concern about Ahmadi self-identification being used in the spirit of cultural relativism reveals what your real concern is here. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Bottom line is that this statement is perfect example of Internet trolling. A perfect example of improper source for this article. Jjkajaja (talk) 19:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

No it is not. You got your answer. The source is reliable. What more do you want. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I am not here to beg you. Jjkajaja (talk) 20:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

You presented your arguments, and those arguments were shown to be flawed. Repeating those arguments verbatim doesn't suddenly make them right, nor does it fix the flaws or hide them. If anything, repeating the argument and not paying attention to the responses to those arguments is closer to trolling than anything else in this thread. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:04, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I made a solid argument. I have no doubt about. Take it or leave it. Jjkajaja (talk) 20:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

We took it and showed the massive flaws with it. You either failed to understand that, or you don't care. Either way, your options are now:

• Provide new arguments
• Find problems with our refutations (instead of just repeating your original argument)
• Accept that your arguments are flawed
• Go bother some other site.

Repeating an initial argument without addressing its flaws only looks foolish. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

This paper [33] makes specific comments as regards to the reliability of the World Christian Encyclopedia in regard to Muslims, as well as general comments as regarding evidence of possible bias (see in particular the conclusions on p 691-2). It is also worth noting that the edition being quoted dates to 2001 - not an ideal source for statements about current growth rates. I am unconvinced that we should be citing it, when we have later sources available which contradict it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 4:18 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Great points, but belong on the article's talk page. The source might have BIAS, but it seems reliable enough and that's what needs to be addressed here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

This is the reliable sources noticeboard. The question being asked is whether the source is reliable for the statement it is being cited for. I am suggesting that it isn't. It is dated, and from a source which according to an independent study has problems with the accurate reporting of data in regard to Muslims. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

A dated source isn't unreliable; however, it's unsuitable for showing current/recent growth rates. —C.Fred (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

As I have pointed out, there are grounds for questioning its reliability regarding data on Muslims beyond the fact that it is out of date. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

In light of this study, what is the next step? Jjkajaja (talk) 23:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not for us to determine how to use a source based on one primary source in an academic journal. I've got a handful of citations about how the Gender Inequality Index isn't the greatest and should be used with caution, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't use it on Wikipedia. Just because one published paper that's not been cited much doesn't think WCE is that great doesn't mean we should exclude it as a source. That would be a form of OR. If there were a bunch of sources questioning it, that would be a different story. Remove the sentence in question as out-of-date, but the source seems good enough. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I have taken Jjkajaja for another case of sock puppet investigation, here. If Jjkajaja is indeed a sockpuppet, then his/her primary goal appears to be to somehow remove/malign/censor the mention of Ahmadis, e.g. here User:Eulalefty attempts to censor the mention of Ahmadiyya in the lead whilst having no issue with an equivalent mention of Salafism in the lead. Here User:Johnzsmith argues the need to place a "caution" that Ahmadis are considered non-Muslims.

Nevertheless, I certainly don't think that the sentence should be removed. The year 2001 is not 'very' out-of-date. If it is really an issue perhaps, the sentence could be altered to "According to the World Christian Encyclopedia, published in 2001, the fastest-growing branch of Islam is Ahmadiyya."? --Peaceworld 09:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Discussion got lost in pedantics. Whether too old or POV or inaccurate, bottom line, there are plenty of superior sources for statement that Ahmadiyya is fastest-growing branch of Islam. World Christian Encyclopedia may or may not be a RS for fourteen year old statement, but a decidedly inferior one today anyway. 173.228.118.114 (talk) 14:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I was unable to locate the plenty of sources you mention. Everything I found referred back to the WCE. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Unpublished/SPS/UGC sources and Template:Cite arXiv

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources#Unpublished/SPS/UGC sources and Template:Cite arXiv.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

need to prove familysearch.org can be used as a source for birth records on Wikipedia

A few editors said that this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Krystal_Meyers&oldid=672909300#cite_note-birth_name-1 going to this page https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:VLY6-RMX could not be used on Wikipedia as a source for Krystal Meyers' birthday, when I know better.

