Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 226

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 220←Archive 224Archive 225Archive 226Archive 227Archive 228→Archive 230

Steal This Show podcast

Would the Steal This Show podcast be okay for talking about the opinions of the speakers in the articles about the topics they talk about? Benjamin (talk) 08:00, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

You should know by now that if you're really interested in getting an opinion, you need to follow the guidelines at the top of the page:

"...please be sure to include the following information, if available:

  • Links to past discussion of the source on this board.
  • Source. The book or web page being used as the source. For a book, include the author, title, publisher, page number, etc. For an online source, please include links. For example: [1].
  • Article. The Wikipedia article(s) in which the source is being used. For example: Article name.
  • Content. The exact statement(s) in the article that the source supports. Please supply a diff, or put the content inside block quotes....
You provided zero out of those four requested items. I propose that this section be archived unless user provides those things soon. First Light (talk) 20:56, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Urbantoronto.ca

Is urbantortono.ca WP:RS for establishing notability of buildings in Toronto? The info. page is here, claiming it is "Toronto's premier website focused on condos, architecture, urban development and real estate." This relates to various WP:AfD's I have started on buildings that do not appear to be notable which rely on this website. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:58, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like there is any fact-checking going on but I would deem it as a reliable source as long as the page you are referencing isn't part of the website's forum. Meatsgains (talk) 02:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Wow, troubling if not much fact checking is going on as Meatsgains observed. Are you suggesting the site be added to the spam black list? --David Tornheim (talk) 05:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Follow the money, is this a commercial website? Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't find it troubling that many articles reference articles from this site. I've added references to these article, because they seemed like informative, well-written articles.

    I emailed the "contact us" email address, and asked them to confirm that their articles are edited, and fact checked, by profession editor(s). I was told they were.

    You are free to contact them yourself, to refute or confirm your concerns. Geo Swan (talk) 22:19, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

It is fine as a source, but it does not on its own establish the notability of a building, nor does mention in any source, since notability requires coverage in a range of sources. TFD (talk) 06:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

The Blockbuster Fan Page / Blockbuster LLC

Source: The Blockbuster Fan Page
Article: Blockbuster LLC

Content:

While the Blockbuster brand has mostly been retired, Dish still maintains a relatively small number of Blockbuster franchise agreements, which allows some stores to remain open in several markets.

One website reports that there is a total of 11 remaining franchise-owned stores in the US, 12 stores in New Zealand, and 27 stores in Australia in operation as of April 2017. Franchise Entertainment was the largest overall, owning the 27 Australian locations and 12 New Zealand locations.

Discussion:

Comment: Pinging @GoneIn60 and BarrelProof -Patrick Boots CEC (talk) 15:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support the usage as phrased, for several reasons: 1) That site is more reliable than the average personal website, as it extensively cites the sources of the information it provides (e.g., with links to newspaper articles about store closures and links to Google maps data showing the exact locations of stores). 2) The Wikipedia article doesn't claim that the source is perfect – it just refers to what "one website reports", which is a very weak claim that is easily verifiable. 3) The information provided on that site can easily be checked, and any substantial error there would have been detected by now (e.g., anyone can easily look up the phone number and location of a reported Blockbuster store and call them on the phone and ask whether they are still open and still operating under that name, and anyone who is aware of a store that exists that isn't reported on that site could easily point out that error on the Wikipedia Talk page or in the article itself, and the fact that no one has reported any errors makes me think the site is reasonably correct). 4) The number of still-operating Blockbuster stores is so low that no extraordinary effort is required to verify the data (e.g., in only about an hour using web searches and SkypeOut, someone could call every operating store and talk to them and verify the reported data). Thank you for the ping. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:44, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
If it's worth reporting an exact number, other sources would be tracking this as well and publishing on it often. The fact of the matter is that following Blockbuster's official demise when it was retired, hardly anyone aside from local sources where a store operates are reporting on the matter. An occasional article is written to exclaim, "Hey, look ma. These still exist!", but other than a passing mention in sources, it's hardly worth tracking on Wikipedia. We start getting into the weeds and possibly run into violations of WP:DUE, especially considering the sizable chunk of real estate this fan-site tracking is now taking in the History section. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
I disagree with the assertion that there is a "sizable chunk of real estate" devoted to that source in the article. That source is mostly used just for that one sentence that says "One website reports that ...". It is also cited in a few other places, but that is just supporting information where other sources are also cited or where the statement is obviously true and would remain in the article anyway (such as the sentence that says most branded stores have closed but some remain open in a few markets). —BarrelProof (talk) 18:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
For clarification, I meant the coverage surrounding remaining stores as a whole, not just this one particular statement. It's as if we're slowly counting down to 0 with multiple updates along the way. At some point, it crosses a reasonable threshold. We may not be there yet, but it's getting there. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Talk:Blockbuster LLC#Remaining locations lists a detailed explanation why I oppose, but in summary, there are several reasons. For one, the editor who is trying to insert this source into the article, Patrick Boots CEC, was also its creator and currently maintains it. That is a clear violation of WP:ADV and a possible violation of WP:COI. Second, the use of a self-published source per WP:SPS is allowed when the editor is an "established expert" and has been "previously been published by reliable third-party publications". Neither has been verified to date, and therefore, it does not meet the minimum requirements of the policy. And finally, there are concerns it may not even meet WP:RS. The fan website (as it refers to itself) has no real history of reputable fact-checking and accuracy, other than the claim made by its creator. The lack of editorial oversight and/or peer review is a big concern, as well as the notion that if it relies on reliable sources for its info, why not just transplant those sources directly into the article? There's no need to redirect readers to an intermediary source before locating the real sources. Also, personal research appears to be conducted on Google Maps within that source, and that is the basis for some of its claims. Quite alarming. This seems like an effort to use a SPS to get around WP:OR, a completely unacceptable practice IMHO. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Sure, but for all anyone knows there is more Blockbuster stores being planned to open up. It's a hopeful thought, but we are seeing it with brands like Circuit City, Caldor, Clearly Canadian, etc.. There has to be an authority to keep track of these last stores. Dish Network sure isn't doing it - their web page hasn't been updated since 2014. The only difference between my fan page and an "established" page is that I admit to owning it.. Gosh. -Patrick Boots CEC (talk) 15:39, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The Blockbuster Fan Page doesn't even remotely resemble a reliable source. It's a one-person self-published source. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources: "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings, are largely not acceptable as sources." If the information about the few remaining Blockbuster stores is notable and accurate, it will be found in independent reliable sources. First Light (talk) 20:51, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Be Kind, Rewind: Blockbuster Stores Kept Open In Alaska (CBS News), Remember Blockbuster? Only 12 Stores Still Exist In The Entire Country (MassLive), Blockbuster Video Rental Chain Still Has 12 Active Stores (DailyMail) .. If it wasn't for The BBFP, These articles would say that there is 51 stores open, because of "franchise.html". -Patrick Boots CEC (talk) 22:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
CBS News would be a reliable source (by Wikipedia standards, please read our guidelines!), your personal website is not. First Light (talk) 15:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
If it wasn't for The BBFP, These articles would say that there is 51 stores open, because of "franchise.html".
Well, that's pretty disturbing. Because we've allowed the original research from the self-published site to remain on Wikipedia as long as we did, there are now other sources out there possibly getting the number from Wikipedia. This would be a form of circular sourcing if true and an unfortunate example of lazy journalism when that happens. They can certainly verify the information using other methods, such as through Dish and/or by researching it themselves. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
According to WP:SELFCITE, The BBFP can be used if "only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive". The BBFP is relevant, as it is directly about the number of franchise-owned locations of Blockbuster currently. The BBFP is conforming to WP:SELFPUB, as it states a questionable source can be used if "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; and the article is not based primarily on such sources". The BBFP's shared information is covered on multiple reliable sources and The BBFP does not involve claims about third parties other than the fact that it is not afflilated with BB LLC, Dish, or their Franchisees. Since The BBFP only deals with franchise-owned store count at this time, there are no claims about events not directly related. There should not be doubt as to its authenticity, as all updates are sourced and recorded, and Blockbuster LLC is not based solely on The BBFP, only a small portion. -Patrick Boots CEC (talk) 00:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
You've misread WP:SELFPUB. In its opening line, it states:
Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities...
In order for WP:SELFPUB to apply, the source would have to be used in an article about BBFP or its activities, or be used to cite content describing BBFP. Clearly, it doesn't apply. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:33, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Antisemitism and the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions article

The Article

Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (specifically, the Allegations of antisemitism subsection)

The Source

"We contend that the BDS movement, born of an ideology hostile to Judaism and Jewish nationalism and still immersed in that ideology rather than the language of peace, is not, as its proponents assert, a focused campaign aimed to change Israeli policies. Instead, it is a movement that often lacks integrity and quite often traffics in anti-Semitism. We have demonstrated that these anti-Semitic underpinnings are exhibited in the cultural, academic, and commercial spheres. In all three cases, persons who happen to be Jewish are blamed for the supposed sins of other Jews." (emphasis added)

Sheskin, Ira M. and Ethan Felson. "Is the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Movement Tainted by Anti-Semitism?" Geographical Review. Vol. 106, Issue 2, 2016, pp. 270–75. Wiley Online Library. see the 6th page of the PDF which is labeled pg. 275 in the original published issue of Geographical Review)

The Disputed Edit

[2]

The Undisputed Facts

As discussed here, the simple reading of the text that I quoted above supports my wording in the disputed edit ("BDS efforts have, at times, targeted Jewish individuals who have little or nothing to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict"). User:RolandR protested the edit because the source's summary of the arguments contained in the body of of the source does not, in RolandR's words "accurately reflect the contents of the source." I stipulated that the source could have used more precise language, but that the source can and should be interpreted in the way that I did.

The Question Before The RS Noticeboard

If the summary in an article imprecisely describes the argument in the article, can this summary be regarded as reliable and cited in Wikipedia? --GHcool (talk) 15:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

We include POV sources from blogs if we attribute the author--Shrike (talk) 11:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I took part in the discussion on the talkpage. IMHO this is a reliable source and correctly interpreted by the poster. I disagree with the opinion that it is too POV to be reliable, as well as with RolandR's interpretation of it. Debresser (talk) 09:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
The problem is that this summary, which is accurately quoted by GHcool (who forgot to sign this request!) does not accurately reflect the content of the article it purports to summarise. So this apparently reliable source cannot really be regarded as reliable in this instance.
The summary states "In all three cases, persons who happen to be Jewish are blamed for the supposed sins of other Jews." The text added to our article, which relied on this source, actually stated "BDS efforts have, at times, targeted Jewish individuals who have little or nothing to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict". In fact, the source does not refer to individuals, and states nothing about their supposed lack of connection to the conflict.
The source adduces three examples, only one of which is of an individual who allegedly has little to do with the conflict. The other examples in the article are of one US and one Israeli corporation. Neither of these could be described as "Jewish individuals", nor is it reasonable to claim that these had "little or nothing to do with" the conflict.
What we have here is a summary in a source cited which misleadingly represents the content of the source, and which is then itself misleadingly cited in our article in an attempt to establish that the source states something which it does not. I maintain both that, in this instance, the article summary (and therefore the article itself) is unreliable, and that in any case the text added to our own article does not accurately reflect the (already inaccurate) source cited. RolandR (talk) 11:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
This coming from scholarly sources I don't see any reason to exclude this notable opinion.It may be attributed to the author.--Shrike (talk) 11:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
The entire section in the Wikipedia artice is just opinions by various people, often people who have no expertise on the topic. So this is about as good as any other, I suppose. The source is a paper published in a Geography journal (why? only the editors of the journal know). The first author seems to be a geologist and an expert on demography. The second seems to be a lawyer who is general counsel for an activist organization Jewish Council for Public Affairs. The incidents discussed in the article are mostly covered by the WP article itself (singling out Israel etc.) The only new point they make (which is not in the section) is the case of Matisyahu who, the authors say, was targeted because he was Jewish; and not for his views on the Israel-Palestine conflict. The case of Matisyahu is already discussed in the article in another section. Perhaps an attributed opinion, phrased correctly, may be acceptable. This is more a matter of WP:DUE than anything else. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:33, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Fair point Kingsindian. I will update and attribute. --GHcool (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bill_Nye_Saves_the_World

Editors are trying to include a gossip column inserted first time by editors who were using anti-semitic Triple parenthesis slurs as well, which uses as its primary source a pair of reddit comments. This can't be a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morty C-137 (talk • contribs)

The independent is not a gossip column and is reliable.Pepe.is.great (talk) 19:05, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Morty C-137, you need to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~) every time you comment on a talk page. You also need to provide a link to the source in question and the text which that link is used to support. If it is true that the source (which is an article, not a publication) uses the triple parentheses to indicate Jewish names (as opposed to using it to illustrate the way it is used by antisemitic sources), then I would immediately discount it for claims of fact. If it merely documents or illustrates the use of the triple parentheses slur, then it's probably fine, given that it comes from the Independent (and assuming that it's not a gossip/opinion piece). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:34, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
This issue has nothing to do with the triple parentheses the independent article is a review of the show. Morty C-137 is convinced that the independent is bias.Pepe.is.great (talk) 21:41, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
That matches with my perception, having glanced over this issue after I saw an ANI thread. I am, thus far, unaware of the basis of Morty's claims about the triple parentheses. That being said, my point remains that any source which does use triple parentheses is, by definition unreliable (it takes a massive distortion of history and politics to make the case for the Jewish-conspiracy theory which produced the initial claim that Jewish names "echo throughout history", and an equally massive distortion of basic science, history and politics to take an explicitly antisemitic stance and appropriate that slur). If any editors are using the triple parentheses (except for a few cases in which it's clearly being used ironically), that is a problem that will need to be dealt with. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:26, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Some right wing trolls were vandalising the page, but that has now stopped and the use of the independent source is a different issue altogether and was not added by the same editors as the right wing sites.Pepe.is.great (talk) 00:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

See this difflink MrPants https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Nye_Saves_the_World&curid=51486025&diff=777889576&oldid=777885859, IP addresses of this type were the ones originally trying to push "the independent" link. One inserter also tried to use right-wing / white supremacist sites like Breitbart and "LifeNews" as sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Nye_Saves_the_World&diff=777267858&oldid=777184193

Okay, first off, the IP editor is a random IP editor. I don't know why you simply assume they are the same person as the editor who added those links, but if you have evidence of sockpuppetry, take it to WP:SPI. Second, lifesitenews.com and breitbart are not white supremacist sites. They are right-wing (far right, even) to be sure. That does not make them white supremacist. Bear in mind, these statements come from a card-carrying liberal who thinks Breitbart and pro-life groups are about as reliable as a Narnian passport. Finally, sign your comments. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Fukushima evacuation deaths

Is the NBC News article archived here a reliable source for the following article text?

A September 2013 survey by the newspaper Mainichi Shimbun computed that there were about 1,600 deaths related to the evacuation at that time, comparable to the 1,599 deaths due to the earthquake and tsunami in the Fukushima Prefecture.

Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster contains a similar quote, so I suppose the question applies to both. VQuakr (talk) 00:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Answer: https://web.archive.org/web/20130927033901/http://mainichi.jp/english/english/newsselect/news/20130909p2a00m0na009000c.html

The number of deaths in Fukushima Prefecture caused mainly by stress from the nuclear disaster reached 1,539 at the end of August, almost equaling the 1,599 fatalities due directly to the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and tsunami, the Mainichi Shimbun has learned.

Since we have the original source archived, I think this question can be considered answered - the Mainichi Shimbun appears to be the most reliable news source in Japan, so barring direct evidence from a more reputable source (which would always be ideal but cannot always be located directly in all cases), this should be more than enough to satisfy the requirements of WP:RS. Garzfoth (talk) 21:25, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Copypaste from the article's talk page:
Did you guys actually read this link?
"A survey by popular Japanese newspaper Mainichi Shimbun said Monday that deaths relating to this displacement – around 1,600 – have surpassed the number killed in the region in the original disaster."
"Close to 16,000 people were killed across Japan as a direct result of the earthquake and tsunami in 2011. According to the Mainichi report, 1,599 of these deaths were in the Fukushima Prefecture."
Meanwhile in the article that they linked to:
"The number of deaths in Fukushima Prefecture caused mainly by stress from the nuclear disaster reached 1,539 at the end of August, almost equaling the 1,599 fatalities due directly to the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and tsunami, the Mainichi Shimbun has learned."
In summary, NBC misquotes the source they're quoting, the paragraph in this article misquotes NBC, and attributes that to Mainichi, which never made the claim in the article in the first place. Not only that but, they even concede that "many municipalities declined to specify the causes of those disaster aftermath-related deaths, saying they would affect future screenings of applications for condolence money."
And then, inexplicably, they go on to talk about the number of deaths in OTHER prefectures due to evacuation. Can you guess why those people were evacuated? And why, at the start of the article they clarify their statement as only partially applying to the nuclear disaster?--Senor Freebie (talk) 07:39, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Please read the entire article before responding. If you had done so, you would have noticed that there were a significant number of additional deaths attributed to the post-evacuation conditions that were not already included in the first count of 1539, as the article clearly explains. And Mainichi actually did make that claim that they surpass the tsunami deaths once added - again, if you had actually read the article you would have seen this. I was going to quote more of the article but since you really need the entire thing for sufficient context I decided the first paragraph combined with a link should be plenty -- apparently I was mistaken. Garzfoth (talk) 22:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

where a "blacklisted source" is the best source - what do we do

In Robert Young (endurance runner), mention is made of his sponsor obtaining an expert report on a controversy. Mention of the actual report was deleted using the claim that the source is "blacklisted" even though the edit did not give a link to the blacklisted site as such, nor is the use of the site remotely near "spam." [3] shows the removal of actual legitimate content with the assertion "Removing blacklisted URL." Wikipedia, moreover, has an article on "Skins (sportswear)" and links to that same "blacklisted" site. So is use of the same site now improper where it is the "best source" for a claim? Collect (talk) 14:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

In a biography of a living person, any mention of cheating should not be presented unless it has been covered in reliable secondary sources. A report obtained by a sponsor is not a reliable source. I suggest removing any mention of cheating from the article. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
The "accusation" has been made repeatedly by The Guardian and Sports Illustrated by the way. I thunk they met WP:RS, but not enough for the protectors of the BLP (I am not known as shying away from protecting BLPs but in the case at hand, the sources appear strong). The Guardian blog by Sean Ingle Sports Illustrated and a bunch of other unreliable(?) sources of that ilk. It meets my own very stringent requirements, in short. Collect (talk) 20:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, that's an e-commerce site, so as an RS it's pretty much a non-starter. The editor removing may have left an edit summary that was debatable, but the removal itself is a pretty damn good edit. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Problem is that The Guardian and Sports Illustrated regard the charges as more than credible. The link is not to any e-commerce page, by the way. Collect (talk) 20:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
The link is to a page on an e-commerce web site. The fact that there's not information about and an "add to cart" button for the A400 Women's speed sports bra at $79.99 is immaterial. If this press release is legit, then it should be able to be sourced elsewhere. If not, then it's not reliable. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Books published only on Amazon

Are books published only on Amazon considered reliable? Here is an example. There is no publisher listed, other than the author, and no ISBN. I have no reason to think that there is anything wrong with this book. On the other hand, I have no idea if it was edited or even read by a second human. This book is used in the First Presbyterian Church (Coweta, Oklahoma) article, so that raised the question for me. I suppose it's part of a larger question about self-publishing in general, not just books. Leschnei (talk) 23:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

There is a publisher listed, the author herself. This is how Amazon handles books sold as kindle downloads. No fact-checking of any kind, and anyone can do it by themselves. Treat it like any other self-published work. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Leschnei (talk) 23:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


Amazon even admits it is self publishing https://www.amazon.com/gp/seller-account/mm-summary-page.html/ref=footer_publishing?ld=AZFooterSelfPublish&topic=200260520 Morty C-137 (talk) 14:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to all, that's pretty clear. Leschnei (talk) 14:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

cryptome

I am working my way through a rebuild of United Blood Nation, a prison/street gang. (There seems to be a lot of unsourced info and some confusion with the tangentially related "Bloods".)