If you go to Krystal Meyers' page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krystal_Meyers you will see a child photo of her when she is 27 (as of July 31, 2015) that is impossible to replace with an adult photo. Then in addition to that, we now have editors that after having removed her birth date (being able to do so under the timing of the site that did show it became a site where you now have pay to see that information), will not let the above source (a different source) be the source for proof of her birth date.

New source from history: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Krystal_Meyers&oldid=672909300#cite_note-birth_name-1

Old source from history https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Krystal_Meyers&oldid=667131375#cite_note-birth_name-1

These "editors" are saying the new source (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:VLY6-RMX) is secondary information, them knowing that it is original communication from one data base to another, with /familysearch.org simply being a portal for that information to be viewed without paying for it (where paying for it would make it not available for public view), So these "editors" are purposely saying the information is not valid so the only option would be that it could not be seen, by default, for the "original source" because you would have it pay for it from their site. They are making a catch 22 by falsely classifying the site as only providing secondary information.

So what I want is conformation of what I know to be true, as being true (that familysearch.org can be used as a source for birth records on Wikipedia) so I, or someone that follows after me (in case they blocked me for trying.They are obviously doing things outside of police as it is already), can overrule those and any editors who try to say this source https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:VLY6-RMX is not valid, when it is.

So tell me what I know, so tomorrow I can get that link back up as proof of Krystal Meyers' birth, with what you tell me to overrule those and any editors. --Asian Radio Guru (talk) 21:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The source is a good indication that the california birth index has a birth of a Krystal Nicole Myers on 31 July 1988, problem is it doesnt really help because you need another source that proves that "Krystal Nicole Myers" is the same person as the article subject Krystal Meyers. And if this other source says Myers the singer was born on that date and place then you only need that source as a citation so the familysearch.org is a good starting point for research but not as a reference. MilborneOne (talk) 21:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

If I understand User:Asian Radio Guru, the original source, the California Birth Index, is or was a public record. The second source is a free replacement based on the same information. WP:BLPPRIMARY says we shouldn't make assertions about living people based on public records. Thus these sources should not be used. Also, if the person the article is about does not make her birth date readily available, we should not publish it in Wikipedia. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

RfC update: sourcing of 2012 Koch-organized funding of Americans for Prosperity

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Americans for Prosperity#Request for comment: $44M of $140M raised by Americans for Prosperity in 2012 election cycle from Koch-related funds. The RfC proposes a one-sentence addition to the "Funding" section of Americans for Prosperity. A version of the proposed content was submitted on this noticeboard for comment 20 June, please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 191#Americans for Prosperity funding proposed addition from Washington Post. Notice of this RfC was posted here 9 July, please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 193#RfC notice: The Washington Post on 2012 Koch-related funding of Americans for Prosperity. This is an update and a request for wider participation. The main source for the proposed content is a pair of reports in The Washington Post, supported by FactCheck.org and the National Journal. In the RfC discussion, some commenters noted that the latter two sources explicitly cite the former and then invoked a "one source" doctrine in their opposition to inclusion. Attention from editors with some previous experience explaining our WP:USEBYOTHERS content guideline is respectfully requested. Generous excerpts from the sources are provided in the statement of the RfC question for your convenience. Please help with this request for comment. Thank you in advance for your time and attention. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 22:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

"Pledge to Peace"

In the 1983-Present section of the Prem Rawat article, I'd like to add a statement after: In 2011, he spoke again in Brussels at the conference, "Peace and Prosperity. Founding Values of the European Union."[94]: There he introduced the „Pledge to Peace“, which was signed by Rawat and Pittella as well es by delegates of public and private organisations. The signatories obligated themselves to report on their efforts for the promotion of peace at the annual international „Day of Peace“, held by the UN on September 21st. and offer a number of sources for that, part of which is in Italian. One editor demands all sources are supposed to be in English or, if not, translated, but I understand guidelines say, that is required only when sources are quoted or cited (see the dispute on the article's talk-page). Is the statement still valid? If we just use one source, which one do you consider most reliable? Here are the sources:

1. http://www.pledgetopeace.eu/the-pledge.html
2. http://www.cerisdi.org/firmatari-del-pledge-to-peace-signatories-of-the-pledge-to-peace/
3. http://magazine.azsalute.it/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/AZS-Mag2015-WEB.pdf
4. http://www.pledgetopeace.eu/blog/the-pledge-to-peace-is-presented-at-the-house-of-parliament-in-the-uk
5. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/european-parliament-welcomes-back-ambassador-peace-prem-putnikovic?trk=seokp_posts_primary_cluster_res_photo
6. https://ilquotidianodipalermo.wordpress.com/2015/05/28/prem-rawat-a-palermo-per-firmare-il-pledge-to-peace-e-incontrare-i-detenuti-del-pagliarelli-visita-a-sorpresa-allars/
7. http://www.monrealepress.it/mp-palermo-i-medici-siciliani-firmano-il-pledge-to-peace-8001.asp
8. http://www.lasicilia.it/articolo/carceri-pagliarelli-di-palermo-sottoscrive-pledge-peace
9. http://www.vivimazara.com/portale/eventi-e-appuntamenti/mazara_cm_-prem-rawat-ed-il-sindaco-cristaldi-rilanciano-il-messaggio-del-pledge-to-peace.html
10. http://www.lasiritide.it/article.php?articolo=5043

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainer P. (talk • contribs)

Sources can be in other languages, but it is reasonable to request translations at least of passages that are meant to support claims in the article. On the other hand, fulfilling such a request is WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. Whether material should stand on a page while verifiability of a translation is in question should be guided by consensus and how BLP or exceptional the claim is. Rhoark (talk) 20:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! In that case, I suggest https://ilquotidianodipalermo.wordpress.com/2015/05/28/prem-rawat-a-palermo-per-firmare-il-pledge-to-peace-e-incontrare-i-detenuti-del-pagliarelli-visita-a-sorpresa-allars/ , which seems to be an independent, signed article in a regular publication. Should the translation of the relevant passage be written in the article or in a footnote? Also, I suggest http://www.cerisdi.org/firmatari-del-pledge-to-peace-signatories-of-the-pledge-to-peace/ for a list of signatories, which is bilingual (Italian and English). Please comment.--Rainer P. (talk) 20:06, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

For what I understand of the Italian (and after having given them a number for easy reference):

1. self-published [34]
2. self-published
3. Not journalism: written by a surgeon in a free medical magazine (and/or the same source as #6 as that newspaper is the one with which the magazine is distributed once a month for free)
4. same website as #1 (self-published), and at one of it's "blog" pages
5. self-published
6. article regarding Rawat meeting local politicians, barely anything about the Brussels event, no source for "Pitella" and everything that follows that.
7. not really relevant for the proposed content (Italian doctors signing the "Declaration of Brussels" without mentioning any of the detail in the text that is proposed for insertion in the article)
8. same as previous, apart that it gives a date for the "Declaration of Brussels", and apparently a wrong one
9. non-journalistic local news aggregator (per its disclaimer), apparently reproducing a press release. Also, the article has no real information on the content that is proposed for sourcing.
10. local news report, with less than half of the content of what is proposed for sourcing contained in the article

Not nearly enough sourcing for the proposed content, seems too promotional on the whole. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Francis, for the numbering! I can't really see why you identify #2 as 'self-published' by the subject or a dependent organisation. Mentions Pitella, too, as well as the other signatories, which information would be lost if we ignore the source. For sourcing the contents of the 'Pledge to Peace' we can best use #1, as Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources. #10 may be regional, but it is independent, public and author-signed. A date is not mentioned in my proposed edit. Generally I think the statement can be referenced maybe not comprehensively by a single source, but completely by evaluating the synopsis from several of the above sources. It is then sufficiently sourced and would certainly add to the article's informational yield.--Rainer P. (talk) 17:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Source #2 (cerisdi) is self-published as defined at WP:SELFPUBLISH, and as it is apparently not self-published by the subject of the article it can "Never" be used "as third-party source about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer" (bolding as on that policy page). It can simply not be used as a source at the Prem Rawat article.