One of the best sources (in terms of content) that I have to work with is what appears to be a redacted copy of a USDOJ report. If it is what it says it is, it is a fantastic source.

Unfortunately, the only source I have for this report is a posting at cryptome.org.[4] The site, a Wikileaks kind of thing, has said, "We do expect to get false documents but it’s not our job to sort that out."

Thoughts? - SummerPhDv2.0 15:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Then no, as they do not have any editorial oversight anything they host could be junk.Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Except that is a legitimate document. The NDIC produced a lot of those information reports on various gangs and that one has the product number clearly shown. It can be properly referenced and used. Now, whether or not you choose to use the online reference is kind of a different topic, but the document can be cited as an offline source. 04:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
How can you be certain that it's a legitimate document if its only source is cryptome? Even if parts of it look accurate, it could have been altered by whoever submitted it to them. If we could be completely certain that it is a document produced by the USDOJ, it could probably be usable (although some people might argue that it's a WP:PRIMARY source), but I don't see how you can be sure of that if the only source is a website that specifically disavows fact-checking. --Aquillion (talk) 08:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Because it has an actual publication number from a government agency. I have a copy of it myself. They did a whole series. The host site may "disavow" fact checking, but that doesn't preclude the document from being cited as an offline source because we're not citing cryptome, we're citing the government document. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
This is also effectively WP:OR. If no other published soruce has considered the content worthy of mention, it probbaly isn't. Martinlc (talk) 08:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Because it's a primary source that no secondary sources have considered significant enough to summarise, analyse or cite. The edirot is doing their own OR in finding and using this infromation which nobody else has.Martinlc (talk) 17:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Do they have this document? Niteshift36 (talk) 02:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

The Sun RfC

In light of the abolition of the Daily Mail as a reputable source here on Wikipedia, I thought it would be appropriate to bring up another similarly but arguably more so distrusted source. That is UK-based publication known as The Sun. According to the statistics of the studies mentioned on this news article, The Sun seems notably questionable. Furthermore, the content on their website seems more than slightly odd, opinionated and gossip-like, as does the Daily Mail in my opinion. Therefore, should this tabloid be considered an acceptable source, or should action be taken? I have not been able to come across any response to this issue here on Wikipedia so far. trainsandtech (talk) 10:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Not usually reliable, but may occasionally be OK, e.g. an interview with a celebrity, or a film review. Definitely not reliable for science, and for news events there will virtually always be a better source. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
That may fit as a partial ban. Possibly, it could be that the sun could be used only if there is absolutely no alternative. trainsandtech (talk) 11:13, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't think the Daily Mail RFC was intended to create a precedent where we have an RFC of that for every single source. In fact, part of the reason we had it was because the Daily Mail was borderline - there are clearly many less reliable sources than the Daily Mail (just glancing up this page shows many of them being discussed and quickly dismissed.) The reason we needed a giant RFC for the Daily Mail was because it was close enough of a call that people would keep using it and then constantly disagree over whether it could be allowed or not, which (after large amounts of back-and-forth) necessitated resolving the question once and for all. Generally speaking, we don't go for such sweeping declarations - reliability is contextual and decided on a case-by-case basis. Something like the DM RFC is a nuclear option for when it's clear individual discussions over the source keep breaking down. --Aquillion (talk) 23:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
The Daily Mail ban did not make any real sense, since there are plenty of less reliable sources that meet reliable sources standards. I think that if we want to keep out middle market and down market news media, that we should have a policy that does that rather than arbitrarily single out papers. Existing policy ("Good research" already says, "Good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available, helps prevent NPOV disagreements." And "Balancing aspects" says, "An article...should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." So if a story is only covered in The Sun, it normally should not be mentioned and if it has wide media coverage, then better publications should be used. Another reason good editors would not normally use The Sun and similar publications is that they usually do not provide much detail. TFD (talk) 13:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Voynich manuscript

I'm not sure if this is the right place for this, but I think it could use some eyes.

The problem is that while all agree that the manuscript is an interesting historical artifact (even if it's a forgery), mainstream academia seems to regard it as just an interesting curiosity, and not a manuscript of any importance. So much of the research is done by either enthusiastic amateurs or academics from other fields.

You see the problem. A lot of the research on the manuscript is made up of self-published work from non-academics, and a bunch of the sources are from web-pages that appear to just be run by enthusiasts.

I hesitate to call it exactly "Fringe", most of it seems reasonably grounded, at least to a layperson, but much of it is not backed by an obvious academic consensus and the talk-page debates about what to include or not to include into the article seems to be coming down to thinly veiled judgement calls more than I'd like to admit.

The situation is complicated by this edit where (apparently) one of the amateur researchers removes his old self-published theories from the page, while there is an ongoing debate about including his new, completely contradictory self-published theory.

I'm not even sure what I think should be changed if anything, but I think the article would benefit from an uninvolved experienced editor glancing over it. Thank you.

ApLundell (talk) 01:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

@ApLUndell: I don't think this is the best place for a discussion. I'd suggest the fringe noticeboard, WP:FTN, because although it may not be fringe in itself, the discussion around it is pretty fringy. A source that doesn't seem to be used in our article is the 2016 publication of a facsimile by Yale including some scholarly essays. This New Yorker article gives a glimpse into what some of these say. Doug Weller talk 10:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
@ApLundell: Just notice that an Amazon.Com review says the book has "six chapters dedicated to the history of the manuscript and the attempts that have been made to decipher it. While these chapters contain little new information, they are well researched, and cover what can be known about the manuscript without straying into the realm of unprovable hypothesis." So definitely, these would be excellent sources and perhaps give us guidance as to what should be included in our article. I think I'll start a discussion at FTN myself. Doug Weller talk 10:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree that WP:FTN is the better venue. I also agree with the OP about historians considering this an interesting curiosity, and not of any major historical significance. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Self-published sources are only permissible in articles about the subject or where they are an established expert. If a "fringe" view is noteworthy, it will be covered in reliable third-party sources and must be sourced to them. TFD (talk) 14:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Can Robert Spencer be quoted within an article about the authenticity of an Islamic document?

The article in which the source is being used is: Ashtiname of Muhammad.

Can Robert Spencer be quoted in a section of the article about the authenticity of the document to support the statement that:

the authenticity of the document has been challenged by some writers/commentators

The quote, found in this source, states that "There is no mention of this document in any remotely contemporary Islamic sources; among other anomalies, it bears a drawing of a mosque with a minaret, although minarets weren’t put on mosques until long after the time Muhammad is supposed to have lived, which is why Muslim hardliners consider them unacceptable innovation (bid’a)."

No, the man is obviously biased and not a recognized authority on such matters. Alexbrn (talk) 11:00, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

That would LITERALLY be like quoting Hermann Göring or Joseph Goebbels about Jewish scripture. Morty C-137 (talk) 12:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC) Also I am reasonably sure that "PJ Media" does not qualify as a Reliable Source under the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources rules. Morty C-137 (talk) 12:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

<blink>Is there really an editor who believe the most punchable man in recent memory is a reliable source for anything except his own beliefs? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
MPants - you've confused Robert Spencer (author) with Richard B. Spencer. They ain't the same thing. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
The OP just had an exchange about this here: User_talk:Eperoton#Spencer_not_a_RS. In that exchange (and edit summaries at Ashtiname of Muhammad), Neutrality, Kansas Bear and myself have argued that Spencer isn't a RS. I'll just copy some of my comments here: Per WP:SOURCE, reliability is based on "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". In the area of history, this usually means scholarly reputation, which would include specialization, as Kansas Bear has noted, as can be established by a track of peer-reviewed publications, academic appointments, etc. WP:SCHOLARSHIP says "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence", so a MA in anything is not basis for reliability in itself. WP:SOURCE notes more generally "Books published by respected publishing houses", and this opens the door for cautious use of pop-history books written by non-specialists (though many editors, like myself, avoid using them). However, Spencer's books on Islam are carried by boutique publishers which specialize in works of non-scholarly polemics on Islamic history and other topics. P.S. As Morty C-137 points out, this particular citation doesn't even come from a book. Eperoton (talk) 22:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
No, Spencer is not a RS for anything but his own opinion - and that is rarely relevant anywhere. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 05:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Everyone is reliable for his own opinion whatever to include it attributed its question of WP:NPOV and not for this board.Shrike (talk) 06:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Absolutely, positively not. Not a reliable source, and fringe. Neutralitytalk 06:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Heavens above, let's not use hate sites as sources! Zerotalk 08:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Several remarks: first, this is not the white supremacist Robert Spencer, but a different one. Second, PJ Media does not seem to be a hate site. Third, however, inclusion of Spencer's point of view is clear undue weight, particularly in light of his well-known extremist bias (e.g., Jihad Watch). I agree with Neutrality that it is fringe. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
@Ealdgyth: Ooops. My bad. Struck.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Robert Spencer is a founder of Stop Islamization of America, which the Southern Poverty Law Centre describes as a "hate group" and he was excluded from the United Kingdom, which was upheld by the Court of Appeal. The expression "some writers" is weasel-wording, since Spencer is not an expert on Islam. So he is not an expert and his opinion on the authenticity is of no value. In some cases (and this does not appear to be one of them), fringe views can be mentioned, but only if they are identified as such and are sourced to third parties. We might say for example that conspiracy theorists question the Warren Commission. TFD (talk) 14:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
What TFD said. (I read up on Robert after mistaking him for Richard and realized that my earlier sentiment would actually have worked if I'd made it into a metaphor). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Entertainment Tonight and Idolator (website)

Hi all. I am having hard time believing these 2 websites are credible for music criticism and journalism. References in question are: 1 and 2.

Both of these sites would not see the light of day on Metacritic, I can't find any info online let alone their websites that lead me to believe they are reputable. Entertainment Tonight is a gossip website. I can't find anything about the writers of the articles showing that they have a journalistic background apart from the Entertainment Tonight writer having done articles for sister gossip websites. Idolator I find extremely amateur using stan culture terms such as "slay" and "bop" in their reviews which are almost always positive. With such an array of reputable music sources such as Pitchfork, Spin (magazine), NME etc why should sites like Idolator and ET be allowed to interpret a song or album's genre, let alone used as a source for music reviews.

I was hoping to gather a second opinion as to whether these sources should be handled on a case-by-case basis or included in WP:ALBUMAVOID. Thank you. Abi-Maria (talk) 20:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I would at least think for ET that everything that would be appropriate to add (eg not celeb gossip) should be easily found in more established trade magazines like Variety, Hollywood Report, Entertainment Weekly, etc. The fact they otherwise engage in a lot of gossip (not National Inquirer/TMZ levels but approaching that) would make any uncorroborated facts that aren't gossipy be questionable. --MASEM (t) 14:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Duane Alexander Miller, Believers in Christ from a Muslim Background: A Global Census

Daune Alexander Miller published this document Believers in Christ from a Muslim Background: A Global Census on this social network Academia.edu (which "is not a university or institution for higher learning and so under current standards it would not qualify for the ".edu" top-level domain") and is one of the two ( the other is Matt Gruber) prominent figure of the TCIIS:

"The Christian Institute of Islamic Studies seeks to equip the church to lead the Muslim world to faith in Jesus Christ by helping create a vision for Muslim evangelism, a compassion for Muslim people, and fervor for sharing the gospel with Muslims."

while the WEC International :

"is an interdenominational mission sending agency of Evangelical tradition".

Regarding the data provided Duane: "for more details on our data sources, see joshuaproject.net/help/data_sources" The Joshua Project is " a research initiative seeking to highlight the ethnic people groups of the world with the fewest followers of Christ. Accurate, updated ethnic people group information is critical for understanding and completing the Great Commission. Revelation 5:9 and 7:9-10 show that there will be some from every tribe, tongue, nation and people before the Throne."

That collects the data in this way:

"Joshua Project is not a formal research organization, but rather seeks to compile and integrate ethnic peoples information from various global, regional and national researchers and workers into a composite whole."

Sadly in the "data_sources" page there are no data.

The author declares that he has published " a global census": the problem is that a census is "an official enumeration of the population, with details as to age, sex, occupation, etc. [1] So no, it's clearly not a census of any kind. Far from thath. And it's clearly not the pew research center, even though in some pages of wk they are located next to each other: so it makes no sense for these random numbers to be put together with those provided by recognized research center. AlessandroDe (talk) 01:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

It would have helped if you had provided the edit diffs that you think problematic. It appears the guy has a PhD in the subject and experience. But, I’d agree that the source is not RS as it doesn’t appear to be peer-reviewed or quoted elsewhere. Although, I would be a tad more careful with your edit comments. Objective3000 (talk) 01:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
The journal this article was published in is by all appearances a legit peer-reviewed journal. Eperoton (talk) 02:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

For example regarding Algeria the number provided by Duane Miller is 380,000 Muslim converted to Christianity. A big difference from what has been reported by the PEW (60.000 christians), or by a document i found, redacted by the United States Department of State in 2012, thath estimates between 30,000 and 70,000 christian and takes into account the fact that the country host a certain number of illegal, sub-saharian immigrant of christian faith awaiting the right occasion to reach europe.

So since the source is biased, since it's clearly not a census and claims numbers that are not reported elsewhere, in my opinion this source must be at least contextualized. AlessandroDe (talk) 07:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

  • This article was published in the Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion. It's peer-reviewed and well respected, with no controversies surrounding it that I've ever heard of (or can find with a google search). It's a good source, provided the claim it is used to support is verifiable within it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
The source appears to be reliable. It was published in a peer-reviewed journal. Many peer-reviewed articles are subsequently posted to open-access sites, but reliability is established by the prior publication. When the facts in reliable sources differ, then you need to check the sources cited in them and see if later publications noted inaccuracies. In many cases, accepted facts turn out to be wrong. In other cases, even high quality sources contain errors. TFD (talk) 14:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I dont't see any peer-review of the Duane Alexander Miller statitistic; actually we have a single, biased source making this claim (and we dont know exactly from where) while the non-biased sources:
Pew Research Center 60.000
Federal Research Division 45,000
United States Department of State 30,000 to 70,000
Since the Duane Alexander Miller number is so different, is his statistic that need a more strong reliability, not the other way around.

AlessandroDe (talk) 16:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Dictionary.com - Census

Source question at Adelle Davis

Source: Walker, Morton M.D. Dmso: Nature's Healer, Penguin (1993) ebook; Amazon link here

Article: Adelle Davis

Content: Some feel that Davis has been wrongly criticized by "medical traditionalists," and is convinced that she "was way ahead of her time." According to medical author Dr. Morton Walker, D.P.M., "many of her nutritional suggestions have been confirmed by good scientific research." They note that "the ultimate traditionalists in nutrition, The United States U.S. Department of Agriculture, has, in fact, adapted much of her wisdom in its "Dietary Goals" for Americans. The National Research Council of the National Academy of Science proved Adelle Davis correct when it issued its 1982 report—two years in the making—on Diet, Nutrition, and Cancer. The Council was made up of fourteen highly respected medical scientists."

Walker appears to be a prolific alt med author, who is promoting DMSO in this particular book (though appears to have promoted numerous cancer cures over the years). I do not believe that he is a credible source for what the US Department of Agriculture or NRC has done. I also feel that including his opinion of Davis here is WP:UNDUE, but that is not particularly relevant to this noticeboard. Yobol (talk) 23:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

His training is in podiatry and beyond that he wrote a huge number of books on alternative medicine. I would classify him as fringe and not reliable for the claim mentioned here. Zerotalk 05:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

FrontPage Magazine

  • Source:
    • Kenneth R. Timmerman (19 September 2005), "Hired Hecklers (MEK)", FrontPage Magazine, retrieved 24 November 2016
    • Kenneth R. Timmerman (13 July 2007), "No Second Marriages in Iran", FrontPage Magazine, retrieved 24 November 2016
  • Article: People's Mujahedin of Iran
  • Content:

    According to Kenneth R. Timmerman, the group regularly organizes rent-a-crowd protests worldwide and hires hecklers. In a gonzo article published by the FrontPage Magazine, he mentions paid demonstrators coming from Denmark, Sudan and Eritrea.

I think it is acceptable source because of the author's background and being properly attributed to the author. Pahlevun (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Not a reliable source for claims about living people - it's a fringe far-right-wing publication run by David Horowitz, with no particular journalistic reputation or credibility and a history of publishing extremist viewpoints. It might be usable for publishing opinions in some contexts, but any controversial claims should be avoided. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Pahlevun, you have argued here that WP:NEWSBLOG applies. Your source is not a blog created by a news outlet. You have previously used a similar fringe source for this material. Perhaps you could review what are acceptable sources?
Front Page Magazine, despite its title, is not a reliable source. --Pete (talk) 22:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
User:NorthBySouthBaranof, User:Skyring. Thank you for the comments. This is not a WP:BLP case, I have clearly pointed to the specific content above, which is about a middle eastern dissident paramilitary organization in exile. The content which tends to be in the section People's Mujahedin of Iran#Crowd renting, is not an exceptional claim only made by the source we are discussing. It has been cited in other sources, including:

The question is not whether the FrontPage Magazine is a reliable source or not. Worst-case scenario, it is no way valuable. (similar fringe source for this material that User:Skyring mentioned above, was the same article in the Free Republic. I replaced it with the original source above.) The question is:

Can we add the sentence mentioned above to the article when it is attributed to the author (to reflect WP:SUBSTANTIATE), considering that he is Kenneth R. Timmerman? I mean, I think the author's report is worth mentioning and EVEN it was published on his own self-published source, it was a work in the author's field of expertize. His works in the same field have previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Pahlevun (talk) 10:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

We're dealing with a BLP situation here, by attributing remarks to a living person, we must have a reliable source. In any case, these sorts of fringe publications are rarely reliable sources for anything beyond their own existence. They cannot be depended upon for an unbiased view, for example, and if we must quote them, then WP:NPOV requires that we not depend upon them as a sole source of objective truth. Like British Airways, best avoided. --Pete (talk) 11:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't agree with you on the matter. Are you suggesting that the articles above are not written by Kenneth R. Timmerman himself? I can see that Timmerman is a columnist at the website and regularly wrote for them during 2006–2008. As I mentioned before, this is not an exceptional claim. The content ought to be there to reflect Timmerman's account on the subject, nothing more. Not "as a sole source of objective truth". I can't see a thing with British Airways, please enlighten me. Pahlevun (talk) 12:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Their airline code is "BA". --Pete (talk) 21:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
What about what answering my other questions? Pahlevun (talk) 13:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
You may have missed the subtext. How about, if you feel that your information is good, you find a good source? Trying to push an unreliable source like FPM is a losing strategy. For you, for other editors, for our readers --Pete (talk) 20:26, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
It is not a reliable source and opinion pieces, which is what these are, are not reliable sources even when published in reputable news outlets. TFD (talk) 17:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

hushmoney.org at R. C. Sproul Jr.

I would have thought this was obviously not a reliable source, especially not for a BLP, but another editor has been restoring it, noting that the website has been included in the article for ten years. Would someone be able to take a look at it? StAnselm (talk) 23:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Stuff.co.nz at Murder of Seth Rich

Is source Stuff.co.nz a reliable source at article Murder of Seth Rich ? Sagecandor (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

At present it is used in two places in the article. The first is as a reference for individuals associated with Seth Rich conspiracy theories, which it does not fully support (and neither does the other reference). I would look for better sources, and probably rewrite the sentence entirely from those sources.
The second place is as a reference that alt-right outlets focused on the Seth Rich story at the exclusion of actual news. It can be removed entirely from this latter because there are much better sources. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
@Sławomir Biały:Thank you. I agree with all you've said, but perhaps you can do the cleanup ? Sagecandor (talk) 16:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not interested in being conscripted into service in a contentious area at the moment, sorry. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Can you provide links to the text in Stuff.co.nz articles and provide the text it is supposed to support. Almost every source is reliable in some instances and unreliable in others. TFD (talk) 17:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Sławomir Biały was able to analyze it already, thanks though. Sagecandor (talk) 17:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
It's a reliable news source - one of three major reliable newspaper web sites in NZ (the others being the NZ Herald and Otago Daily Times sites). I'm not quite sure why it's being used as sourcing for ridiculous carryings-on in a foreign country, though. I'd have thought that at least some US news outlets might have been better placed to provide sober analysis. Daveosaurus (talk) 23:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Súper Luchas

A Mexican show wrestling magazine. Seems to have blog-like and or advert-like entries weekly online at [superluchas.com] as well as a print edition. Cited extensively in Wikipedia, but I have doubts about independence, editorial supervision, fact-checking etc. What if anything is it reliable for? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 01:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Waardenburg syndrome - Other animals - WP:SPS

The source is a blog. The author, Erika Matulich, Ph.D., is a doctor of accounting, but the blog is about ferrets. The information in the referred article is presented without justification.

Reference text:

Matulich E. "Deafness in Ferrets". Cypresskeep.com.

http://www.cypresskeep.com/Ferretfiles/Deaf.htm

In Waardenburg syndrome Section "Other Animals", there is a statement:

However, largely as a result of mass-breeding due to the "exotic" markings it gives, 75% of US ferrets with a blaze or white head sold from pet stores are deaf.

This statement is contentious because it is possible that "exotic markings" and deafness are both caused by the same allele which affects the development or migration of melanocytes. This could cause a 100% correlation between the phenotypes.

Please let me know if the reference is not acceptable and I will edit the page to remove the statement. Eltimbalino (talk) 08:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Murder of Seth Rich article and source Heavy.com

[5]

Is Heavy.com a reliable source ?

Also, same user added Daily Mail as a source.

Had to be called out first on the talk page about it.

Really need extra eyes on this article for users adding unreliable sources, please.

Thanks! Sagecandor (talk) 12:50, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

At first glance it doesn't strike me particularly reliable or having a reputation for that. Given that the subject of the WP article seems highly controversial, it should ideally only use "high quality" sources and stay away from websites with unclear reputation.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:03, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
@Kmhkmh:Agreed. Unfortunately, the article has attracted users adding unreliable sources like that one and the same user added The Daily Mail. More attention is needed here. Sagecandor (talk) 13:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
It seems dubious to me. Any fact reported there which checks out would likely be in other more manifestly reliable sources, given the high amount of media scrutiny in this area. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for weighing in here, I agree with your assessment about the sources. Sagecandor (talk) 22:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I'll just reinforce that Heavy may be usable for some things, but not for anything serious, and not for anything contentious. It's largely listicles and aggregation. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Listverse as source at Murder of Seth Rich ?

Please see this edit [6].

Is this source [7] Listverse.com a reliable source, especially with regards to this controversial topic ? Sagecandor (talk) 19:31, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

"Listverse.com", site that takes "list" submissions [8] from literally anyone [9]. Site fails WP:RS. Site should not be used. Sagecandor (talk) 20:18, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, it's not a SPS -- anyone can submit a list, but they only publish (and pay for) some, implying some sort of oversight. The charitable evaluation would be to say that it may be a not-entirely-unacceptable source for some purposes. That said, it's most certainly not a reliable source for contentious/serious topics like this. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:30, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, thank you for your astute analysis ! Sagecandor (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

This Dog Sits on Seven Editorial Boards

Anyone needing a break might like to review atlasobscura.com which I saw at Slashdot. It's a tail (ha ha) regarding predatory journals. Johnuniq (talk) 00:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

There's also the amusing page List of animals with fraudulent diplomas. Sagecandor (talk) 00:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources for fake news?

I am considering doing a major cleanup of List of fake news websites, removing unreliable sources.

Before I do, I would like opinions on the following:

  • fusion.kinja.com[10]?
  • Buzzfeed news[11]?
  • The Christian Post[12]?
  • Neurologica Blog[13]?
  • Science Blogs[14]?
  • adrforum.com (primary source) [15]?
  • The Daily Mail (included for completeness, this one is already decided; see WP:DAILYMAIL.) [16]?
  • Forbes contributor ("Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own")[17]?
  • Business Insider, reposting material from Facebook[18]?
  • CBS News, reposting material from Dr. Melissa Zimdars (Zimdars is a known unreliable source in this area)[19]
  • CNN, reposting material from Dr. Melissa Zimdars and Alexios Mantzarlis[20]
  • Any other sources on that page that catch your eye

--Guy Macon (talk) 09:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Most of these should be axed, except:
  • Why do you say that Zimdars "is a known unreliable source"? Her inclusion of certain entries is certainly controversial to some, but that doesn't make her unreliable. (Analogous to Beall's list - somewhat controversial but still useful.) She is frequently quoted by reliable secondary sources.
  • Buzzfeed can be usable for certain things if the story is by professional journalists (not the listicle side). A recent discussion at RSN is here. Neutralitytalk 09:32, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Melissa Zimdars, associate professor of communications at Merrimack College, has zero qualifications that make her a reliable source on what is and what is is not fake news. In addition, she has repudiated the list that was reposted by multiple sources (which was itself an artifact of the ongoing war between the Republicans and democrats), and her replacement list (with a completely different list of sites and a completely different list categories) has not received any significant coverage by reliable sources (again, because the election is over and we no longer have a major political party spending millions of dollars promoting the list). See Wikipedia:List of reasons why Zimdars' fake news list is itself "fake".
  • Is buzzfeed reliable as used in this particular article, or should I remove it? --Guy Macon (talk) 10:19, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
As an assistant professor of communications, Melissa Zimdars seems to be a reliable source for information about fake news, as I and others commented here. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Zimdars has never published any academic papers on this topic, does not reveal her methodology for deciding which sites are "fake", has been widely criticized for including right-wing editorial opinions while not including actual fake news site if they are left wing, and has retracted most of the entries that we have enshrined in our page about her list. She is not a reliable source on the question of what is and is not fake news, and neither her list or sites that simply repost her list should be used as sources anywhere on Wikipedia. Our page on List of fake news websites is based upon reliable sources, and thus should be used instead of Zimdars' list in all discussions about fake news. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
What do all those criteria have to do with whether she's a reliable source? She's an assistant professor in the relevant field, so unless the situation is exceptional in some way, she's a reliable source for this topic. The only thing you've said that seems relevant to me is the retraction—if she has indeed retracted part of her list, then of course we should take the retraction into account when examining the list. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Business Insider is as far as I can tell fine. I have on occasion used them as a news source, however never for use on Wikipedia. I suggest that those others should at the very least be used with extreme caution, and more adequately banned or only permitted for use if no other source is in any way available. In addition, I propose that it is by far best to keep out of anything opinionated from those, as the opinions may override the facts. trainsandtech (talk) 10:55, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
All this will need a wider discussion, if this board is to stick to its role in upholding WP principles and not just play out games from the US political scene. I do not see any reason why Zimdars should be treated as anything other than an academic publishing in a non-academic source. I am alarmed by the idea of having an essay specifically knocking her ideas - does it meet BLP? Forbes, CNN and CBS are blindingly obviously not fake news websites. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
We have an "essay specifically knocking her ideas" because the policy page specifically supporting (an old version of) her ideas survived a AfD by being converted to an essay. Compare WP:DTR and WP:TR. The majority of the !votes in that AfD supported the basic concept that you can put anything you want in an essay, including material sourced to someone who has zero qualifications as a reliable source for the material. The consensus was wrong. The same basic argument would allow an essay that presents a batshit insane conspiracy theory right off of Infowars as fact. I would support deleting both Wikipedia:Zimdars' fake news list and Wikipedia:List of reasons why Zimdars' fake news list is itself "fake" or keeping both Wikipedia:Zimdars' fake news list and Wikipedia:List of reasons why Zimdars' fake news list is itself "fake", but allowing an essay to exist while deleting an essay that disagrees with it is a clear violation of NPOV. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • We've had a lot of discussions about Buzzfeed lately, most of which tend to agree that its reputation has improved and that some parts of it can be used (although not the listicles.) See eg. here, or here (which touches on their efforts to change its culture.) That obviously doesn't make it a top-tier source, but it's not nuke-on-sight, and it can be a good source for "Internet drama" specifically (which, nowadays, sometimes does rise to the level of news we have to cover.) Several of the other things you listed are opinion pieces or blogs - those have to be used very carefully, and I'd make it clear who is saying what (granted this is an internal page, but the important thing is to give users a useful sense of "who has objected to this source and why?" so they can use that to resolve their own arguments and anticipate how people will react to a specific source, rather than to produce a hard-and-fast "NEVER USE EVER" list.) The usual procedure for something like that shouldn't be "delete and remove whatever was sourced to them" - instead, first spend some time searching for a better source that says the same thing (or something similar.) If you can't find any, then go back to the original source and decide if it means that that source is unreliable on this topic, being given WP:UNDUE weight, etc. Basically, removing or replacing the sourcing on that list is not a big deal, so use whatever you think is best - I think we can sometimes use eg. Buzzfeed, but I'm certainly not going to object if someone replaces it with a better source. OTOH removing something from the list entirely (when it currently has a so-so source) should only be done if you're confident that it is really definitely not fake news, or if you're confident that no usable sources for that exist at all. EDIT: Also, another thought - since this is an internal list intended as a warning to editors and not something we present in the encyclopedia voice to readers, leaving marginal or biased sources might make sense in that you're indicating eg. "these people object, so expect pushback from people who trust them." I would want to have at least one 'good' source for every entry, but having marginal or biased ones in a list like this could make sense to give the reader an indicator of who objects to a particular source and on what grounds. --Aquillion (talk) 23:54, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Re: "Basically, removing or replacing the sourcing on that list is not a big deal", I fully intend to [A] Look for reliable sources to replace the unreliable sources, and [B] remove any unsourced entries that remain after doing that. This will cause howls of outrage and possibly edit warring, so I want some other opinions before I proceed.
Related question: How about sites where the only source for them being fake news is from the source itself ("This is a parody site")? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
If they self-identify as satire or parody then they are not purporting to be real, and therefore are not fake news. VQuakr (talk) 04:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • fusion.kinja.com - Another of the thousands of ad-money chasing websites out there. Not reliable for anything serious.
Buzzfeed news - As previously mentioned, their staff written stuff is getting much better. They also have a focus on subject matter that is of interest to an internet audience, so in this context this one looks ok.
The Christian Post - in this context, probably ok
Neurologica Blog - Blog, so no unless someone can make a strong argument for it.
Science Blogs - same.
adrforum.com - primary - so useable for itself.
The Daily Mail - No
Forbes contributor - Depends on who the contributor is. Its effectively self-published (no editorial control once they pass the vetting to become a contributor) so its highly dependant on context and the contributor's expertise in the area.
CBS News, reposting material from Dr. Melissa Zimdars - Repost of Zimdar, if we wouldnt use Zimdar, we shouldnt use a repost.
CNN, reposting material from Dr. Melissa Zimdars - as above. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
While someone's at it, the list should be checked against for entries in Category:Fake news that don't match. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I would say Neurologica and Science blogs would be fine if we were identifying outlets that promote woo, but as sources for outlets which are fake news? No, not good. That being said, the list itself is actually pretty good. It's mostly the sourcing that needs work. (I agree with OiD's responses, for the record). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

It seems like people are offering their opinions on the sources in general rather than for this specific purpose. That's well and good, but it seems worth pointing out that we're dealing with a pretty new concept (as "fake news" anyway). As such there's going to be little-to-no scholarly literature or other top tier sources providing content for a list. What we have is mainstream popular press, some prominent blogs, etc. If we're decided that we're going to have this list, we can't expect sophisticated peer reviewed IMRAD-style studies. That's not an argument to use poor sources, but that the claims about credentials and qualifications and methodologies are pointless.

Fusion.kinja.com is a Kinja site (a la Gawker, Deadspin, Gizmodo, etc.) and thus not usable for things when we have excellent sources about them, but isn't unacceptable for news about news. Buzzfeed news I put in a similar category, but while their average is probably about Kinja's average, their best is better. Christian Post seems ok for this purpose. Neurologica is written by Steven Novella, who is a pretty good source for discussion of [a particular kind of] mis/disinformation in the news. I'm not familiar with Respectful Insolence (the Science Blogs-hosted site), but would have to default to not using it. The legal document shouldn't be used to verify anything other than the details of the case. Daily Mail is a no, obviously, and Forbes contributors are, by default, a no.

Melissa Zimdars, associate professor of communications at Merrimack College, has zero qualifications that make her a reliable source on what is and what is is not fake news. - This is what led me to comment in the first place. You say this like "My cousin Tommy, who works at McDonald's, has no qualifications to talk about fake news". Based on the sources that exist about fake news, what exactly is a "qualification that makes someone a reliable source on what is and what is [not] fake news"? How are the authors of the other sources qualified in a way that a professor of communications would not be? Her list may be fraught, but it was republished, commented on, extracts published, etc. by many reliable sources. If her original list didn't have editorial oversight, those sources did. I wouldn't cite her list directly, but I'd cite what the other publications decided to republish (even if it requires two sources minimum). As an aside, WP:ZIMFF looks to be totally inappropriate as an attack page. You made an essay about a living person not being a reliable source and then sourced it to WND, The Daily Caller, and Hannity? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Strongly agree with this - whatever your feelings about Zimdar, news articles about her list or which are based on it are obviously RS, and I see no valid reason for ruling them out. The objection is itself OR. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Reliable yes, but neutral, that's a different and much more nuanced question. Which is why resting inclusion for this list on one source whether Zimdar directly or an RS pointing to Zimdar's list is problematic here. --MASEM (t) 13:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I am not even sure about the reliable part. Zimdars has never published any academic papers on this topic, does not reveal her methodology for deciding which sites are "fake", has been widely criticized for including right-wing editorial opinions while not including actual fake news site if they are left wing, and has retracted most of the entries that we have enshrined in our page about her list. She is not a reliable source on the question of what is and is not fake news, and neither her list or sites that simply repost her list should be used as sources anywhere on Wikipedia. Our page on List of fake news websites is based upon reliable sources, and thus should be used instead of Zimdars' list in all discussions about fake news. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Zimdars list is not the source here though. CBS and CNN are, and both are RS. You don't get to pick and choose which CNN and which CBS articles are reliable based on your own opinion about where they went for expertise. They are RS, full stop, and your rationale for labelling them unreliable is OR. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
No, that's not how RSes work here. CBS/CNN are a RS to say that Zimdar published a list and repeating what that list claims are fake news, but they have not done any of their own analysis of those sites - that's what Zimdar did. Zimday's list is the principal source for why the sites are on the list, so these sources are not "new" sources. It would be akin to trying to claim that a source that primarily repeats what an AP wire story reports is a "new" source separate from the AP one, which is not true (I forget the relevant policy on that but I know we want editors to be aware of misusing this type of sourcing). The only real thing that I can get from the CBS and CNN is identifying Zimdar's list as the first known compilation of fake news websites but not necessarily establishing that as authority on it. --MASEM (t) 04:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Following up on part of this, WP:ZIMFF is at MfD now. Posting about it here because it's relevant to the above, and this venue/thread seems neutral enough -- I'm just hoping for more participation beyond the nominator and the page creator. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
This perhaps is why having a mainspace article like this could be problematic. There definitely are sites that purposely try to misinform readers with fake stories but pose as legit sites (most of those that are .co domains in this list), and I've yet to see anyone say that these aren't fake news sites. But when you start getting into sites like InfoWars, where the operators earnestly believe what they post, or make no attempt to mask their site as a legit news site and clearly are not trying to be satire ala the Onion, then you get very quickly into the subjective aspects of what "fake news" is considered. For example, while I clearly recognize where inclusion of InfoWars is coming from, I would not consider it equivalent to the objective definition of "fake news" because they are not trying to act like a legit news site and pass off fake stories; the operators appear in earnest to believe what they publish, which makes it more a conspiracy theory website rather than "fake news". But because of the current media climate, attaching "fake news" labels to a website is a way to discredit it.
So what seems to be happening here is that as long as you have one RS at minimum to describe a site as "fake news", it's being added, which begs issues such as with Zimdar's list above. I would suggest that the inclusion metric be raised to 3 to 5 independent sources that identify sites as a "fake news" website to avoid one person's opinion being the deciding factor. I would it should be obvious that these sources should be independent of each other too, so if we used Zimdars' list and then used a WaPost list that wsa based on Zimdars' list, that's not independent for this assessment. That helps remove a lot of issues, and also likely avoiding having weak RSes be a singular source for each line. --MASEM (t) 23:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to object to this discussion, in a sense. I fully support Guy coming here to get feedback about these sources. But to put so many into a single discussion is frankly overwhelming and there's no way that any consensus coming out of here would be sufficiently meaningful to support any assessments on List of fake news websites. Some of these sources are obviously unreliable, while others probably require extended discussion. Plus, I'm quite disturbed that this thread was started yesterday, without any prior discussion at Talk:List of fake news websites and without any notice there, and is already being cited by Guy to justify changes to the article. Not so cool. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:08, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
There seems to be a confusion between fakenews and unreliable sources for news. Fakenews sites deliberately and routinely publish stories they know are false - that's why they exist. Opinion pieces in news media are not considered reliable sources for facts because the writers are not experts and there is no fact-checking. TFD (talk) 14:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Further confusing the issue is that during the last US presidential election both parties regularly called what were clearly editorial opinions "fake news" while at the same time there were multiple websites that were posting actual fake news (the Democratic Party is running a child sex slave ring out of a pizza restaurant, Al Queda endorses Donald Trump....).
Another issue is when an unreliable source says something and a reliable source reports that they said it. This leads to stupidity such as multiple editors claiming that an unknown assistant professor at a small college is a reliable source on fake news because her editorial opinions were widely reported by reliable sources, but the president of the united states is not a reliable source on fake news even though his editorial opinions were also widely reported by reliable sources. I say that neither is a reliable source on what is and is not fake news, and neither are those sources that repost their respective opinions on the subject. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion for List of fake news websites

As per the discussion at Talk:List of fake news websites/Archive 4#Criteria for inclusion, Dr. Fleischman and I have a basic disagreement regarding the criteria for inclusion for List of fake news websites My criteria for inclusion are as follows:

To be included, a site must:

  • Claim to be or appear to be a news site, not a blog or an editorial opinion.
  • Be called "fake news" by reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
  • Not be an obvious parody or humor site. Parody sites have their own list.
  • Not be based on citations to otherwise reliable sources that merely report or repost claims from an unreliable source.
  • Receive significant coverage in the sources cited, not just a mention in passing.
  • Not be shut down. The page is a list of fake news websites, not a list of former fake news websites.