Source #1 is self-published by an organization associated with the subject, but contains claims on others ("signatories"...), is unduly self-serving & containing exceptional claims ("report yearly" – where is such report ever mentioned in a reliable third-party source?), and has WP:UNDUE issues, so no, not enough to base such encyclopedia content on it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Please help me understand. How is #2 (cerisdi) self-published? It appears to me rather like a platform for public announcements. And #1 is obviously self-published, but the list of signatories is confirmed in an RS (cerisi).The content of the PtP is not extraordinary, but it is what it is, otherwise there would be no point in mentioning it at all. Where is it undue and self-serving? The PtP may not be front-page news, but when it is mentioned publicly, it is treated like a fact. Just found: The PtP is referred, too, in this independent publication: http://saddind.co.uk/oldham-council-becomes-first-in-uk-to-sign-pledge-to-peace. We could use it as a source, what do you think? I additionally propose to link the Day of Peace internally. Also, I would like to have some assessments from other editors on this issue, please.--Rainer P. (talk) 11:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Re. "platform for public announcements" – argh, how can anything be more self-published than a "platform for public announcements"? Besides the layout of the website is "Blog" style, the announcement was posted by an account with the same name as the website (& clicking on that name links to the homepage), there appears to be no editorial control apart from that account (apparently no peer or other review over what that account edits), clicking around on the website tells it is "in the process of being developed" (less than half of its purported pages developed), and no accountable person mentioned (in fact all anonymous edits),... CERISDI appears to be a private or commercial initiative, or whatever, that self-publishes on its own website, without any history of fact-checking overview or whatever, which fails about everything Wikipedia expects of a reliable source.

That also crumbles your second argument that the first selfpublished source is "confirmed" by the totally questionable one... Please take this a bit more serious. The requirements are at WP:V, and WP:RS, and per these requirements there's really nothing here that should be added to the Prem Rawat article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

So how do you flush http://saddind.co.uk/oldham-council-becomes-first-in-uk-to-sign-pledge-to-peace, while you're at it? You have not addressed my questions about your logics of "undue" and "self-serving", instead you accuse me of not being serious. Why so aggressive? Please assume that I respect WP:V and WP:RS as much as you do, and they are of course open to a certain amount of interpretation, that's why we have this discussion here, no need to bully me. There might after all be something we could agree on. I think, for NPOV's sake we need some more voices here. Doesn't a 'board' imply a minimum of diversity?--Rainer P. (talk) 20:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

http://saddind.co.uk/about-us/ looks much better reliability-wise, however:

• The article doesn't mention the details for which sourcing is sought (Pitella? Signatories? Yearly report? UN day of peace?)
• Quite local newspaper, this doesn't say anything about reliability, but about how much notability can be derived from it.

Something like "The „Pledge to Peace“, a comittment of intent introduced at the conference, was later also signed by representants of the towns Mazara del Vallo and Oldham.<#9 from the list above as ref>+<Oldham ref>" might work, if consensus can be found at Talk:Prem Rawat. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, thank you, that may be a smallest common denominator, though without the other signatories and description of content it makes it look rather insignificant. I'll try and find more sources.--Rainer P. (talk) 11:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

A self-published source is not the same as a primary source. “Some self-published works are sometimes acceptable as sources, so self-publication is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to automatically dismiss a source as "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:USESPS

According to EKWALS, the European knowledge workers’ learning institution, CERISDI, as one of their partners, is a “socio-economical research and management education centre, founded in 1989 as a private, non profit association, whose associates are public/private organisations: it offers consulting/education and training services to public/private sector. It’s a member of AIF (Trainers Italian Association) and ASFOR (Italian Association for Management Education), and it’s accredited by the Sicilian Regional Authority and by “Fondo Professioni”, a professional Fund aimed to foster vocational training.” http://www.ekwalslearningsolutions.com/cerisdi.php I think the list of signatories published by CERISDI should be acceptable. According to Princeton University’s article “Academic Integrity”, quoted at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:USESPS, http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pub/integrity/pages/other/ “To be sure, there are many websites in which you can have confidence: mainstream newspapers, refereed electronic journals, and university, library, and government collections of data.” CERISDI, in this instance, is a tertiary education collector of data, independent of the subject.--Rainer P. (talk) 15:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Really? I say it is a WP:SELFPUBLISH source, and you start about primary and secondary sources? WP:SELFPUBLISH says nothing about the source being primary or secondary (which is irrelevant for WP:SELFPUBLISH, neither primary nor secondary even appears in that policy section). Whether Cerisdi is a primary, secondary or tertiary source on Rawat is irrelevant: it is a selfpulished source by Cerisdi, so can only be used for information on Cerisdi in a Wikipedia article on Cerisdi, all other uses are excluded from Wikipedia, specifically use in Biographies of Living Persons (like Rawat's) are totally excluded.