...and I am giving serious consideration to the idea posted here that there should be multiple reliable sources.

Dr. Fleischman's criteria for inclusion is as as follows:

  • Be called "fake news" by at least one third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

I would welcome comments showing a consensus that we should have one or the other criteria for inclusion.

In addition, as can be seen at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of reasons why Zimdars' fake news list is itself "fake", shortly after I started removing entries from List of fake news websites that were based upon unreliable sources, Dr. Fleischman nominated an essay that I created for deletion. In that discussion, he appears to take the position that BLP protection extends to web sites containing editorial opinions. I would once again welcome comments at the MfD from those in the community who are familiar with our RS and BLP policies. --Guy Macon (talk) 6:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)\

  • I would add for your first bullet that the site is aimed to deceive with the authors knowing full well they are publishing falsehoods. This distinguishes fake news sites from things like conspiracy theory sites (eg the realm of Infowars) which are still bad sources but they're not purposely trying to trick their audience. Also, I would set a minimum # of RSes that call the site a fake news one, as to avoid a singular opinion from being a dominate factor.
  • Also, I would not necessarily eliminate default fake news sites, but only if they have an existing article or a reasonable target that we can point a reader to if they want to learn more. Former fake news sites that have vanishsed and that we have no real coverage of them, then yes that line is just wasting space. --MASEM (t) 21:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Neurologica Blog has several things that seem to make it qualifiable as a reliable source. It's run by Steven Novella, who is a degreed authority in neurology as well as a well published skeptic. The guideline states "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.". In Novella's case, his work in scientific skepticism has been published by the James Randi Educational Foundation, the New Haven Advocate newspaper, and he is also an editor of Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine, a peer reviewed journal. He is a Fellow at Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and at James Randi Educational Foundation. To put it another way, yes Neurologica Blog is a "blog", but its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. Morty C-137 (talk) 20:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman reverted all of my work making sure that the sources were all reliable because evaluating my work would be "tedious". I am strongly tempted to abandon all further attempts to improve the article. See WP:OWNERSHIP. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • what the heck are science blog and neurologica even doing in this discussion? They debunk pseudoscience, are run by an authority on pseudoscience, and are fine sources for this purpose per WP:PARITY when there are not stronger sources. The essence of "fake news" is that it is bullshit - speech intended to persuade without regard for truth. Whoever proposed these two sites - which debunk bullshit - has no business mucking around trying to define fake news. Jytdog (talk) 04:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Iran Chamber

Please check the following:

Source: Iran Chamber

Article: Ali Khamenei

Content:

Vigorous opposition to the government, including nonviolent and violent protest, assassinations, guerrilla activity and insurrections, was answered by state repression and terror in the early 1980s, both before and during Khamenei's presidency. Thousands of rank-and-file members of insurgent groups were killed, often by revolutionary courts. By 1982, the government announced that the courts would be reined in, although various political groups continued to be repressed by the government in the first half of the 1980s.

--Mhhossein talk 18:58, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Can't this content be sourced to a book? Leaving aside the reliability of this particular website, this seems like something that could be cited to academic books instead. Neutralitytalk 19:07, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Finding a book is another issue. The reliability of this source is the question at the moment. --Mhhossein talk 07:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Neutrality that you should look for a better source, for example a book. On the reliability of this source, it depends on the author. I see that they are inviting researchers and scholars to contribute. So some of the pieces may be reliable. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:38, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

The status of Fox News

As noted several times, the general question has no answer. Bring a specific ref and the content and people can respond. The Fox News story on Seth Rich has been retracted so that is a nonissue now. This has otherwise devolved into unproductive general discussion. Jytdog (talk) 14:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Given the current issue with Fox News and their promotion of conspiracy theories, I think this needs to be examined. Are they unreliable? http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/23/media/fox-news-removes-seth-rich-story/index.html Morty C-137 (talk) 20:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Retracting a story, with editorial apologies and promises of future vigilance, seems to me could equally well count as a point in favor of Fox News, as much as a point against them. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Problem is (a) they took 6 days, (b) many of their personalities (such as Hannity) are STILL pretending the story is real. And they tried to bury the retraction after hammering the story for six days.

What’s notable in that is how unapologetic the language of the retraction is—both considering the length of time the story was allowed to remain on Fox’s site, and even more especially because of the speed and the volume at which it was amplified. That’s in one way unsurprising: The story that was framed as evidence of the mainstream media’s collusion had become, in fact, evidence of the mainstream media’s restraint. The story whose subtext was the mainstream media’s inherent untrustworthiness had proven its real subtext to be the opposite.

And it took days to obtain even that terse retraction.

On Friday, a day after it first published the comments suggesting Rich’s connection to WikiLeaks—from Rod Wheeler, the former detective who had been hired by the family to investigate his death—the Fox affiliate clarified its story, writing, “What he told FOX 5 DC on camera Monday regarding Seth Rich's murder investigation is in clear contrast to what he has said over the last 48 hours. Rod Wheeler has since backtracked.”

The story on Fox remained. It retained its chorus-like status.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/fox-seth-rich/527850/ Morty C-137 (talk) 20:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Fox properly asserts sources - right now, asserting that "Fox News is unreliable per se" seems quite less likely to pass than was the bare passage of the Daily Mail RS RfC. Collect (talk) 21:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Fox News takes a long time to retract a source. CNN outraged. To me this is less than compelling. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Hannity is not Fox News just like Buzzfeed listicles are not Buzzfeed News. Hannity should not be used as a source for anything other than Hannity. Fox News is fine. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Was Hannity used as a source, or am I missing something? This seems to be an archive link to the original story, and it does not mention Hannity. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
@Sławomir Biały: I was responding to Morty C-137's reference to Hannity in the post above. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Morty didn't say anything about Hannity. No 'reference' there. You're just trying to change the subject and derail the discussion. Indeed, you're the first person here to mention Hannity. Like I point out below - this wasn't just Hannity (he's just the one that's still running with it, even as other parts of Fox News "retracted" (with no apology to the family)).Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:52, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Quit following me around, this is bordering on harassment. "Hannity" is right there in his comment, next time do a search before casting aspersions. James J. Lambden (talk) 23:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
You've been stalking my edits, I've asked you to stop, and now it appears that you think that by making the same accusation against me you can deflect attention away from your disruptive behavior. That doesn't work very well. Regardless, yes, Hannity is mentioned there as an example. You're the one trying to pretend this discussion is about Hannity, and that Hannity was the only one pushing this conspiracy theory. He wasn't.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
This wasn't just Hannity.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • As the editnotice on this page makes clear, you're not going to get a binary answer to a question like "Is Fox News a reliable source?" The answer will vary depending on the claims in question, the article subject (with higher standards for biographical material about living or recently deceased people), and so on. That said, the original poster brings up the topic of the murder of Seth Rich. In this case, Fox News promoted a partisan conspiracy theory as if it had some basis in reality; their claims were then echoed through other right-wing partisan media, causing great distress to the family of a murder victim. Fox News' "scoop" then fell apart under the most minimal independent scrutiny, indicating that the network was guilty of something in between irresponsible reporting and outright journalistic fraud. In the meantime, editors irresponsibly rushed the material in question into our Wikipedia article, compounding the real-life harm to the family caused by Fox News and other partisan media.

    The lesson here is that if Fox News trumpets a surprising "scoop" that is not corroborated by independent, reliable, non-partisan, credible sources, then it should not be considered "reliable enough" for inclusion until appropriately corroborated. Even more so in cases that fall under WP:BLP and WP:AVOIDVICTIM. At this point, there is really no excuse for making this kind of error of judgement a second time, and I would expect administrative responses to reflect that. MastCell Talk 22:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Would this matter at all, that Fox News' misbehavior is being covered in a larger pattern? https://www.usnews.com/opinion/thomas-jefferson-street/articles/2017-05-23/fox-news-is-destroying-itself-turning-into-a-breitbart-copy-for-trump Morty C-137 (talk) 22:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
This is interesting but again I don't think Fox's opinion reporting should affect our treatment of their news division. MSNBC (for example) is a proper news outlet despite the conspiratorial speculation of some of their opinion shows. James J. Lambden (talk) 23:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
This wasn't "Fox's opinion reporting". This was their news. Please get this straight and stop trying to confuse the discussion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Did you actually read the linked article? It's about Carlson, Hannity, Fox and Friends (Hasselbeck et al.) – all opinion journalists. Bolling is debatable but the focus is opinion people. James J. Lambden (talk) 02:33, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
As I linked above, this seems to be the original article. It is news, not opinion. It does not discuss Hannity. It is certainly true that other sources do mention Hannity in connection with the Seth Rich theories, but those opinion sources are not what we are discussing here. Instead, I believe that we are discussing the news article, which was retracted, not opinions written by Hannity or anyone else. Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
The NY Times' front page story of a "criminal investigation" into Hillary Clinton's email server in 2015 is IMHO a more egregious example. (Their apology: link.) This is not unique to Fox and our response should not be to impose conditions specific to Fox. Corroboration from independent sources is always prudent. James J. Lambden (talk) 23:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I am in agreement that there's nothing wrong with Fox News that we need to take action ala Daily Mail. They do follow the same editorial practices (albeit maybe slower) that we expect from an RS. But like with any other RS including the BBC or NYTimes, a singular article could be a problem but our policies and IAR allow for case-by-case evaluation if there's something questionable. Also, editors should keep in mind that opinion statements from RSes are not necessarily reliable, they're only reliable for their opinions. Unfortunately, Fox News as well as many other sources tend to forget to mark opinion pieces with the "op-ed" type language so it might require editors to come to agreement if a news piece is being presented objectively or as opinion and treat the RS nature from that. --MASEM (t) 23:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree with those that say we take it report by report in context. Fox News is no worse than The Huffington Post writers that quote conspiracy theorists while peddling the old tripe that the CIA was complicit in drug-trafficking (e.g. [21], [22], [23]) or leaving open the possibility that a conspiracy was responsible for the death of JFK (e.g. [24], [25]). Don't get me started on the amount of space they've given to reports about the newest conspiracy book or documentary. -Location (talk) 01:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC) (Edited: Oh, I forgot to note some of the HuffPost's references to the October Surprise conspiracy theory: [26], [27], [28]. -Location (talk) 01:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC))
Sean Hannity is a talk show host and therefore has no bearing on the reliablity of the network. Note that Glenn Beck and Lou Dobbs were CNN talk show hosts who promoted whose factual accuracy was similarly challenged. Other networks have had similar problems in the past. What distinguishes reliable sources is that they publish retractions. It is important however for editors to observe weight. Stories that are only covered in one news source normally should not be included in articles. TFD (talk) 16:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
This wasn't just Hannity. They started this whole shameful episode with their "news" reporting. Basically if it can't be corroborated by other sources, just Fox News, it should go.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Then we should do the same for any other RS that is posting a highly questionable claim that has no corroboration, such as what WaPost has done of late with the claims towards the Russia leaks. (No, I'm not suggesting that, just pointing out the logical fallacy). As long as Fox News remains considered an RS, then if Fox News is reporting something that lacks any other corroboration, then it probably should be attributed to Fox News , eg "A report by Fox News says..." -- but that also puts into question if the news item in question is appropriate to put in at the time given WP:RECENTISM. Considering the issue of retraction, it might be best to wait a week or more to make sure the story is still the same story that was originally posted and still has appropriateness to include in the article. --MASEM (t) 17:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Oh that's total and utter nonsense. False equivalence. THAT is a logical fallacy. "Whataboutism" is a logical fallacy. You appear not to even know what a "logical fallacy" is (hint: it's not "something I happen to disagree with just because"). On one hand you have a straight up fake news conspiracy theory a la Sandy Hook, on the other hand you've got stories cross checked and verified by multiple outlets following standard journalistic ethics and procedures (why do you think "Deep Throat" was called "Deep Throat"???).
If you can't verify it with other reliable sources, it's just Fox News, then it's not reliable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
And actually, you seem to have trouble with the word "corroborate". It means "to confirm". Fox News'/alt-right's Seth Rich conspiracy theory bullshit was not confirmed or corroborated by... well anyone reputable. In fact just the opposite. The antonym of "corroborate" is "to contradict". And Fox News'/alt-right's Seth Rich conspiracy theory bullshit was indeed contradicted. By numerous reputable sources and then even by the original sources (Wheeler) themselves. WaPo's Russia-Trump stories were NOT contradicted by other sources, in fact they were confirmed by these.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if it is Fox News or NYTimes. A news story (not op-ed) that has a controversial aspect that lacks corroboration from other sources but otherwise published by an RS is still a usable source as long as there is appropriate attribution to the source. But realisticly, we should be avoiding a rush to include these until the story works its way through the news cycle and others have a chance to corroborate or contradict it, which might even lead to the story's removal, which may take days, weeks, or months. In time corroborated stories can be added, while contradicted ones should be omitted (unless there is a story around them themselves ala Pizzagate), but this practice is still independent of the source as long as it otherwise meets our RS policies. --MASEM (t) 22:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
A controversial story which lacks corroboration would violate WP:REDFLAG and WP:UNDUE, even with attribution. There would have to be some really compelling reason to include it. If there ain't, it shouldn't be in there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
You would think, but editors routinely ignore that, particularly in the area of Trump nowadays. (eg: Donald Trump's disclosure of classified information to Russia created in less than a day of the WaPost making the claims - which were later corroborated, but that should never have been added that fast if we're avoiding REDFLAG and UNDUE.) We're not going to be able to stop editors in this, so we have to be able to handle these types of edits, but at the same time we don't want one set of rules for some RSes and another set for another which otherwise also meet RS policy requirements. That's why if stuff like that is going to be added as fast as it is from any RS it just needs proper attribution, rather than questioning the RS that provided it. --MASEM (t) 23:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
(ec) Actually at the time of creation [29] the Donald Trump's disclosure of classified information to Russia article had something like 66 different sources and it's first line was "On May 15 multiple sources reported that ". In other words, by the time the Wikipedia article was created, the story had already been extensively corroborated, so it got nowhere near running afoul of WP:REDFLAG. Not a good example then. There's nothing here about "one set of rules" for some sources and another set for another. It's the same rules. One set - Fox News - just doesn't satisfy the rules. The other ones which you keep trying to bring up in this continuing exercise in false equivalence, do.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
However, many of those sources were simply repeating what the WaPost had said; from what it appears the first independent corroboration was from the NYTimes later that day, and then another source the next day. It took about 48 hrs for that, so it shouldn't have been rushed to its own article.
But back to the point at hand : if there is agreement that Fox News has editorial control (including issuing retractions when wrong) and has a demonstrated history, then it's an RS, it's not a "special" RS that we get to ignore or apply different rules to. Otherwise, you need to convince editors that Fox News should be removed as an RS like we have done with the Daily Mail, and I don't think that's going to happen given the statements above. --MASEM (t) 00:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
That standard would have prevented 1971 Wikipedia from including anything related to the Pentagon Papers for 5 days (the time between the Times' article and the Washington Post's first article.) Maybe a good thing vis-a-vis the recent discussions of WP:RECENTISM but something to consider nonetheless. James J. Lambden (talk) 23:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Editors keep forgetting we have no deadline and we're not supposed to be a newspaper either. We want the stories to be neutral and right for the rest of time, and the lack of a story for those 5 days is far outweighed by the patience of being able to write with better hindsight for the permanence of information. Tons of editor conflicts would be diminished if we all waited and saw where a controversial story was going instead of racing to be the one to include it first. (Hence the discussion on EEng's page about some type of moratorium). --MASEM (t) 00:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. I hope that discussion produces results. James J. Lambden (talk) 02:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't think this is a particularly well-informed discussion, since we seem to be ignoring WP:BLP entirely. That policy actually mandates that we apply different levels of scrutiny, and different sourcing bars, for well-known public figures (like Donald Trump) than we do for private, low-profile individuals—especially those who, like Seth Rich, are "notable" primarily as the victim of someone else's actions. So it is entirely appropriate, and consistent with policy, to include the well-sourced allegations about the Trump campaign's ties to Russia, while excluding (more poorly sourced) conspiracy theories about Seth Rich. I would expect veteran editors, and especially admins, to recognize this fundamental aspect of site policy.

I can accept that the recent incident at the Seth Rich article was the result of poor judgement, which is not a crime, but when I hear these kinds of ridiculous arguments comparing the Fox News conspiracy theories to reputable media reporting on the Trump/Russia allegations, then I start to worry that we're not learning anything from this episode of poor judgement. Speaking for myself, I don't think the ignorance-of-the-law excuse is going to fly a second time if there's a repeat of something like the Seth Rich incident—and that seems to be what we're talking about here, rather than a global judgement about Fox News' credibility or lack thereof. MastCell Talk 00:45, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Every so often, normally reliable News outlets report erroneous information. This happens to every news outlet sooner or later. When this occurs, It is appropriate to call that erroneous report unreliable... But there is no need to declare everything else by the news outlet unreliable. In other words, we can deem the Fox reporting on Seth Rich unreliable, without needing to deem every Fox News report unreliable. Blueboar (talk) 10:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Shturem.org

Anybody run across this as a source? [[PPX]] (talk) 15:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Electromagnetic hypersensitivity

I have a question about a source for our Electromagnetic hypersensitivity article. My field is electronics engineering, so I am asking for advice from those with more medical knowledge than I have.

On the Electromagnetic hypersensitivity talk page I previously made the following comment:

I challenge anyone who claims to suffer from electromagnetic hypersensitivity to, in a proper double-blind test, tell the difference between the presence and absence of a non-ionizing electromagnetic field. Can you do that? No. You can not. Nobody can. Instead you find references like [ http://www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/facts/fs296/en/ ], which says " A number of studies have been conducted where EHS individuals were exposed to EMF similar to those that they attributed to the cause of their symptoms. The aim was to elicit symptoms under controlled laboratory conditions. The majority of studies indicate that EHS individuals cannot detect EMF exposure any more accurately than non-EHS individuals. Well controlled and conducted double-blind studies have shown that symptoms were not correlated with EMF exposure." or [ http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935108000601 ], which says "There was no evidence that EHS individuals could detect presence or absence of RF-EMF better than other persons ... This review showed that the large majority of individuals who claims to be able to detect low level RF-EMF are not able to do so under double-blind conditions. If such individuals exist, they represent a small minority and have not been identified yet." --Posted by Guy Macon 18:55, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I just got the following response:

Guy Macon: International Journal of Neuroscience, double blind :https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21793784 "The subject demonstrated statistically reliable somatic reactions in response to exposure to subliminal EMFs ". I just found this by accident, but again, I was not arguing for this. They also mention, which may be the case with most, or all EHS, that the patient had no conscious knowledge of the field, but felt pain and twitches etc. which indicated to the patient that the field is present, and began after 100 seconds. So it is likely that any EHS person would tell the presence of any field they are affected by, based on having pain/symptoms or not, and in some cases the symptoms could be delayed by minutes or hours. In this case 100 seconds is very short, so it can be easily studied. -- posted by Otter22 14:43, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

The new source appears to contradict the sources I gave. Is this a reliable WP:MEDRS-compliant source, does it say what I think it says, and should the article be changed to reflect this new source? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

It's an old primary study, of no use to us. Alexbrn (talk) 16:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Sample size? = 1. One subject. "self-diagnosed". Questionable study. Not reliable. Sagecandor (talk) 16:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
This is one of the reasons why we use secondary sources rather than primary sources. One needs to look at the totality of the evidence. If something is not reproducible it is likely simply a spurious or false positive result. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Metropolitan Museum Journal

The Metropolitan Museum Journal, a scholarly journal published by the Metropolitan Museum of Art, is being used as the sole source to support notability of an object owned by the Museum. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caftan (Metropolitan Museum of Art) I am not questioning the journal's status as a scholarly source. I am arguing that in order for an individual caftan, or any garment, to pass WP:GNG, there has to be a source other than a journal published by the museum that owns the garment; an WP:INDEPENDENT source. An experienced editor is arguing that such articles can be the sole source for notability on the grounds that "In the case of very large and reputable museums like the MMA, the community is rightly ready to accept that good scholarly standards are being followed."E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:27, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, you clearly are "questioning the journal's status as a scholarly source", where independence is an important element. You can't have it both ways! Johnbod (talk) 13:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
A good source for notability, but you might require more than one such source. We can't have an article on every single artifact kept in every single museum. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
That old canard! As I said at the debate: "There is in fact no "danger" here, as very few people write such articles. Note that the entire Category:Individual garments tree has (I think) under 10 ordinary textile garments from before 1900 (excluding armour, crowns etc) for all world history! You will find the same very sparse coverage in most "Individual foo" categories. If you want silly over-coverage in museum areas look at paintings and biblical manuscripts. Johnbod (talk) 20:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Raw story a RS for details on this obscure death?