It is selfpublished while none of its core activities is "publishing of work by writing professionals"; it may be publishing as a "platform for announcements" but a platform for announcements is, as I said, by definition a "self-published source".

Further, there's a big difference between being EU-funded and being an EU organisation. EU funds a lot of organisations, industries, farmers, regions, and whatnot, that doesn't say anything about any of these publishing whatever not being self-published. EKWALS, being EU-funded, selfpublishes about its project partners, including Cerisdi, there's no addition to the selfpublished qualification to be found there. Being a partner in a EU project says something more about their accountability than what I could derive from the Cerisdi website itself, but that doesn't change its selfpublished status, so it can "Never" be used "as third-party source about living people", per policy, whatever the WP:USESPS essay has to offer. It doesn't even fall in one of the categories mentioned in WP:USESPS, nor those mentioned in the Princeton paper: it is not a "governement collection of data", nor a "university collection of data" nor a "refereed electronic journal", nor anything that comes close enough. I didn't say its information is incorrect, I say it's not useable in Wikipedia in an article on Prem Rawat, for various reasons, including (lack of) notability of the facts reported in it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

RfC update: sourcing of 2012 Koch-organized funding of Americans for Prosperity

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Americans for Prosperity#Request for comment: $44M of $140M raised by Americans for Prosperity in 2012 election cycle from Koch-related funds. This is an update and a request for wider participation. This request for comment will most likely close one week from today, Thursday 6 August 2015. The RfC proposes a one-sentence addition to the "Funding" section of Americans for Prosperity. The main source for the proposed content is a pair of reports in The Washington Post, supported by FactCheck.org and the National Journal. Issues in the appropriate application of our sourcing policies and guidelines remain in the discussion. Attention from editors with some previous experience the appropriate application of our sourcing policies and guidelines is respectfully requested. Generous excerpts from the sources are provided in the statement of the RfC question for your convenience. Please help with this request for comment. Thank you in advance for your time and attention. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 15:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC) Hugh (talk) 15:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:CANVAS Capitalismojo (talk) 00:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

American Journal of Public Health

I am concerned that the sources used in American Journal of Public Health#Controversy are not reliable (they both look like blogs). What do others think? Everymorning talk 17:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• Update: The second link is dead, but the claim sourced to it seems to trace back to this blog, which is also of questionable reliability. Everymorning talk 17:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The first link is from Library Journal, a leading publication in my field that meets RS criteria. Assuming the second citation was originally meant to link to a mirror or repost of content from Andrew Gelman's blog, then that sentence should be rewritten to be "Andrew Gelman reported that he got a letter" instead of "authors are getting letters". Gamaliel (talk) 17:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I note the author of the first one is Duke University's Director of Scholarly Communications. Seems good enough to me. Doug Weller (talk) 17:37, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The second source was literally just citing a comment someone made on the internet. Completely inappropriate. The first looks like it might be ok, so I left it. CorporateM (Talk) 23:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

California State University Northridge

Would this be considered a reliable source for the statement? " Some archaeologists have proposed that the Bronze Age cultures (Xia, Shang and Zhou) in fact, each developed from separate branches of the Central Plain Longshan Culture" [8, 17, 19]

I was told this source is considered "unpublished" and wanted to verify this as I am fairly new to Wikipedia. Thank you. --Easy772 (talk) 06:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

First, the document doesn't seem to have any information about its provenance so it's not unreasonable to cautiously assume that it's unpublished. Do you have any information about the document and where it was published? The lead author does appear to be an expert in this field and there is an indication that this document is related to a research grant but that's all I've found (and all I'm going to look for as a volunteer editor answering someone else's question!).