The 'raw story" is being used to support a, frankly dubious claim that Michael Connell's plane crash was intentional sabotage. Now i understand that the conspiracy theories around Connell's death might warrant at least a mention, being that its mentioned in a few places, but the edit in question states "Connell...was apparently told by a close friend not to fly his plane because his plane might be sabotaged," diff. The source for this is, as i mentioned, the raw story link, which states "Without getting into specific details, 19 Action News reporter Blake Renault reported Sunday evening that 45-year-old Republican operative and experienced pilot had been warned not to fly his plane in the days before the crash.

"Connell...was apparently told by a close friend not to fly his plane because his plane might be sabotaged," Renault said. "And twice in the last two months Connell, who is an experienced pilot, cancelled two flights because of suspicious problems with his plane.""

So two questions, 1) is the raw story a reliable source in this context and if so 2) is this claim notable/well sourced enough to include in this article? Bonewah (talk) 13:39, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I mentioned your inquiry in Talk:Murder of Seth Rich since that article has similarities to this one. I think all the sourcing should be looked at to determine if the subject is notable. -Location (talk) 14:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
No, "Raw Story" is NOT a reliable source. It's like Infowars.com, just from the other side of the spectrum. Unfortunately, BOTH the left-wing and the right-wing each have a slew of unreliable sources. This one just happens to be a left-wing unreliable source. All "Raw Story" sources in that article should be removed. Then notability of topics and claims can be judged based on other sources. Sagecandor (talk) 14:07, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
It is a reliable source and the facts in this article it cites 19 Action News, the Cleveland Plain Dealer and a local CBS affiliate. That is a separate issue however from what aspects of the story should be put into the article. Since The Raw Story original reporting is intended to cover stories neglected by major media, it would normally fail weight. The story btw does not say that the crash was caused by intentional sabotage. TFD (talk) 18:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Best to stick to more reliable sources, for citations and for weight. Sagecandor (talk) 18:08, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
@TFD, which story, the citation or the wikipedia article? Im not sure what you are driving at either way. Bonewah (talk) 19:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
It's the same story. The Wikipedia article says, "Connell...was apparently told by a close friend not to fly his plane because his plane might be sabotaged, and twice in the last two months Connell, who is an experienced pilot, cancelled two flights because of suspicious problems with his plane." This is sourced to the Raw Story article, which quotes 19 Action News reporter Blake Renault as saying, "Connell...was apparently told by a close friend not to fly his plane because his plane might be sabotaged....And twice in the last two months Connell, who is an experienced pilot, cancelled two flights because of suspicious problems with his plane."
Is The Raw Story a reliable source that Blake Renault said that? Yes. Is 19 Action News a reliable source for what Connell's close friend said? Yes. If we were to use this however we should say that the friend said they warned him, since neither source authenticated it.
TFD (talk) 20:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Raw Story is just compiling other stuff. They regurgitate other sources. Best to just use the more reliable sources, instead. Sagecandor (talk) 20:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

The Metro

Is metro.co.uk RS? Is it the same publisher as Metro (British newspaper)? The web site is a Wordpress blog. It does not list editorial staff or policy. It seems to have "contributors" rather than journalists. It's being used as a source at Chloe Khan, a BLP. It says, without attribution and stated as a fact, that she is a "horrid person,"[30] and that sounds more like opinion than news to me. Previous discussions at RSN do not directly address this question, but seem to imply it's a respectable newspaper. @Boleyn: Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:54, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

It's obviously not reliable for that purpose. Alexbrn (talk) 02:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Alexbrn. for what purpose do you mean? I've re-read the first comment and it sounds as if the Wikipedia article calls her a 'horrid person' (using the Metro as a source), rather than the reality, that the Metro source says she was a horrid person (and it reads more as if it's saying that she appeared to be/was portrayed as a horrid person when on X Factor, rather than a full criticism of her character. Obviously that statement was in no way used in the Wikipedia article, Kendall is using it as an example of her concern about the writing in that article, and thus the source as a whole. As someone who has read the Metro many times, I would have no concerns about using it as a source to confirm facts in a blp, although, as with all newspapers, I prefer to have two reliable newspapers as a source for information, as it does in this article for all statements except that the Metro is the only source given for her maiden name. I share Kendall's impression that the sentence she mentions is poor journalism/writing, and it does have opinion pieces, but it is not particularly sensationalist and does not have a poor reputation. Boleyn (talk) 13:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
For asserting that somebody is a "horrid person". Alexbrn (talk) 13:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
It's different from the Metro newspaper in London, www.metro.news and looks reliable for exactly nothing. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 13:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
It has this under More... submit stuff... "Send us your stuff

Videos, pictures, links, captivating stories - We'll publish the best stuff on Metro.co.uk and across the social media universe." Reliable as mud. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 13:35, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Struck most of my comment - I meant the British newspaper at metro.news. Sorry I didn't check that better. Boleyn (talk) 14:01, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion, I was using the "horrid person" quote as an example of unreliable reporting by metro.co.uk, not as an example of something stated on WP. No one is advocating that we call Khan a horrid person. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

They're definitely related sites. Metro.news runs articles from "Metro’s print newspaper and from the morning and evening edition of its Digital Edition app" (according to their About page), while metro.co.uk appears to run...basically anything. Metro.news email addresses are @metro.co.uk as well. Our own article at Metro (British newspaper) links to both sites. To their credit, metro.co.uk does separate their News and Entertainment sections, which may put their News section on par with metro.news, but they're also part of DMG Media. 14:49, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Signed articles in news media for example usually combine facts and opinions and editors should be able to distinguish the too. Saying someone is horrid is a statement of opinion, no matter where it appears. TFD (talk) 17:13, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Reliable news sources do not mix opinion in to news stories. They separate out their opinions and put them on the Editorial page. WP editors should be expected to distinguish opinion pieces from news stories. See WP:NEWSORG. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:23, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
To be honest, if something were sourced only to Metro and one couldn't find a more reliable source for it, I'd look extremely askance at it; Metro is a freesheet published by the Daily Mail which consists mainly of reprinted press releases and wire reports padded out with celebrity fluff borrowed from the Mail, and while it certainly doesn't have a reputation as bad as that of its big brother it's not exactly the Daily Telegraph. As with the Mail, if nobody except Metro has covered something one has to ask why nobody except Metro has covered it. ‑ Iridescent 21:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

RSes give apparently random datum that Wikipedia quotes in a really weird way

See TigerSwan#Trump Presidency. It's really not clear what Reese or TigerSwan have to do with Trump Tower. Google brought up only mirrors of the same quote and this. We don't have an independent bio article on James Reese, so the article on his company seems to be the best place for an out-of-place remark he made about Trump Tower, but... I don't know. Does this look weird to anyone else? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

If it's just that quote, it seems WP:UNDUE to me (although that's technically an issue for WP:NPOVN rather than here.) --Aquillion (talk) 20:06, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Crime in Sweden

Hello.

I have posted a list of statistics, and other information links, to the talk page of the "Crime in Sweden" article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Crime_in_Sweden#Various_statistics_that_I_have_found

I would greatly appreciate help with input regarding which of them that would be fine to incorporate into the article. Thank you. David A (talk) 15:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Please re-post your question paying attention to the instructions given for the use of this noticeboard. We are here to advise on specific proposals, not give wide-ranging advice on how to construct articles from sources. Alexbrn (talk) 15:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, there has been fruitless discussion regarding the validity of the source list that I posted, and I wonder if somebody unbiased could evaluate which of them that are acceptable. Another editor in the discussion told me to come here. My apologies if I have misunderstood. David A (talk) 17:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Acceptable for what? All sources are reliable for something. Please give "The exact statement(s) or other content in the article" proposed to be supported by a source. Alexbrn (talk) 20:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
(ec) Yes, this is a good place. But it's not our job to do your work. Sources are not, as a rule, reliable or unreliable in an absolute sense, but only within the context they are going to be used for. As an example, China Daily is reliable for the weather in Beijing, or for stock quotes, or for who the chairman of the CPC is. It's not a good source on the question who should control the Spratly Islands. Similarly, the 14th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica will be a decent source on Newton's laws of motion, but not on current trends in rocketry. That's why we ask for the information we ask for in the edit note, and also on top of this page. Take what you think are the best one or two sources and tell us what you want to use them for. Then we can (possibly) tell you if they support the claim, and if they are reliable in that context. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, the following is, what I think is the most crucial information, as the data mostly comes from official institutions, such as BRÅ/Brottsförebyggande Rådet (the Swedish crime prevention bureau), Folkpartiet, Statistiska Centralbyrån, or the Swedish Police Department. Help would be very appreciated:

The amount of women in Sweden subjected to sexually related crimes went up with 70% between 2014 to 2015:

https://www.bra.se/bra/nytt-fran-bra/arkiv/press/2016-11-03-utsatthet-for-sexualbrott-har-okat-bland-kvinnor.html

There were over 480000 sexually related crimes against women in Sweden 2015:

http://www.bra.se/download/18.37179ae158196cb1721ac8/1478089201798/2016_Utsatthet_for_brott_2015.pdf

In 1975 only 421 rapes were reported to the police in Sweden:

https://www.bra.se/bra/publikationer/arkiv/publikationer/2008-11-21-brottsutvecklingen-i-sverige-fram-till-ar-2007.html

To compare with 5920 the year 2015:

https://www.bra.se/bra/brott-och-statistik/valdtakt-och-sexualbrott.html

According to statistics assembled by the Swedish party Folkpartiet (while they were a part of the Swedish government together with other middle- or slightly right-wing parties) with data from the official statistics institution "Statistiska Centralbyrån" there were 155 criminal areas in the country in 2012, to compare with only 3 in 1990, and according to data similarly assembled by the economist Tino Sanandaji, there were 186 in 2014. The standards were apparently later changed to only include 55 such areas according to the Swedish police department (while the Green Party and the Social Democrats were in power instead):

https://polisen.se/Global/www%20och%20Intrapolis/Rapporter-utredningar/01%20Polisen%20nationellt/Ovriga%20rapporter-utredningar/Kriminella%20natverk%20med%20stor%20paverkan%20i%20lokalsamhallet%20Sekretesspr%2014.pdf

http://c1845.cloudnet.se/nyheter/utanforskapets-karta/attachment/23270-utanforskapets-karta-2014-05-27/

http://www.dnv.se/nyheter/ny-rapport-utanforskapets-karta-en-uppfoljning-av-folkpartiets-rapportserie/ David A (talk) 03:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

  • I think the issue here as much one of neutrality as reliability. So for example while Brå, as a govt agency, is a reliable source for items of statistical information, it is a primary source for its own data and so editors cannot sift, analyze and present such data without engaging in original research. OTOH analysis and commentary on data provided by Brå is secondary, and so viable for use. The distinction can be subtle. As a general rule of thumb, Wikipedia should not be presenting statistical information unless some other decent secondary publication also discusses/analyses that same information; this is to ensure due weight, and so maintain neutrality. I would not use material published by political parties (e.g. Folkpartiet) to make assertions in Wikipedia, as it is likely agenda-driven/partial. Alexbrn (talk) 06:31, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Okay, so if I find regular newspapers articles that refer to these numbers, I can use them? It is a bit of a problem though, as, until recently, the Swedish media has mostly tended to hush down such issues. David A (talk) 09:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
No, you can't (Nice touch with the conspiracy theory there btw). Unless a reliable source says it it can not go into the article. Also what goes into the article must be related to the subject of the article. For instance you can't use raw statistics to make the claim that people with darker skin is genetically more criminal. // Liftarn (talk) 13:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
It is not a conspiracy theory. You must have noticed yourself that our media has turned far more transparent regarding our problems in recent months.
Also, I do not appreciate that you accuse me of being racist towards people who simply have a different skin colour. All humans have virtually identical genetics. Extreme differences in culture, ideology, and education are another issue entirely. David A (talk) 18:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
This looks like an attempt at nasty POV related WP:SYNTH. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
That is also very insulting. I am trying to use reliable statistical facts, rather than pure opinion pieces. David A (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I must agree with my esteemed colleagues that the "hush down" comment sounds an alarm bell. We are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Just stick to what is reported in the very best sources, and all shall be well. Alexbrn (talk) 18:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Okay. I will try to find some sources that refer to these statistics when I find the time. I am very busy and stressed out in general. David A (talk) 18:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
David, to back up my mild aspersion, you've admitted as much... while referring at least in part to Muslims you stated you "spend much of the rest of my free time reading horrifying news about existential threats to human civilisation, and the disintegration of all social institutions in our country and "feel like I have a moral responsibility to help inform the public about the horrible situation in this country" and you "get extremely frustrated and depressed when there seem to be collaborative efforts to sweep all reliable statistics under the carpet. Not just in Wikipedia, but in society as a whole" ([31], [32]). You've railed about "POV-pushing systemic censorship" on Wikipedia and think that "Wikipedia seems to become increasingly slanted and inaccurate, and less neutral, fact-based, NPOV" and "do not see the problem with simply supporting people who fight for causes that I believe in" ([33], [34]; see also [35], [36], [37], [38]). You clearly have an anti-Islam POV ([39], [40], [41]). Based on this, your comments on Crime in Sweden and Immigration to Sweden appear to be attempts to push your POV using WP:SYNTH (see [42]). Frankly, this is something worthy of ANI at this point. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for proving his point. Crime in Sweden has been going up, it has also been hushed up. Journalists are often told not to report on crime or not to mention demographics, which ironically is one reason why many Swedes are going to extreme sites for news, the mainstream news is not reporting it. At the very least, the statistics for Crime in Sweden should have the BRA data since that is pure, raw statistics. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: I am not sure how I proved his point other than showing he wishes to RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Do you have any reliable sources to back up that claim? If not, it's just agreeing with his conspiracy theory of information suppression. You are also a seasoned editor and know that we cannot add anything to articles that are not supported explicitly by reliable sources. SYNTH is not allowed. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I am openly terrified of extreme fascism and genocidal bigotry, including Islamism/Salafism, but have not made myself guilty of anything other than this potential thought crime as far as I am aware. I occasionally do a stupid edit here and there due to being very stressed out and overworked at the time, but always relent afterwards. The worst I have done is complain at times due to lacking normal mental filters due to my autism. David A (talk) 19:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I mean, I barely even do any edits to Wikipedia articles other than reverts of vandalism. David A (talk) 19:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
(ec)When we are reporting on crime statistics, we can use the government statistics agency to report the raw numbers, as the article currently does. We can't interpret the numbers without a RS, but we can say in 2008, there were X crimes, and in 2009 there were X crimes, etc. As for articles that discuss the numbers, I have seen a few, but I am not sure what they are needed for since we're not talking about interpretation here, just reporting the numbers. Here are a few though, (I took out Breitbart and others) [43] , [44], [45] Sir Joseph (talk) 19:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
It should be noted that regular Swedish newspapers are gradually turning much better at reporting the actual news about all of the crime in this country, so alternative news sources, and regular newspapers from other countries are not nearly as necessary anymore. However, our crime statistics have increased so much, and our police is so helpless, that it may be too little, too late. David A (talk) 19:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Also, I have no problems whatsoever with secular Muslims, and greatly admire reformists such as Maajid Nawaz and Raheel Raza. David A (talk) 19:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
It's highly debatable whether you can report raw numbers, since if these have not been discussed in secondary sources it's very hard to establish due weight: Wikipedia editors cannot set themselves up as arbiters of what is significant: sifting which figures to present is a form of WP:OR, which is prohibited by policy. We should be striving to present accepted knowledge, not raw data. Alexbrn (talk) 19:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)x2 Express and National Review aren't high on my list, but at least there's some sources out there claiming the same thing. But sources certainly vary in their opinion on the topic ([46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51]). I'm trying to separate my academic side from this, but we know that crime can be "created" by better reporting and these sources seem to disagree about (1) the source of the trend and (2) the nature of the trend. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Crime in Sweden (in particular rape statistics) has been politicized and opinionated on for years within Sweden but probably even more so in the US and the UK, where it has become an important tool for conservatives or nationalists to argue either against immigration or the (economic/social) "Scandinavian model" in general. Due to that high politicization it is advisable if possible to restrict sourcing as much as possible to scholarly sources and stay away from various news media outlets. Foxnews seems like an obvious no-go as a source in this regard, but i'd avoid the other examples linked above (telegraph, washington post, politifact) as well.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

P.S.: As far as the Swedish sources above are concerned. Bra (roughly like national institute/agency for crime statistics) seems a reliable source. However there is the issue of WP:SYNTH, i.e. WP editors can not cherry pick and combine individual figures from different Bra publications to draw their own conclusions. The various Swedish websites do not appear to be appropriate sources (at least not at first glance).--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

There is a reliable secondary source about the statistics at http://www.government.se/articles/2017/02/facts-about-migration-and-crime-in-sweden/ but it don't really say what the POV pushers want it to and I think that's the root of their problem. "In general terms, violence has decreased in Sweden in the last 20 years." "Data from the Swedish Crime Survey shows that in terms of lethal violence, there has generally been a downward trend over the past 25 years." "The studies show that the majority of those suspected of crimes were born in Sweden to two Swedish-born parents. The studies also show that the vast majority of people from foreign backgrounds are not suspected of any crimes." "researchers at Stockholm University showed that the main difference in terms of criminal activity between immigrants and others in the population was due to differences in the socioeconomic conditions in which they grew up in Sweden." "Swedish government agencies have nothing to gain from covering up statistics and facts; they seek an open and fact-based dialogue. Sweden is an open society governed by a principle of public access to official documents." "The Swedish economy is strong. Despite the high costs of immigration, Sweden recorded a public finance surplus in 2015, and the forecasts indicate that the surplus is set to grow until 2020." // Liftarn (talk) 06:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