Second, I'm not sure why you need to cite this source at all since your original statement is merely summarizing other sources. Those other sources are the ones that you need to examine and cite if this is material that should be included. (It would be good practice, however, to also cite this document since it's where the summary originated.) ElKevbo (talk) 15:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't have access to the summarized sources, but I suppose I could request them or go to a local library and place a hold on the material. I'm also uncertain whether the summarized sources would meet WP:SECONDARY criteria. I could also email the authors to get for information.

Sourcing for Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)

Is this source [35] from Columbia Spectator a reliable source for the following text containing direct quotation from attorney Roberta Kaplan: The defendants “do not contest that Ms. Sulkowicz did in fact become a prominent figure in the context of sexual assault on college campuses,” but they “deny that they are responsible or liable for her conduct”. The direct quotation can be verified as accurate in a letter to Judge Woods] published by The Wall Street Journal.

Also, is this source from The Washington Examiner a reliable source to state that the accused students genitals were depicted in drawings displayed at South Hampton Arts Center and on Columbia University campus as described in following text: they cited Sulkowicz's public display of drawings of the accused student's genitals as part of her project. Additional discussion can be found on talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) --BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

More generally, is the Columbia Spectator a reliable source for the other claims for which it is used in this article and at Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol? I have been operating under the assumption that, as a student newspaper, it should be deprecated in preference to grownup newspapers, but I'm interested in the community's opinion. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Sammy1339, as previously discussed on talk: Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol, it appears the Columbia Spectator is referenced with multiple additional sources for majority of citations, and currently, only text exclusively referenced to it is quote from director of video, Ted Lawson, who did an interview with Columbia Spectator. Either way, could we please try to keep focus of this discussion on Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight), specifically, on the potential use of Columbia Spectator for the above quote from attorney Roberta Kaplan, and on the potential use of The Washington Examiner for above text regarding drawings of accused student's genitalia. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm genuinely interested in the reliability of Columbia Spectator in general for both articles. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Sammy1339, perhaps consider starting a separate "general discussion", but as pointed out on talk page and also on top of page here, reliability isn't judged only by source, but also by specific content source is being used to reference. That specific content is quoted above (quote from attorney and text regarding drawing of genitalia).--BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I would be comfortable using a student paper only for very trivial, non-controversial information that couldn't be found in other, more reliable sources. Quotes are a pretty big deal, because they are often construed to suit the author's POV, are mis-quoted, or taken out of context. I don't think this is a good-enough source in this case.

As for the Washington Examiner, can I ask if there is some kind of politics angle related to this? I ask because the author has a background working for the Heritage Foundation, which I believe is a conservative lobbying group of some kind. She's listed as a "Commentary Writer", but I'm not really sure what that means. On Twitter she says she's a "liberal woman reporter". I'm trying to figure out if it's some kind of political advocacy type thing or more of a news report. The lines are very blurred these days. CorporateM (Talk) 07:18, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

There is a political angle: Sulkowicz is a prominent anti-rape activist and her story has become a lightning rod in a debate over campus sexual assault. The Washington Examiner is generally considered a conservative paper, and the author of the article has written a number of stories on the case that seem more rooted in opinion than in facts. For example: this article is headlined "Friend of mattress girl also accused [named redacted], story even less plausible", and it contains a number of statements that seem to indicate a bias against Sulkowicz. Other examples here, here and here all seem to suggest the author is giving something other that "straight" journalistic account of the story. Nblund (talk) 15:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

On the question of the reliability of the Spectator for this quote, I, like CorporateM, think that student-run papers are reliable for non-controversial material. My reasoning for this conclusion is that while it's clear that there is some editorial oversight and articles are updated, it isn't clear how much fact-checking goes into the articles. Since it can't be determined how much oversight goes into controversial topics (which to me includes material related to Sulkowicz, her art, and lawsuits), I don't think this paper is reliable for those topics, let alone these quotes. I apply similar reasoning to the Washington Examiner, which I don't think is reliable for these topics in general, let alone the specific fact that the accused's genitals were drawn on prints of newspaper stories. Ca2james (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

@Ca2james: Regarding the second point, you may have misunderstood the question. Whether the accused's genitals were drawn on prints of newspaper stories is not at issue: everyone agrees on that. The issue (which I think is irrelevant to whether we say these were "drawings of his genitals") is whether these drawings were "really of" the accused, or only of "stories" about him. To quote Sulkowicz exactly: “What are the functions of cartoons?” she asked. “Do they depict the people themselves (a feat which, if you’ve done enough reading on art theory, you will realize is impossible), or do they illustrate the stories that have circulated about a person?” This is from NYT. Also I agree the Washington Examiner is WP:BIASED, and used it very carefully for that reason - but it has editorial standards and I think the above question is an example of something it's perfectly adequate for. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think everyone does agree on that, that's why we're here. Nblund (talk) 23:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@Nblund: I was trying to think of a way of saying that without saying it, and couldn't. How would you express it? Maybe "depictions of the genitals of a possibly-fictionalized interpretation of the accused". --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we can or should attempt to make a determination about what they truly depict, the current iteration works around this by ascribing the view to someone else: "public harassment", they cited Sulkowicz's public display of drawings which they said depicted the accused student's genitals as part of her project". This seems reasonable. Nblund (talk) 15:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

My contention is that it doesn't matter who they "truly depict." Whether they depict the accused or the myth of the accused, they are still drawings of the accused. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like that's more of a question of the interpretation of sources, not the reliability. Maybe this discussion belongs on the article talk page. Nblund (talk) 16:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

The Huffington Post

Is the website reliable to be used as a reference in Wikipedia? Please ping me when/if answered. -- Frankie _talk 16:20, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Much of that source is "opinions" which can generally be used when cited as such. Where the opinion is a contentious one about a living person, great care should be used. Straight fact reportage generally meets WP:RS, but with reasonable care, as HuffPo does not generally engage in fact-checking before publication as much as one would like (neither do any of the major news organizations, now that their staffing levels are so greatly reduced). Collect (talk) 19:00, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

As it says at the top of this noticeboard, we context to offer an opinion. What specific source is in question? In what article will it be used and in what way? ElKevbo (talk) 07:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

It depends. Some of the content in the Huffington Post is opinion blogs from people not otherwise affiliated with the Post, other pieces are news produced by professional journalists employed by the Post. Gamaliel (talk) 17:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@FrB.TG: If the article is written by the publication's staff of professional journalists as News, then it should be ok. It has a lot of articles and op-eds written by guest authors that should not be used for anything. CorporateM (Talk) 23:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Agree with CorporateM. To add, I always think HuffPo should be a last choice when dealing with BLPs as they don't have the best record for reliability when it comes to contentious individuals. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

News reporting: probably yes. Blogs: Probably no (even Dana "Mr Uncredible" Ullman has a platform there, after all). Guy (Help!) 16:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Rod Steiger interview on TCM

A recent edit to Rod Steiger was completely reverted for questionable reasons. To avoid an edit war, some other opinions would be helpful. I added the following commentary based on a minute or two of an interview he gave;

"His mother, who Steiger says was beautiful, with a good singing voice, was offered a contract to act during a visit to Hollywood, but later became an alcoholic after surgery on her right leg went bad and permanently affected her walking."

1. The cite was a TCM-related video channel which includes mainly TCM interviews with Robert Osborne;
2. The video link went directly to the 1-minute segment of the hour-long interview;
3. The interview is also cited on the TCM website;
4. The only other note about the revert is that the editor claimed it had "badly worded prose," and rather than rephrase the few dozen words they chose to remove the entire cited addition as "Not good at all!!".

Feedback would be helpful. Thanks.--Light show (talk) 17:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

This seems to me to be a reliable source; TCM is a well-regarded mainstream television channel with clear and established editorial controls. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Steiger's story about his mother is also sourceable from print sources, for example this interview from a book, reprinted in the Ottawa Citizen. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Koimoi

I have found a number of sources referring to koimoi.com (especially this page for box office results (some editors insist on hourly updates). The prior discussion here had little to say but some say it's reliable. I see zero evidence of reliability and posting a live table page that gets constantly updated is just asking for trouble. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

It was discussed briefly at the Indian cinema taskforce here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Are these considered to be reliable sources?