How is this Swedish state debt overview an economic surplus (and this is not even an economic recession), and how does the highest amount of hand grenade usage in any country not currently at war, 186 criminal areas (or 55 depending on the information source), constant reports in regular newspapers about stone-throwing or car-burning mobs, and 14 times as high rape statistics as previously translate into increasing security? And how does me simply quoting reliable statistics and newspaper investigations translate into POV-pushing? David A (talk) 07:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
"How is this an economic surplus" - Look up the difference between "debt" and "deficit". Currently Sweden's government is running a 1% of GDP surplus.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
And I think that sort of highlights the problem with "you simply quoting reliable statistics". You have to actually understand what the statistics are first. Anyway, original research and all that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
And statsskuld.com is a site run by a Roger Karlsson in Hägersten. Is he a reliable source? // Liftarn (talk) 11:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
As is stated within the page, it is based on official data from Riksgälden, and the point is that our debt is constantly increasing, despite being in an economic boom period. What happens when we enter a recession? https://www.riksgalden.se/PageFiles/26172/Statsupplaning_2017-1.pdf David A (talk) 12:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
That link don't work for me, but I found Fakta om statsskulden that says the debt is 31% of BNP, down from over 70% in 1995. So while it may increase in absolute value it goes down as a percent of BNP. There are also some diagrams for you at [52]. But I don't really follow your reasoning. If the national debt goes up non-Swedes are more criminal? I don't see how one thing proves the other. // Liftarn (talk) 14:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
You were the one who quoted information from the leftist government regarding that we have an economic surplus despite the enormous costs for immigration, and that only 53% of immigrants have real jobs, if I remember correctly. It is not directly related to crime, as far as I am aware, as even unemployed immigrants in Sweden get lots of social security benefits. David A (talk) 15:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
You are still utterly and completely confused about the difference between a deficit/surplus and the level of debt. Just leave the interpretation of statistics to people (reliable secondary sources) who know what they're talking about.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, getting away from inaccurate insults towards me personally, and focusing on the main issue, I have found various major newspapers that refer to the growth from 3 to 186 criminal areas:

http://www.gp.se/ledare/eberhard-skilj-p%C3%A5-%C3%A4pplen-och-p%C3%A4ron-1.3489555

https://www.svd.se/det-permanenta-undantaget

https://www.svd.se/jamfor-inte-med-balkaninvandringen

http://www.expressen.se/ledare/patrik-kronqvist/sverige-har-inte-stangt-gransen/

https://www.svd.se/hur-ska-det-ga-for-nasta-miljon David A (talk) 12:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

It would help a lot if you made some sort of filtering yourself. All of the links you provided are editorials and not useable as sources. // Liftarn (talk) 12:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
You seem to use any rationale whatsoever in order to keep accurate information from the article. Linking to the study by Tino Sanandaji, the one from Folkpartiet, and the several major newspaper articles in combination should rationally definitely fulfill our requirements for inclusion as well as most other sources included in Wikipedia articles. David A (talk) 13:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
The problem is that we can't know if it's accurate or not without reliable sources to back it up. I'm sorry, but Wikipedia is about documenting what reliable sources say. See for instance WP:NOTTRUTH if you are having problem with that concept. // Liftarn (talk) 13:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
No offense, but you have made a habit of spreading the notion that any criticism towards the current Swedish system must automatically be a slanted far-right conspiracy with your page Sweden-bashing, and to attempt to filter away any negative information whatsoever regarding the situation in our country. That is far more POV than my attempt to insert some balancing information to the page, without removing your preferred references.
We do have several official statements by leading journalists at major newpapers quoting the studies in question. We both know that this is perfectly acceptable and reliable by Wikipedia's usual standards, and that you would gladly have inserted it if it provided a positive portrayal instead, even if it was considerably less well-sourced. However, I could continue to try to find even more references if you wish, but at a certain point it starts to get ridiculous, and blatantly evident that you are using excuses rather than honesty in dealing with this subject matter. David A (talk) 15:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I think you need to read up on what a reliable source is. // Liftarn (talk) 18:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Whu would one journalistic newspaper article that makes a statement regarding its position be less reliable than another from the same magazine, especially in conjunction with several other sources, including statistical studies? It seems like a convenient excuse. Regardless, here are some more articles that I think reference the 186 criminal areas in 2012, but I may have made some mostake, as I am very tired:

http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=110&artikel=5900362

http://www.vlt.se/opinion/ledare/sakine-madon-braka-garna-liberaler-men-tank-ocksa-efter

http://sla.se/debatt/2017/02/28/var-har-anna-sandstrom-varit-de

https://www.svd.se/sveriges-resa-fran-kris-till-nostalgi

http://norran.se/nyheter/kommun/utanforskapsomraden-fortsatter-att-oka-211380

http://www.barometern.se/ledare/arvet-efter-sahlin-och-ullenhag/

https://www.dagenssamhalle.se/debatt/svensk-migrationspolitik-bygger-pa-mps-fantasier-11141 David A (talk) 20:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

As I pointed out above already stick to scholarly sources and their interpretation of statistics. I can't really help getting the impression that you're attempting to push criticism at all cost and trying to get it rubber-stamped here, but that won't happen.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, the original study by the economist Tino Sanandaji is a scholarly paper as far as I am aware, and has been quoted frequently by major newspapers. I have seen lots of Wikipedia articles quote many newspaper articles with considerably less solid basis, so I do not understand why this should be any different? David A (talk) 04:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
So is the study ordered by Folkpartiet, if that would be preferable: https://scholar.google.se/scholar?q=%22utanf%C3%B6rskapets+karta%22&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5 David A (talk) 05:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Anyway, Tino Sanandaji also refers to the 186 criminal areas, as well as both his own study and that of Folkpartiet, in his economics book "Massutmaning" (2017), if that would be preferable. David A (talk) 07:52, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Nope, self-published sources can not be used in that way. See WP:SELFPUB // Liftarn (talk) 09:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." The reason we rely on reliable secondary sources for any conclusions as a result of statistics is they are easily deliberately mis-used (for nefarious/political agendas) or mis-understood in error by those who lack adaquate training in the subject. A primary government source would generally be reliable for the basic information but little else. A relevant Swedish dept saying 'There were X reported violent crimes in 2016' would be primary and reliable for that fact only. Lacking context however, this figure is meaningless. If the figure was lower for the previous year, has there been an increase in the total, but a decrease for % of the population? Have their been (as happened in the UK in the last few years) changes in the way the police record the crimes leading to drastic changes in the figures? Absent context provided by a reliable secondary source discussing all the issues, the raw statistics can be used to support any position. For a contentious issue like crime, strong sources are required to justify any conclusions. Politically motivated individuals self-publishing would be very unlikely to qualify. However a notable (wiki-definition) economist published by a reputable publisher would not be deemed unreliable just because they have been publically critical of the government policies - they have been critical because their expert opinion and evaluation of the evidence leads them to that conclusion. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, Tino is a notable economist by Swedish standards, with his own English Wikipedia profile, has thoroughly researched this issue, and his book topped the Swedish sales charts for a while, despite being boycotted by Swedish physical book stores. The problem here is that Sweden is a small country, and does not have any notable scientific journals regarding crime and related economics, as far as I am aware, and this has been such a hush-hush controversial issue that extremely few academics have had the courage to openly discuss the issue, as it would likely have cost them their careers. Hence, 2 research studies, 1 best-selling economics book, and several quotations by prominent journalists in major newspapers is as good as it gets regarding virtually any related issue. David A (talk) 12:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Also, I should note that Liftarn's own page, Sweden-bashing, uses several opinion piece articles without any additional research backing them up, so he seems to use double-standards. David A (talk) 12:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Tino is more infamous really. While he is notable, he is not reliable.
It's a Wikipedia page, not my page. Only one as far as I know only one is an op-ed and that is by an expert in the field, not just some random person. // Liftarn (talk) 13:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
I strongly disagree about that he is unreliable or infamous, and would recommend that you actually start to read the matter-of-fact statistics within his book with an open mind before you condemn him.
Weren't you the one who created the page, inserted most of the references, and attempt to link to it in unrelated pages? In any case, from checking the reference list at the bottom, with the possibility for error, I counted 10 regular newspaper articles. David A (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Would it be acceptable if I simply insert that Tino Sanandaji's bestselling "Massutmaning" book refers to his own study, as well as that of Folkpartiet? David A (talk) 12:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Where and to claim what and in what context? Can you prove it's notable? Also see WP:SELFPUB. // Liftarn (talk) 07:12, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
To mention that the number of criminal areas in Sweden have increased from 3 1990 to either 155 or 186 in 2012. The book has been frequently mentioned, or even occasionally reviewed, in mainstream media, and was the bestselling book in Sweden for a while, despite that our physical bookstores decided to boycott/censor it. In addition, it will get an English international edition soon. David A (talk) 08:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Nope, it can't be used for any facts due to WP:SELFPUB. If you find any independent sources backing up that the claim is notable you could include it as "Tino Sanandaji thinks that...". // Liftarn (talk) 12:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
What sort of independent sources are you looking for? As you know, several large newspapers have written about the book. David A (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Here are various newspaper articles that discuss the book:

http://www.expressen.se/kultur/sakligt-av-sanandaji-om-invandringens-pris/

http://www.dn.se/dnbok/bokrecensioner/massutmaning-ekonomisk-politik-mot-utanforskap-och-antisocialt-beteende-av-tino-sanandaji/

http://www.gp.se/ledare/en-massutmaning-i-vardande-1.4148629

http://www.aftonbladet.se/kultur/bokrecensioner/a/dABpA/inslappta--men-utestangda

https://nyheteridag.se/tino-sanandajis-bok-massutmaning-etta-pa-topplistorna/

http://www.norrteljetidning.se/opinion/ledare/en-massutmaning-att-gora-alla-delaktiga

http://www.expressen.se/ledare/anna-dahlberg/lofven-borde-akta-sig-for-alternativa-fakta/

http://www.gp.se/ledare/teodorescu-censur-h%C3%B6r-inte-hemma-p%C3%A5-biblioteken-1.4165434

http://www.gp.se/ledare/bostr%C3%B6m-ett-svenskt-moraliskt-misslyckande-1.4169699

http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/sprickan-om-invandrare-och-brottsligheten/

http://www.expressen.se/debatt/lamna-inte-migrationsfragan-till-extremisterna/

http://www.dagen.se/kronikor/eli-gondor-en-milstolpe-i-debatten-om-invandring-1.953971

http://www.dagbladet.no/kultur/det-innvandringsdebatten-ikke-handler-om/67388785

http://www.gp.se/ledare/teodorescu-kinberg-batra-en-symbol-f%C3%B6r-reinfeldt-1.4194157

http://www.kristianstadsbladet.se/ledare/karin-pihl-bort-med-flosklerna-i-integrationspolitiken/

David A (talk) 15:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Not about the book. About his claim. So a) does the book claim what you say? b) is the claim notable? Btw, Nyheter Idag is a far right publication and not a reliable source. // Liftarn (talk) 19:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the book mentions the 186 criminal areas in the pages 140, 142, 143, 145, and 146. And of course it is relevant that the criminal areas within Sweden have increased to this extreme degree, over such a comparatively brief period of time.
As for Nyheter Idag, I have not noticed any social-Darwinian rightwing extremist economic policies within the articles. Simply calling a publication extremist for convenience without any proof, is not an argument, just an ad hominem diversion. David A (talk) 10:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
1) Please provide the exact quote (preferably with English translation). 2) We need to establish notability of the claim. As it is we have no reliable source for that something like that has happened, but his claim may be notable if it's reported by a reliable source. Just because some random person claims something doesn't mean it has to go into the article. 3) We have reliable sources saying that sv:Nyheter Idag is a far right publication. // Liftarn (talk) 11:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
1) I am getting a strong indication that you are just trying to exhaust me into throwing my hands up into the air, but I will provide some of the quotes below, in Swedish. 2) As I have previously shown, several major newpapers have written articles about either the book Massutmaning or the 186 criminal areas, so that part is covered. 3) Somebody smearing it with a personal opinion about being far-right, without examples of its supposedly extremist economic policies is still nonsense. It is perfectly common to be against massive immigration from Islamist countries while being either leftist or centrist. In fact according to a recent study, a majority of Europeans support such policies.

"År 1990 var endast tre bostadsområden utanförskapsområden, definierat med denna metod. Dessa var Marielund i Haparanda, Södra Rosengård i Malmö samt bostadsområdet Ryd i Linköping. De senare två är fortfarande utanförskapsom råden. Antalet utanförskapsområden fortsatte att öka mellan 2006 och 2012. År 2006 hade 156 bostadsområden så stora socioekonomiska problem att de definierades som utanförskapsområden. År 2012 hade antalet ökat till 186 bostadsområden, vilka finns markerade i Figur 4. Antalet boende i utanförskapsområdena uppgick till ungefär 488 tusen personer år 2006 och 566 tusen personer år 2012. Av landets befolkning levde 5,4 procent i utanförskapsområden år 2006, vilket ökade till 5,9 procent år 2012. En signifikant andel av de boende är andra generationens invandrare, alltså inrikes födda barn till utrikes födda föräldrar. Endast 26 procent av de boende i utanförskapsområdena år 2006 respektive 25 procent av de boende år 2012 hade svensk bakgrund, definierat som inrikes född med två inrikes födda föräldrar. År 2012 var 175 av 186 utanförskapsområden mer invandrartäta än riksgenom snittet. Det finns dock några utanförskapsområden med låg eller medelhög andel utrikes födda, ofta i bruksorter och glesbygd - till exempel bostadsområdena Bojsenburg i Falun och Vasastaden i Arboga."

"Dagen efter att min rapport publicerades släppte Folkpartiet (2014) för första gången på sex år en uppdaterad version av Utanförskapets karta. Antalet utanförskapsområden var 156 år 2006 enligt bägge rapporterna. Båda undersökte dessutom förändringen till och med år 2012. Trots samma metod och underlag från SCB blev slutsatserna märkligt nog inte desamma. Jag kom fram till att antalet utanförskapsområden under Alliansregeringen fortsatte att öka från 156 till 186. Folkpartiet menade att den uppåtgående trenden hade brutits och att antalet utanförskapsområden i stället sjunkit något till 155. Svenska Dagbladets ledarsida riktade kritik mot Folkpartiet för att de inte gjort sina beräkningar för år 2012 jämförbara med dem för år 2006, och för att de sedan drar slutsatser från två ojämförbara kalkyler (2014a):

Det är inte hederligt, och det förhindrar saklig debatt om hur vi ska komma tillrätta med utanförskapet. Kulmen på debatten kom efter ytterligare några dagar när en krönika av rappor tens upphovsperson Mauricio Rojas publicerades på SvD:s ledarplats (2014c): I oktober 2006 fick partiet ansvaret för integrationsfrågan, men av många djärva idéer och förslag blev det inte mycket. Berget födde en råtta, och utslagningen bara fortsatte. Detta visste partiets ledning och det blev inga nya kartor. Många efterfrågade en aktualisering av kartorna och tankesmedjan Den Nya Välfärden lät nationalekonomen Tino Sanandaji göra det. Han använde samma metod och underlag som vid tidigare kartor och kom fram till att utanförska pet ökat mellan 2006 och 2012: från 156 till 186 utanförskapsområden. 2012 bodde 566 000 personer i dessa områden; en ökning med hela 16 procent från 2006. Det mest klädsamma för FP hade varit att ärligt erkänna det som alla vet: att borgerligheten inte har varit ett dugg bättre än Socialdemokraterna på detta område. Men politiken tillåter inte en sådan öppenhjärtighet. Fast jag kunde aldrig föreställa mig det som skulle hända. Några timmar efter Sanandajis rapport kom FP ut med en egen karta, som visade en helt annan bild: det hade inte alls blivit fler utanförskapsområden och befolkningsandelen i desamma var oförändrad. Förklaringen till detta är enkel: FP gjorde några subtila metodologiska ändringar och simsalabim var misslyckandet åtminstone retuscherat. Erik Ullenhag säger att man har ”förfinat metoderna” (SvD 3/6), medan andra lätt kan kalla det för manipulation, fusk eller åtminstone ohederlighet, som det stod i SvD:s ledare i måndags."

David A (talk) 13:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

1) No, I'm trying to educate you what is a reliable source and what is not. The root problem seem to be that you desperately want to insert information without any proper sources. Here you want to insert something about "criminal areas" while the quote you yourself provided says "utanförskapsområden" (alienation areas). 2) That they have written about the book is not relevant. You must show that the claim is notable in itself. For instance if the retired electrician Nisse Olsson claims that vaccines causes people to be gay it is not usable in Wikipedia in any form. If Donald Trump claims that vaccines causes people to be gay and that is covered in independent sources it could be used. Get the difference? But you still can't put that vaccines causes homosexuality into an article. 3) Not just somebody, a reliable source. Again there is a difference between what a reliable source says and what a random person says. // Liftarn (talk) 14:18, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
1) As far as I understand, what primarily defines "utanförskapsområden" is their high level of criminality. 2) Tino is a notable well-educated famous public figure, the book is a revolutionary bestseller, and he, his research, and his book are regularly mentioned or cited by mainstream prominent Swedish media. I do not understand why this should possibly be unacceptable, especially considering that you yourself have inserted several newspaper references with much looser foundation into at least one article. 3) It still does not change the fact that these sort of claims about Nyheter Idag have consistently been taken out of thin air without rational proof, in order to discredit and shut them up, the few times that I have encountered them. David A (talk) 15:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
According to Metro the definition used is less than 50% employment in the ages 20-64 years. According to Sydsvenskan the definition is less than 60% employment for ages 20-64 and less than 70% votes or does not have accepted in all subjects during their final school year. As it has nothing to do with crime so it could not have been used for that even if it was from a reliable source. // Liftarn (talk) 06:25, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Hmm. I skimmed through both the original studies from Folkpartiet and Tino Sanandaji, and it appears that you are correct. If I get the time, I will read through more of my copy of Massutmaning to check for more specific information about crime instead. My apologies about the trouble. David A (talk) 12:00, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Good. Please also check what reliable sources say. // Liftarn (talk) 12:08, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Should we use the Swedish police department's estimation of 55 criminal areas instead?

https://polisen.se/Global/www%20och%20Intrapolis/Rapporter-utredningar/01%20Polisen%20nationellt/Ovriga%20rapporter-utredningar/Kriminella%20natverk%20med%20stor%20paverkan%20i%20lokalsamhallet%20Sekretesspr%2014.pdf David A (talk) 04:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

That is a reliable source. Good work! But the source don't say "criminal areas", but "geographical areas where local criminal networks are considered to have negative impact on the local community" or "exposed areas". // Liftarn (talk) 06:26, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Okay. The former definition seems more relevant for the page in question. David A (talk) 07:18, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Hofmann liner notes in BWV 10 article

Source: Hofmann liner notes in "J.S. Bach - Cantatas, Vol.23 (BWV 10, 93, 178, 107) (CD). Åkersberga, Sweden: BIS. 2003. BIS-1331. With English liner notes by Klaus Hofmann (pp. 6–11) and Masaaki Suzuki (p. 11){{cite AV media}}: CS1 maint: postscript (link)" (A bootleg copy of these liner notes can be found by clicking the PDF link in this old revision – the external link has since been removed per WP:COPYLINK)

Article: Meine Seel erhebt den Herren, BWV 10

Content:

  1. Content that (probably) could also be referenced to other sources:
    1. [Bach] continued that effort the following year, composing chorale cantatas based on Lutheran chorales for these occasions.[1]
    2. This gospel reading is a biblical episode that is often represented in art, and in music where it has become a traditional part of Vesper services.[1]
    3. Certain words, such as "freuet" (rejoice) and "selig preisen" (call me blessed) are adorned with melismas.[2]
    4. It is the first soprano aria in the chorale cantata cycle.[2]
    5. A descending bass line in the continuo over two octaves illustrates the fall, which the voice also suggests in descending phrases. The second aspect of the text, the exaltation of the humble is shown by rising figures, and the final emptiness ("bloß und leer", bare and empty) by pauses.[2]
    6. The setting is mostly in homophony, but turns to polyphony for the final "von Ewigkeit zu Ewigkeit" (for ever and ever).[3]
  2. Content that is already referenced to two sources: the above one, and university-published scholarly literature:
    1. The text is based on Luther's translation of the biblical song to German in the Luther Bible, and on the doxology.[3]
  3. Wikipedia:In-text attribution content:
    1. Klaus Hofmann interprets the bass line of "emphatic downward semitone intervals" as "sighs of divine mercy".[2]
  4. Sentences that probably should have an in-text attribution, and which for that reason are currently marked as non sequitur
    1. The thought that God "also uses force with His arm" is expressed with emphasis, and the final "will be scattered like straw by His hand" is an extended coloratura.[non sequitur][2]
    2. The voices often sing in parallel thirds and sixths, as they do also in the corresponding movement from Bach's Latin Magnificat, the duet Et misericordia (And your compassion), in both cases expressing mildness and compassion.[non sequitur][2]
  5. Somewhat unclear non sequitur sentence referenced to the above liner notes and a scholarly publication:
    1. Starting with the added words [...] the lively chords of the added strings emphasize the importance of the promise kept.[non sequitur][4]
  6. Content (currently invisible while enclosed in html comment tags) for which no other source than liner notes has been found thus far (could be referenced to the Suzuki part of the liner notes of the above CD):
    1. Bach [...] performed the [BWV 10] cantata [...] at least once more in the 1740s [...] in an updated version [...] Both Magnificats [i.e. Bach's Latin Magnificat and BWV 10] exist in a 1720s version where the cantus firmus of [the] movement [that has Luke 1:54 as text] is performed by a trumpet, and in a later version where [that cantus firmus] is performed by two oboes.The movements with respectively the German and Latin text of Luke 1:54 present the tonus peregrinus melody associated with Luther's German Magnificat as a cantus firmus played by wind instruments. The "Suscepit Israel" movement of the BWV 243a version of the Latin Magnificat has that cantus firmus performed by a trumpet. In the later BWV 243 version of the same movement the trumpet has been replaced by two oboes. In the corresponding movement of BWV 10 ("Er denket der Barmherzigkeit") the cantus firmus is performed by the trumpet and the two oboes. Masaaki Suzuki assumes that this should be interpreted as trumpet for the original 1724 version, replaced by two oboes in the 1740s revival version, the same modification that occurred to the related movement of the Latin Magnificat.[5]

References

  1. ^ a b BIS-1331 2003, p. 6.
  2. ^ a b c d e f BIS-1331 2003, p. 7.
  3. ^ a b BIS-1331 2003, p. 8.
  4. ^ BIS-1331 2003, pp. 7–8.
  5. ^ BIS-1331 2003, p. 11.

Context: FAC assessment of the article. Afaik the above source has never been discussed at RSN. I recall at least one previous RSN discussion that has been negative towards using liner notes for content in articles about compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach (other article, other liner notes). In the FAC discussion it has however been pointed out that other liner notes in other Bach composition articles have been FA approved. It has been suggested to bring this to RSN to set precedent. However, I wouldn't be too worried about the "precedent" part now: can we figure it out for this article (BWV 10), with these liner notes, and for the content as listed above? Whether or not this would have any precedent value isn't a concern at this point in time. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:11, 1 June 2017 (UTC) Updated content §6, per current text and reference in the article. 08:24, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Presuming that liner notes do not get the kind of editorial attention that academic works do, they can probably be treated as what is for most purposes a self-published source by a recognised expert, which is what Hofmann seems to be. So long as the criticism/analysis is attributed to Hofmann, I don't see anything wrong with it. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Svalbard Global Seed Vault and Permafrost melting

At Talk:Svalbard Global Seed Vault#Recent publicity over acute melting weather I have been in an interesting discussion about recent sources that reported flooding of the seed vault. At issue is whether the flooding was caused by rain and snowmelt, or whether the permafrost itself actually melted, with what looks like reasonable sources for both claims. I could use some help sorting this one out. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Kill or cure?

Interesting website: Kill or cure? Help to make sense of the Daily Mail’s ongoing effort to classify every inanimate object into those that cause cancer and those that prevent it. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Oricon Album Chart Book

A user, Josegerman188 (talk · contribs) has been adding the Oricon Album Chart Book to source sales in many of the Madonna articles like here. He's using the following book source: Oricon Album Chart Book: Complete Edition 1970–2005. Roppongi, Tokyo: Oricon Charts. 2006. ISBN 4-87131-077-9. however it has no page number and I cannot verify the book from online anywhere also. Obviously I cannot read Japanese. Can anyone help here with the validity of the book? Without page number I do not think we can accept it properly. —IB [ Poke ] 03:30, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Ugh. I can read Japanese, if I had the book I could presumably find the info and verify it. Can you find a page about that book somewhere so I can get the Japanese title? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 14:32, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Crime Prevention Research Center

Do other editors feel that the Crime Prevention Research Center (which is run by economist and gun control opponent John Lott) is a reliable source? Specifically, I wanted to ask about its use in the article Estimated number of guns per capita by country as reference 4, to support the claim that gun ownership in Israel is significantly higher than estimated by the Small Arms Survey. Everymorning (talk) 19:34, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

1. Source. "Comparing murder rates and gun ownership across countries". Swarthmore, PA, USA: Crime Prevention Research Center. 31 March 2014.
2. Article. Estimated number of guns per capita by country
3. Content. The figures also do not directly represent the number of guns available, since in some countries, such as Israel, a significant number of civilians have government-owned military guns in their possession, which would not be included in the figures below.
Just noting the required information for future reference. -Location (talk) 20:17, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
As far as I know, nothing from CPRS is peer-reviewed. That said, i think that particular reference should be clarified to include "according to Crime Prevention Research Center" with a link to their wiki page. As it stands now, it is using "Wikipedia's voice" to make that particular claim. Darknipples (talk) 20:55, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
It is not reliable. The site rejects the way mainstream sources present stats on gun ownership and homicides and revises them. Readers should be allowed to look at a list of guns per capita without having to read comments by U.S. gun enthusiasts designed to show that gun ownership make countries safer particularly when the article is not about how gun ownership affects crime levels. TFD (talk) 06:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Use of Nyheter Idag as a source

I noticed that Nyheter Idag is used as a source on articles such as Benjamin R. Teitelbaum, 2017 Uppsala rape Facebook live streaming incident and We Are Sthlm sexual assaults. Considering it's a far right[53], xenophobic[54] website I wonder if that is really OK? // Liftarn (talk) 08:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

What to do about direct links to Iplayer content given in citations

In checking something, I found that the BBC Iplayer, will soon need users to register for an account, (in addition to needing a TV license for watching TV shows on it.)

There are approx 1500 links: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?target=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fiplayer&title=Special%3ALinkSearch that will need to be changed over to "Progamme" page links rather than direct links to Iplayer.

In terms of needing a subscription or registration, this is a relatively minor change {{subscription required}} already existing.Applying it to over 1500 links potentially embedded in citations is more complex.

However, It is bad practice to link directly to I-player content in citations because I-player content tends to get removed after 7-30 days, creating dead links, whereas specifc "Programme" pages tend to be somewhat more persistent. I also note there is a specific cite template for citing episodes and AV material which can be utilised in preference to directly linking the Iplayer content.

Unless there were objections, it was planned to suggest the removal of direct links to Iplayer content in the next few weeks.

Feedback is however sought prior to doing this as it would need some technical assistance to remove over 1500 links from Wikipedia in a clean manner. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:39, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

articlebio.com for BLP information

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly Cass, User:Keybeeny stated that it is "a fraudulent, bot-created website [...] which gathers information from Social Media". Spot-checking a few articles on that site, I do not see any references or other sources. I don't see any sitewide "about" page either. The footer states "Contents published by users are under Creative Commons License." but I can't tell whether the articles are that user-generated content vs there being some user reponse area for articles written by the site itself. It's currently used for about 35 cites, including (by spot-check) BLP biographical information, and information that is cited (or presumably could be cited) to elsewhere as well. Does anyone feel that this site is a viable ref...for BLP, or at all? DMacks (talk) 18:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

No sources given for articles, no authors credited, no about page. Tagline: "Shh! Celebrity gossip". I see no reason to believe that this is reliable for anything. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Agree. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
We seem to be using it as a source in a few articles [55], possibly these should be rooted out. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Jose L. Holguin - Pacific Wrecks sources

I have not heard of Pacific Wrecks before and don't know if they'd be considered a reliable source. Although there is a People page, I cannot find information about who runs the site, whether any of these people write for the site, the degree of editorial control, etc. There were three links added to the article:

Would this be considered a reliable site for this sort of information?

Thank you!–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I had searched WP for "Pacific Wrecks" and didn't find anything, but I am finding that there are uses of "pacificwrecks" from the url, so perhaps this is a non-issue and can be used.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Does no answer mean it's ok to use the source?–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Twitter

Is a subject's official Twitter feed considered a reliable source for confirming biographical facts? The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 02:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

see the many discussions we have already had about this exact same question for pete's sake. Jytdog (talk) 02:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Can someone who doesn't have personal grudges against me please respond? Especially considering the discussions linked above give different answers. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 02:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Nevermind, I've found what I needed. This can be closed/archived. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 02:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
To answer: Primary sources published by the subject (so a *verified* Twitter feed) can be used for basic uncontentious information on the subject. Provided there are no reliable sources that disagree. The problem with celebrities and age/birthday's is that they routinely... are less than truthful. Given their careers are often impacted heavily by their age, this is understandable. Which is why its fairly common to get mis-matches on biographies between stated age, secondary sourced age, and primary document (county birth record etc). In short: its safe to use as a primary source as long as there is nothing contradictory. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't have a grudge against you (the reverse appears to be true). The very basics of this board are to post a ref and the content you want to source from it. You should also give some indication that you are in dialogue with the discussions that happened already. This is all helpfully described at the top of this page. Jytdog (talk) 03:06, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

On Bloomberg

I know that much of what's on Bloomberg is...well, what is it? User-submitted? I'm thinking of all those executive and company profiles, either written by the company's PR department or by the advertisement editor at Bloomberg--stuff like this, which finds its way into Wikipedia too easily (in this case, in Arthur Rubinfeld). But I also saw this, "CEOs of Tomorrow", which looks no more reliable. Any of you know your Bloomberg inside and out? Drmies (talk) 15:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

It depends completely on what part of Bloomberg you're talking about. Some sections, including the company and people listings you mention, are user-submitted with minimal fact checking, if any. On the other hand, Bloomberg News and Bloomberg Bussinessweek are reputable news services and generally highly reliable. The "CEOs of Tomorrow" article you cite was written by two professional journalists (bios here, here), and Bloomberg Businessweek has experienced editorial leadership. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
I would agree that Bloomberg News and Bloomberg Bussinessweek are completely reliable, as much as any news outlet. As for Bloomberg company profiles, each one says "The information and data displayed in this profile are created and managed by S&P Global Market Intelligence, a division of S&P Global. Bloomberg.com does not create or control the content". bd2412 T 18:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Hey that's odd--the link doesn't go to the profile anymore. Drmies (talk) 20:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Most business news is taken from press releases from the companies concerned. That's true of Bloomberg and every other news sources. Business reporters are expected to exercise judgment in determining what parts of these releases are credible and which are not, which companies and truthful and which are not, something which Wikipedia editors cannot do. When Bloomberg says it "does not create or control the content," then reliability must be determined by whoever did. TFD (talk) 23:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


Several times now I have linked to a study which showed that for medical news, virtually every publication relies on press releases (including outright copying of the press release!). The same is true of "business news", I fear. The number of actual "reporters" has fallen steadily over the years, and many of the "star reporters" do their best to appear as actors in the story. In my opinion, the current wording of WP:RS is wishful thinking on the part of Wikipedia editors. Collect (talk) 23:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Yes Bloomberg company and executive profiles are not really independent and should be treated gingerly like other SPS. Bloomberg News is very good, in my view.
With regard to science reporting, I created this subsection in the WP:Potentially unreliable sources essay last night. Please see the sources there -- science journalism does exist but you need to know where to go and perhaps more importantly, where not to go. Jytdog (talk) 02:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

The Plot to Hack America Amazon Best Sellers lists

Question about an article I wrote on the book, The Plot to Hack America:

It is in "Amazon Best Sellers" lists, can I cite those as sources for the article?

  1. Number 2 on "Amazon Best Sellers" in the subject: Russian history: [56]
  2. Number 6 on "Amazon Best Sellers" in the subject: Political intelligence [57]

If not, no problems, and thank you for your help ! Sagecandor (talk) 10:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

This is in regards to the Malcolm Nance article he's editing, you should also see this entry on WP:BLP for further information about this question and the article he's trying to edit.  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  12:49, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

See the guideline here. Amazon's charts are a single-vendor list and thus not really useable, especially when spliced into sub-categories (people who know what they're doing have no trouble turning their own books into "amazon bestsellers.") Fyddlestix (talk) 13:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

"Subcategories of best seller lists on Amazon" are not really useful for Wikipedia purposes, as they may be based on remarkably few sales (I suspect as few as 100 or 200 sales can do it in some of those categories, which is not all that hard to arrange. Note also that "review counts" from Amazon do not necessarily represent "actual sales".) Collect (talk) 13:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
@Fyddlestix and Collect:Thank you very much for your informative advice. Sagecandor (talk) 16:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Is linking to WP:DAILYMAIL in article main space appropriate?

See [58], Special:Permalink/783867320#Edit_request and [59] (talk page space in this case). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 04:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

In this context, yes, it's OK. Just because we don't consider the Mail reliable for our purposes doesn't mean we keep all mention of it off the encyclopedia. The same would apply to humorous spoof news sites, for example. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
I can't see how it is appropriate to link to an RFC from article space; the talk page is probably OK. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:19, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
My impression is that Itsmejudith means that in some cases it can be used as a source, but I could be mistaken. In this case it's another issue: linking to its "ban" RFC in article mainspace (or talk page, where that could make more sense but is also probably disputed). Note: I have not verified if we do the same for other sources that are considered unreliable or if there is such previous practice. —PaleoNeonate - 10:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree that we wouldn't have any reason to link to a maintenance page from the body of an article- I wonder if we have slightly misunderstood the talk page request linked (not impossible, considering its brevity!)- I wonder if the OP there was actually asking that we link to the 'story' of the RfC. That is, our 'ban', the DM's response etc. So the story behind the RfC rather than the RfC shortcut itself. Which is a different issue- and one of content, and for the article talk page, if so. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 10:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
I removed the edit request as putting a link to WP:DAILYMAIL from Daily Mail is completely unwarranted. The IP put the hatnote on Talk:Daily Mail but I think it should be removed from there as it not helpful for article development. Johnuniq (talk) 10:39, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
I also removed the note from Daily Mail (disambiguation)‎ for now. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 10:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
OK. I thought what was at issue was whether we could include an EL to the Mail's website from the article on it. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks to all, —PaleoNeonate - 20:28, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me that the editor who posted those links made good faith attempts to make easy to determine that a source is unreliable. I have looked at what links to the RFC page, hoping that there is an easier way then searching teahouse and rsn archives to determine if a source should be avoided. Of interest are WP:IRS (only a footnote mention), WP:PUS (an essay that seems better, although probably unofficial, it clearly includes it). Perhaps that an effort to come up with a more official guideline page (inspired or evolved from WP:PUS), and/or pointing to WP:PUS more prominently would be a good idea? We have a spam-links blacklist, but this is obviously different. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 02:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Hmm the RSN top links to WP:IRS and IRS then links to WP:PUS although as part of a list of essays. —PaleoNeonate - 03:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, including links at top of page and talk page. It's received noteworthy coverage in its own right. It's a helpful link for future editors and readers who may be previously unaware of the issues involved. Sagecandor (talk) 13:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree that, since it is discussed in the article itself , it would be fine to have a link somewhere on either page to the discussion that caused it. The 'See also' section, perhaps. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 13:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • This is a bit weird. In this case, the only valid use of a link to to the RfC would be as a primary source, used behind secondary sources that discuss the result of the RfC, for anybody who is interested in going and looking at the primary source. The content in the article is and should be generated from secondary sources. And because the link to the RfC would be functioning as a reference, it would need to be formatted as a citation, like this or the like: "Reliable sources Noticeboard:Daily Mail RfC". Wikipedia. 8 February 2017. Retrieved 6 June 2017.. Posting the WP:DAILYMAIL link in the article Daily Mail to "inform editors" is absolutely not OK. That is not what mainspace is for. Jytdog (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
It's being proposed for a disambiguation page and talk page, not main article space. Sagecandor (talk) 17:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for clarifying. It was in the article as a "See also", and I removed it. It should not be used in either of the two places asked by the OP either. Jytdog (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

My questions may have been unclearly formulated, there were multiple questions, making it confusing to link answers to questions. My impression is that WP:PUS (or an equivalent) could be easier to find than it is. An example may be the header text we have at this WP:RSN (which points to WP:IRS for instance). WP:IRS itself links to WP:PUS but it's a needle in a haystack of essays. I'm not suggesting to link to WP:DAILYMAIL in the Daily Mail article or on that article's talk page. Only to make it easier to find WP:PUS or an equivalent instead of needing to search the boards or WP space to find this RFC. I'll present this again as distinct questions:

  1. Is the spirit of WP:PUS a good idea?
  2. If it is, is it considered usable enough to be linked to more prominently? Or should a more official alternative be written?
  3. Should WP:RSN's header eventually also link to WP:PUS (or its better, eventual more official alternative), other than to WP:IRS?
  4. Just in case, is this the wrong venue for this (should I work on a more formal RfC) ?

Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 03:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Many articles have hatnotes linking to Wikipedia guidelines and policies: Neutral, Information source, etc. The logic is that someone typing in "Neutrality," "Reliable Sources" might be looking for the policy. But an RfC is not a guideline or policy. If it is important then it should be incorporated into policy, with a hatnote. If the intention is to point out that Wikipedia does not approve of the paper, then it is already in the article and there is no point in giving it undue attention. TFD (talk) 20:41, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Fox News and The Sun

After reading about how Fox News negligently published fake news in April, I went back and found the Fox News story in question. What is interesting about this now-retracted source is that its purported "author" wasn't an individual, but instead was The Sun, a tabloid also owned by News Corp, Fox News' parent company.

Fox News, which we generally consider a reliable source, is publishing tabloid journalism under its own banner. (What are they thinking?!) Think about the implications of this:

  1. I'm not at all suggesting that all Fox News sources should now be considered unreliable as a category, but this would appear to be a major black mark on its editorial judgment and a ammunition for arguments against Fox News sources' reliability in the future.
  2. More practically speaking, we should be removing all refs to Fox News sources that designate The Sun as the author. Does anyone have any idea of how many of these there are, and how do we find them and root them out?