Hello, I am heaving some issues with these sources and would like to know why, what is wrong with the following? They are relevant to support an article in Wikipedia about a food supplement. I need some help please, These are the references:

1.Yoles I, Yogev Y, Frenkel Y, Nahum R, Hirsch M, Kaplan B (2003). "Tofupill/Femarelle (DT56a): a new phyto-selective estrogen receptor modulator-like substance for the treatment of postmenopausal bone loss". Menopause 10 (6): 522–5. doi:10.1097/01.GME.0000064864.58809.77. http://journals.lww.com/menopausejournal/Abstract/2003/10060/Tofupill_Femarelle__DT56a___a_new_phyto_selective.7.aspx

2.Somjen D; Katzburg S; Knoll E et al. (May 2007). "DT56a (Femarelle): a natural selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM)". J. Steroid Biochem. Mol. Biol. 104 (3–5): 252–8. doi:10.1016/j.jsbmb.2007.03.004. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960076007000593

3.Somjen D, Yoles I (October 2003). "DT56a stimulates creatine kinase specific activity in vascular tissues of rats". J. Endocrinol. Invest. 26 (10): 966–71. doi:10.1007/bf03348193. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960076003002528

4.Oropeza MV, Orozco S, Ponce H, Campos MG (2005). "Tofupill lacks peripheral estrogen-like actions in the rat reproductive tract". Reprod. Toxicol. 20 (2): 261–6. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0890623805000717

5.Genazzani AR et al. Brain region responsiveness to DT56a (Femarelle) administration on allopregnanolone and opioid content in ovariectomized rats. Menopause 2009; 16(5):1037-43 http://journals.lww.com/menopausejournal/Abstract/2009/16050/Brain_region_responsiveness_to_DT56a__Femarelle_.33.aspx

6.Labos G., Trakakis E. et al Efficacy and safety of DT56a (Femarelle) compared to hormone therapy in Greek postmenopausal women. J Endocrinol. Invest. 2013;36:521-526 http://link.springer.com/article/10.3275%2F8926

7.Nachtigall M et al. Femarelle, a novel SERM for the treatment of menopause, did not affect the clotting time of either normal or thrombophilic postmenopausal women. Menopause 2008; 15(6):1220 http://journals.lww.com/menopausejournal/Abstract/2011/03000/The_selective_estrogen_receptor_modulator_DT56a.11.aspx

8.Somjen D, Katzburg S, Lieberherr M, Hendel D, Yoles I (January 2006). "DT56a stimulates gender-specific human cultured bone cells in vitro". J. Steroid Biochem. Mol. Biol. 98 (1): 90–6. doi:10.1016/j.jsbmb.2005.08.002. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960076005003699

9.Somjen D, Yoles I (July 2003). "DT56a (Tofupill/Femarelle) selectively stimulates creatine kinase specific activity in skeletal tissues of rats but not in the uterus". J. Steroid Biochem. Mol. Biol. 86 (1): 93–8. doi:10.1016/S0960-0760(03)00252-8 http://www.researchgate.net/publication/10592892_DT56a_(Tofupill_(R)Femarelle_(TM))_selectively_stimulates_creatine_kinase_specific_activity_in_skeletal_tissues_of_rats_but_not_in_the_uterus

10.Bedell S., Nachtigall M., Naftolin F. The pros and cons of plant estrogens for menopause; J. Steroid Biochem. Mol. Biol. 2014;139:225-236 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960076012002567

Thank you. --Corin at Secure (talk) 12:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

This question is from an employee of Secure Pharmaceuticals who has been tasked with 'improving' the Femerelle page, and still doesn't understand what a primary source is, and probably still hasn't read WP:MEDRS. Femerelle is their biggest product. A number of editors have tried to help Corin, but so far, he is steadfastly refusing to understand. Because he is unhappy with answers from editors at the talk page and claims the article itself is innaccurate, he has nominated the page for deletion. It looks like it'll be kept at the moment. Corin, these appear to be primary sources, not acceptable. We need sources that comply with MEDRS if you want to make medical claims. -Roxy the non edible dog™ (resonate) 12:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• The answer is no, as above, but I have blocked the account for promotional editing. The user can be unblocked once we have an indication of some understanding of the relevant policies and the WMF terms of service. Guy (Help!) 12:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)