(I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:28, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

As tabloids go, the Sun is wildly biased but is generally pretty good at fact-checking—their huge circulation, and being based in a country with very strict libel laws, means that when they get something wrong the damages claims are enormous. In this case it's clearly Fox that's at fault, not the Sun; it's clear from the Sun's "Russia claims …in bizarre propaganda report" that this was a "look at the goofy stuff that appears on Russian websites!" story, not a claim that the Russians had actually deployed such weapons. (The idea that the Russian military possess NNEMP weapons isn't particularly crazy; since the US Navy has operated the EMPRESS facility to test their ships' countermeasures against NNEMPs since the 1980s, they obviously have some grounds for believing such weapons might be used against them.) TLDR version; I'd be very sceptical of any story that appears on Fox that isn't corroborated elsewhere, but it's not the Sun that's at fault. ‑ Iridescent 18:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
I actually intended to focus on Fox News, but at least in my view to say The Sun was not partially to blame here is to defy reality. While The Sun did describe the story as Russian propaganda, it did not say that the story originated from a fabrication on a parody website. That would be considered a horrendous screw-up by any reputable media outlet. I guess The Sun gets to be judged by a lower "tabloid" standard. Fine, but that doesn't make it reliable by any stretch of the imagination. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Fox and the Sun both reported reasonably correctly as far as anyone can tell, and the claim that Fox "retracted" (as opposed to merely "subtracted") is based on nothing. Apparently it's important to NYT that absurd claims from Russia must be labelled explicitly the way they would do it, while Fox thinks its readers are smart enough to do their own judging. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Peter, do you think articles like this one that appear on foxnews.com designating the author as "The Sun" are reliable? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
I would actually argue that properly, we would try to get to the closest origin point of the story for sourcing rather than use the repeater, that being Fox News. And in this case, if we did follow Fox News to the Sun, it looks like it would have been clear that the Sun's take was clearly humorous and well-aware of the questionable nature of the story, meaning that us as editors we would have considered it inappropriate at all for inclusion. Particularly in this day of age of sensenationalism in the media, we should always follow attribution down as deep as we possibly can go to make sure we're not getting information by a "telephone game" style of mistakes and exaggerations made. That Fox News didn't check itself on initial publication would be part of a body of evidence to reconsider their RS-ness but the fact they did pull it weighs in their favor too. But whenever we have a source that has "According to (another publications)..." we should always do the work to get the most original story possible to avoid this problem. --MASEM (t) 21:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Masem, Fox News' retraction (or "subtraction," as Peter calls it) only demonstrates that when Fox News is caught propagating fake news that it will pull it. That's something, but what I'm more concerned about here is that Fox News is publishing original content drawn from tabloid sources with little or no independent fact checking and without even identifying the individual who wrote it. Am I mistaken or is that horrendous editorial judgment? How does a reputable news outlet publish a story in which the named author is "The Sun"? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
It certainly is bad judgement, but it's not a immediate red flag. All sources generally pull content from other sources, and the better ones will try to corroborate details, but not all can or do. The fact that Fox didn't seem to recognize the news item as clearly questionable by the way the Sun provided it is of concern, but that is standard sensationalism that the media today often exhibits of publishing ASAP to get pageviews. It is the fact they did retract the article that is important to us. I would not say one incident of this makes a source no longer an RS, with the individual case something that our policies on sourcing would have excluded that singular article as an RS. But if this starts becoming a regular pattern at Fox News, then that might beg the question of reliability (as we did with the pattern that the Daily Mail was found to be in). --MASEM (t) 21:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
This is what I'm concerned about. These are 362 articles published by Fox News that I believe all designate the author as "The Sun." Reliable? I say no way. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Closer to 162 (google's first page is only an initial estimate), of which an unknown number (zero?) have affected Wikipedia. I see nothing wrong with Masem's statement that cites should be of the ultimate source, if that were a guideline then it would always be zero. I was understanding "retract" in the Oxford dictionary definition#2 sense "withdraw (a statement or accusation) as untrue or unjustified" which doesn't fit Fox's action; if others use a different definition, okay. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
All news media publish false stories which they later retract. Editors should be aware of that and check whether unusual claims are picked up in other sources before adding to articles. I don't see how any reasonable editor would have used this article as a source for any article. An unnamed Russian news reader said something that probably is not true, according to the Fox News story. TFD (talk) 23:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • One should be extremely skeptical of Fox News as a source, unless the material in question is backed by other more reliable sources with better track records of accuracy and better editorial judgement. Sensible and responsible editors already knew that, and conversely, there is a subset of editors who will never understand that. It's less than a month since this incident, in which Fox News' irresponsible journalistic practices led to direct harm to the family of a murder victim—harm which irresponsible Wikipedia editors compounded. At some point, it has to start to sink it. MastCell Talk 23:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Fox News is likely one of the worst aggressors of "publish first, ask questions later" of the bulk of RSes, no question, but all have done it, and to varying degrees of harm to individuals or groups; at least in the US, it is difficult to prove these are libelous without demonstration of intent, and so they generally have gotten away with it more and more. We can't change that, and we definitely should watch Fox news to see if similar moral transgressions occur, no question; as well as using any other RS if the same information can be found for factual inclusion. But, for any RS, if they resort to publishing or republishing an astounding claim without any corroboration when you follow the sources down the rabbit hole, then per WP:RECENTISM we shouldn't be rushing to include it, period, whether it's Fox News or the New York Times. It's just that I'd use a lot more salt if I'm starting with Fox News. --MASEM (t) 01:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Mastcell, what about Judith Miller#The Iraq War? The war based on false information spread by the the New York Times harmed thousands of American families. TFD (talk) 01:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, Judith Miller was forced out by the New York Times for, among other things, her poor-quality reporting about Iraq. And she quickly got a new job with... wait for it... Fox News. So you've unwittingly reinforced my point about Fox News' tolerance for low-quality, inaccurate, and partisan journalism.

More generally, I know what you're doing. You're playing the Jayson Blair gambit, to wit: since the New York Times has occasionally published things that later turned out to be incorrect or fabricated, it is therefore no different from [insert name of low-quality partisan source here]. This is sophistry, but I lack the patience to explain why if it's not immediately obvious to you. MastCell Talk 17:31, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll hat any portion of the discussion that strays further into who is more reliable between Fox News and The New York Times. This discussion is not about that. It's about Fox News' ongoing practice of publishing stories while designating the author as The Sun, and what we should do about it (if anything). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:17, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
No one has questioned whether the New York Times or Fox News is more reliable. Just as we expect sources to be reliable, there is an expectation that editors do not misrepresent what other editors say. The New York Times is more reliable than Fox News Channel, which is why I used it as an example. It is also more reliable than ABC, NBC and CBS News. The issue is whether isolated incidents should be used to reject a source. TFD (talk) 02:21, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Pentecost 18th century sources

I have to resubmit a modified version of this. I am not sure why this editor is choosing to escalate this dispute the clear guidance of WP:AGE MATTERS, but clarification on this would be helpful as there appears to be a general disagreement over whether WP:AGE MATTERS applies to Christianity articles. (My position is that it especially applies because of significant advances in the field, like the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrools, and major doctrinal changes, including the rewriting of the Catechism. The vocabulary and language used by the Church has also been updated and significantly modernized, intentionally, and we can see this reflected in our modern translations of the Bible like NRSV and ESV.)

The source is question is "The moveable feasts, fasts and other annual observances of the Catholic Church".(Dublin, 1775) and the quote is "The Christian Pentecost is celebrated seven weeks or fifty days after the feast of the Lord's Resurrection." I don't think this is something we would consider WP:RS, and I have found more modern and widely cited WP:RS. I can not imagine why my effort to update the source would be reverted.

Reverts: [60] [61]

More discussion: [62] [63] [64] [65][66]

This last comment doesn't make any sense because none of the sources suffer from WP:RECENTISM and it doesn't address all the reasons why WP:AGE MATTERS must apply to an 18th century Catholic source (including vocabulary changes, and the fact that the Catechism has been rewritten). I will likely have to file separately at dispute resolution regarding the broader reoccuring issues on this page, but I would like to get this particular WP:RS issue clarified—(I have a feeling this is a reoccurring problem in Christianity articles.)

Also, I have never posted here before, is there some kind of notification template I can use to notify editors who have been involved in the discussion?

Seraphim System (talk) 06:31, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

While at ANI complaints notifying the involved editor is required, it's unnecessary here. Although you could ping involved editors, one of the purposes of this noticeboard is to get the impression of uninvolved editors who are familiar with what are (or aren't) reliable sources, which is probably even better. You can also if needed provide a permanent link to this discussion on the relevant article's talk page once it's over. The important is to clearly link which source is being questioned, as well as diffs to edits using that source for support, so that the claims and source quality in this context can be assessed. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 06:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
On the one hand, we generally prefer modern to older scholarly sources, per WP:AGE MATTERS. On the other hand, we generally prefer scholarly monographs to encyclopedias and dictionaries, per WP:PSTS. Simple statements of fact (such as which date Pentecost is held on) is one of the appropriate uses of tertiary sources in wikipedia (WP:USETERTIARY is part of an essay, but explains the point well enough). I think that all of the sources in question are probably reliable enough for the claim.
Given that there doesn't seem to be a dispute on when Pentecost actually is, three sources (as there are in this revision) seem excessive, but that's not really an issue for the reliable sources noticeboard. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:41, 9 June 2017 (UTC) Edited: I see there is actually a dispute over the wording here. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, there is an issue of whether the vocabulary of seven weeks is still in use, and under WP:AGE MATTERS whether the vocabulary changed is an issue. Also TDNT is not tertiary, its one of the most authoritative secondary sources in the field of biblical studies, used by Bruce Metzger who supervised the NRSV English language translation of the Bible, and also worked on the Nestle-Aland Greek manuscript, and Fredrich Danker of the Bauer-Danker Lexicon, so it is a significantly stronger source for the specific language then a minor 18th century source, and my position is that it should not be replaced by a minor and dated source. Seraphim System (talk) 08:54, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Given that what is at issue here is "the muddling or diffusion of the timeless facets of a subject, previously recognized by Wikipedia consensus", WP:RECENTISM (an explanatory supplement to WP:NPOV) is of more relevance than WP:AGE MATTERS. With no indication given that the terminology has in fact changed, arguing that it might have is neither here nor there. Having said which, there would naturally be no objection to sourcing the same information to a more recent publication. Retaining the information, updating the source – fine; removing the information because you don't like the age of the source is another kettle of fish. Editing to add: the 18th-century source in question was a standard work by a recognised scholar and continued to be reprinted to the end of the 19th century. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 10:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but the diffs show that I updated the source and that was reverted. This really isn't WP:RECENTISM —its been a while since we stopped using the letter "f" for "s" — see the source "Chriftians" — if it's timeless, someone should have been able to find a modern source for it the numerous times I asked for one. Eventually, I sourced it myself and then that was reverted, which is probably a behavioral problem beyond the scope of RS/n. Can we just be clear here for the purposes of RS/n that WP:AGE MATTERS when the issue is sourcing specific language. Seraphim System (talk) 10:39, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
A long s is quite distinct from an f (and should be transcribed s, never f). But changing typographic conventions are neither here nor there. Your insistence that we use the exact same phrases as works that are still under copyright is itself problematic. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 10:48, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Attempting to claim it is a copyright violation to source it to TDNT verges on bizarre. I'm interested in hearing what other editors think. The fact is I had to check to see if the source had been superseded, while, contrary to what Andreas Philopater says above, the burden for WP:V is on those who support inclusion. That is required by WP:AGEMATTERS — "might have changed" is enough under the policy. The editor adding it needs to do this. Reading the policy again, my understanding is that its use is not a problem unless the source has been superseded. Regarding persistent misunderstandings of WP:V and WP:RS, I think maybe this is behavioral. In the future, if you want to add something, you are responsible for sourcing it adequately. If this continues as a persistent problem on the article, the next step will be dispute resolution. Seraphim System (talk) 12:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
He didn't claim it is a copyright violation to TDNT, he said it is "problematic" -- and I agree that it is. It should be paraphrased, or it should be enclosed in quotes or blockquoted to show that it is being quoted verbatim from the source. Quoting verbatim without enclosing in quotes is not proper citation. There is nothing bizarre about Philopater saying that. As for adequate sourcing, the problem here is that this source has not been superseded and you are alleging a disharmony between Alban and Brittanica that does not exist. There has been no change in the understanding that the counting of Pentecost is inclusive, and that it is in fact inherent in the very name Pentecost. --Jpbrenna (talk) 20:58, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Why don't you respond below to the discussion about your use of a source that has been superseded, instead of trolling a discussion that has already been resolved. But, I agree, "seven weeks" should be blockquoted. Seraphim System (talk) 21:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Maybe alternative sources such as this, this or this can be helpful to come out of the conundrum (I mean both as references for the article, and as outlines for a careful wording of the article text for the "number of weeks times 7" ≠ "number of days" situation)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:34, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, this is the kind of source I was looking for. Seraphim System (talk) 14:52, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Pentecost 18th century sources again

diffs: [67] [68]

The source is LSJ Lexicon from the 19th century. This is one problem with using 19th century sources—editors often make mistakes.

The source says

2. (sc. ἡμέρα), fiftieth day (after the Passover), Pentecost, LXX 2 Ma. 12.32 ; ἡ ἡμέρα τῆς Π. Act.Ap. 2.1.

Our text currently says "hēmera tēs pentēkostē" is the Greek text for Acts 2:1, but it is not. According to NA28 (the current and most widely used greek new testament) the language in Acts 2:1 is hemeran tes pentekostes — It seems the source is dated and superseded by Nestle-Aland under WP:AGE MATTERS — I would appreciate some guidance here on limiting the improper use of older sources, as it seems this will be an ongoing problem until it is clarified.

Attempts on the talk page have failed to produce cogent discussion, as editors do not agree that there have been advances in New Testament scholarship since the 19th century.

Unfortunately, it's clear from this example that the LSJ form is Dative, and the NA28 form is Accusative. This is actually a big deal, for those of us who are interested in Bible Study. Seraphim System (talk) 19:12, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I see here that you were trying to alert me to the nominative-accusative discrepancy here on the noticeboard. I probably read "dative" as you meaning to say "genitive" in regards to my typo and went back to fix that without taking in the rest fully. Yes, there was a nominative-accusative discrepancy between LSJ and Nestle that I did not realize was there before. That has now finally been fixed. The dative would have been τῇ ἡμέρᾳ, which did not appear in either source. Again, in the context of my own typo that I had just noticed, thinking that you meant "genitive" where you said "dative" was the best conclusion I could draw. What you must have meant to say was "accusative". --Jpbrenna (talk) 04:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Actually, that has to do with a typo on my part that I didn't notice and transliterated. If you had questioned that instead of blanking the entry with a comment "please don't use lsj in these matters", there wouldn't be a problem. All you did was delete it with an implication that the source is unreliable, which isn't true — the unreliability lies with me. I hadn't even noticed the typo until you posted here. The transcription is my own, not LSJs, which is why I put the citation before my transcription, precisely to show that it does not belong to LSJ, which does not transcribe (it assumes you are already familiar with the Greek alphabet). The transcriptions do not agree (apart from the missing final s) because I added a macron to distinguish between epsilon and eta, which your transcription does not.--Jpbrenna (talk) 22:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
No, its not a transliteration problem, it is in the source as hemera further pentekoste is abbreviated as simply p. so we dont know what the case is, I posted the quote above, most editors will notice the distinct alpha and the lone pi Seraphim System (talk) 23:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
The LSJ as hosted on perseus says "ἡ ἡμέρα τῆς Π. Act.Ap. 2.1." I don't have access to Nestle-Aland at the moment, but I assume that Seraphim System's transcription is correct. If so, there is a disagreement between LSJ and NA28. (Minor and pedantic quibble: LSJ 9ed dates to 1925; it isn't a nineteenth century work. Corrections to it are to be found in the LSJ supplements, most recently from 1996; it might be interesting to see whether there has been a correction to the LSJ since 9ed was published.)
Where two standard references disagree, I think WP:AGE MATTERS supports the primacy of the more modern one; additionally LSJ only cites biblical passages incidentally whereas NA28 is a scholarly edition of the New Testament. For both of those reasons, I would tend to prefer the Greek as given in NA28 over that in LSJ9. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
In his original removal Seraphim never mentioned this. I am just now reading about the nominative/accusative discrepancy in ἡμέρα -- in fact, the last post I replied to on Philopater's talk page, I thought he was talking about the dropped final -ς changing the case from nominative to genitive. He simply said in his edit summary "please don't use LSJ for things like this." Period. He later said on Andreas Philopater's talk page that I had no excuse for getting the case wrong without specifying the case of which words. As I said, I assumed he was talking about a different word where I had noticed my own typo. Yes, the Nestle-Aland has the τῆν ἡμέραν, as does The Church of Greece, which uses Byzantine texts (http://www.myriobiblos.gr/bible/nt2/acts/2.asp). If that is the case, it probably isn't a variant reading and must be an oversight in the LSJ. As you say, it would be interesting to see if the supplements address this. I will go ahead and change the note now and cite Nestle. But it doesn't change the fact that Seraphim removed an LSJ citation simply for being LSJ, and he removed both citations that I had made, not just the one that he later found real fault with. He seems to enjoy removing other people's contributions straight away and only finding reasons, real or imagined, for doing so later. His editing on this article is disruptive and confrontational, instead of being collaborative and assuming good faith. It is hard to believe he is the same person I have seen helping with other articles, as that Seraphim seemed to be reasonable and patient. I can understand that he must have gotten deeply frustrated at some point to start acting this way, but he must understand that frustrating other people in their good faith attempts to contribute is only going to make things worse. I am going to go for a bicycle ride now to relax, and then I will set about fixing this with a clear head. If someone else does it in the meantime, I won't object.--Jpbrenna (talk) 00:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
here is the diff [69] my edit summary says "Please don't use LSJ for something like this unless you are sure it is correct, it may not be up to date and it does not match the NA28 text" not sure what the point of lying about it is when the diff is posted in this discussion Seraphim System (talk) 00:22, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
I missed the second half of that the first time around. All I remember reading was "Please don't use LSJ for something like this". Once again, I stand corrected. Still, I do not remember you mentioning the nominative/accusative discrepancy on the talk page. If you had, this all would have been resolved long ago. Or perhaps you did, and I somehow missed that too. Anyway, it's resolved now, unless you're still challenging the transcription that I made in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines?--Jpbrenna (talk) 01:58, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
If you revert before even you even read the edit summary, then yes that will cause problems. Seraphim System (talk) 08:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

At Talk:The_Case_for_Impeachment#Irrelevant_additions are bare hyper-links to Amazon.com acceptable sources to add to this article to say there are other books by the same title?

Is that relevant to add to this article?

Do we required secondary sources for this?

Does that violate WP:No original research ? Sagecandor (talk) 15:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Not really something that needs to be dealt with here, as they're not being used for sources. But no, @Arglebargle79: this is not information we include in articles this way. If Wikipedia has articles about two works by the same name, then we "disambiguate" at the top to make sure people are at the right article, but that there are multiple books by the same name is entirely irrelevant to the subject. The only exception I can think of is if there are secondary, independent sources which talk specifically about the title and its relation to other books -- not just to distinguish, but as part of the encyclopedic subject (e.g. author of one book sued another for copying its name). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:58, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_226&oldid=1149962487"